WATCH OUT for Erdogan and Obama PEACE PLAN,
Turkey, Syria, and Iran DRAWING CLOSER Together!
Diplomatic Diplomacy Becomes DIPLOMATIC DISASTER!
Diplomatic Dialog Becomes a Deadly DIALOG NIGHTMARE!
Democrat Politics: Iraq War Wrong – Afghanistan Right War,
Now exploding in their President’s face as Foreign Policy Sinks
In the Middle East and on North Korean platforms of Aggression!
Great Eloquent And Condescending Speeches Don’t Impress Islam,
Nor do they impress North Korea – only far left fans of Barack Obama!
Charles Krauthammer, Barry Rubin, and Caroline Glick, IN MY Estimation,
Are the best three analysts on Middle East Events – Always a Good Read!
October 14, 2009
Begin Excerpt 1 from THE JERUSALEM POST
Young Hamlet’s Afghan agony
October 11, 2009
Charles Krauthammer , THE JERUSALEM POST
The genius of democracy is the rotation of power, which forces the opposition to be serious – particularly about things like war, about which until January 20 of this year Democrats were decidedly unserious.
When the Iraq War (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly anti-war. But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.
“I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as ‘the right war’ to conventional Democratic wisdom,” wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Barack Obama was elected. “This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy.”
Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq – while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.
Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the “Iraq war bad, Afghan war good” posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense.
SO WHAT does their commander-in-chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?
Perhaps provide the resources to win it?
You would think so. And that’s exactly what Obama’s handpicked commander requested on August 30 – a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq.
That was more than five weeks ago. Still no response.
Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches. Why? Because, explains National Security Adviser James Jones, you don’t commit troops before you decide on a strategy.
No strategy? On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: “Today I’m announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He then outlined a civili
an-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, “marks the conclusion of a careful policy review.”
Conclusion, mind you.
Not the beginning. Not a process. The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military comm
anders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.
The general in charge was then relieved and replaced with Obama’s own choice, Stanley McChrystal. And it’s McChrystal who submitted the request for the 40,000 troops, a request upon which the commander-in-chief promptly gagged.
The White House began leaking an alternate strategy, apparently proposed (invented?) by Vice President Joe Biden, for achieving immaculate victory with arm’s-length use of cruise missiles, predator drones and special ops.
The irony is that no one knows more about this kind of warfare than McChrystal. He was in charge of exactly this kind of “counterterrorism” in Iraq for nearly five years, killing thousands of bad guys in hugely successful under-the-radar operations.
When the world’s expert on this type of counterterrorism warfare recommends precisely the opposite strategy – “counterinsurgency,” meaning a heavy-footprint, population-protecting troop surge – you have the most convincing of cases against counterterrorism by the man who most knows its potential and its limits. And McChrystal was emphatic in his recommendation: To go any other way than counterinsurgency would lose the war.
Yet his commander-in-chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes.
His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for victory, he’ll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a foreign war. His vice president holds out the chimera of painless counterterrorism success.
Against Emanuel and Biden stand David Petraeus, the world’s foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and McChrystal, the world’s foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?
Less than two months ago – August 17, in front of an audience of veterans – the president declared Afghanistan to be “a war of necessity.” Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?
Begin Excerpt 2 from Jerusalem Post
US criticizes Turkey for ousting Israel from military exercise
October 13, 2009
Herb Keinon and jpost.com staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
The United States criticized Turkey on Tuesday for canceling a NATO military exercise because Israel also was participating.
Neither the Turks nor NATO has confirmed that Israel’s participation in the exercises over Turkey was Ankara’s reason for canceling it.
US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Tuesday, however, that “as to the question of whether there was a government that was invited to participate and then removed at the last minute, we think it’s inappropriate for any nation to be removed from an exercise like this at the last minute.”
He was asked whether that was what happened, and if Israel was the spurned country. He confirmed both.
Earlier, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of using phosphorous bombs on Gaza’s children.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, meanwhile, revealed Tuesday that Turkey and Syria had held military maneuvers last week – the same week Ankara canceled the annual Anatolian Eagle exercise because the IDF was to participate.
“One week ago, Syria and Turkey carried out maneuvers near Ankara,” Muallem said, according to Al-Jazeera. “This is important because it refutes reports of poor relations between the military and political institutes in Turkey over its strategic relations with Syria.”
Muallem’s comments came on the same day that 10 Turkish cabinet ministers traveled to Syria for the first meeting of the newly formed Turkey-Syria High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council.
It was the second military exercise between the two Muslim countries since April. At that time, Defense Minister Ehud Barak termed a joint drill between Turkish and Syrian soldiers on their shared border a “disturbing development.”
Erdogan slammed Israel for its actions against Palestinians in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead last winter. The Turkish premier was a caustic critic of Israel both during and after the offensive.
According to a report in the Turkish newspaper Sabah, Erdogan made reference to the canceled military exercise with Israel (and NATO forces) by stating, “While in some countries children are provided with comfort, peace, [and] the most advanced education and health opportunities, other children are faced with poverty, destitution, helplessness, war, conflict, weapons of mass destruction and phosphorus bombs.
We are forced to heed the sounds of persecution.
“Iraq was occupied,” Erdogan said. “Baghdad and Basra were bombed while all of humanity watched as it was broadcast live on their television. It was the same when phosphorus bombs were rained on innocent children in Gaza – the whole world, all of humanity, watched from their comfortable chairs and their safe havens. However, as all this was happening, unfortunately from time to time in international discussion platforms, the term ‘Islamic terror’ began to be used, and efforts were made to place blame on the Muslims and Islam.”
These statements did not budge Israel’s leaders from their policy of not decrying recent Turkish actions and comments, and the country’s top echelon continued to praise the relationship.
Barak, currently on a visit to Prague, said during a speech there on Tuesday that the Anatolian Eagle maneuvers had not been canceled, but postponed.
And then, for the second time in as many days, he reiterated Israel’s “strategic ties” with Turkey, and Ankara’s importance in the region, adding that because the relationship was important to both sides, it would not be harmed by the recent tension.
Another Israeli government official, however, was less charitable to the Turks, saying in response to Erdogan that “the Turkish government must decide whether it wants inflammatory diatribes, or pragmatism and cooperation for the benefit of Turkey. This choice must be clear and unambiguous.”
According to Israeli officials, despite Erdogan’s comments, Israel has received messages from Turkey in recent days urging it not to blow the matter out of proportion, to “let the wave pass” and not cause “collateral” damage to the multifaceted Israeli-Turkish relationship. In addition to a diplomatic side, that relationship also has strong tourism, economic and military components.
There are still many elements of the relationship that can be preserved, and getting into a public spitting match with the Turks at this time would only lead to a slippery slope that would harm Israel’s interests, the official said.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that “the direction Turkey is taking is not good, growing closer to Syria, Hamas and Iran. It raises questions.”
Vice Premier and Regional Cooperation Minister Silvan Shalom advised Ankara to “regain its composure.”
Syria, meanwhile, praised Turkey for refusing to participate in the military exercise alongside Israeli forces. Speaking at a joint press conference in Aleppo with his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu, Muallem said it was “natural” for Syria to welcome the Turkish decision.
“The Turkish decision was taken because of Turkey’s position toward the Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip” in December and January, he said, adding that Damascus welcomed the cancellation, “because Israel always attacks the Palestinian people, maintains an embargo on Gaza and rejects any Turkish effort to resume [Syrian-Israeli] peace talks.”
Muallem added that “we encourage such cancellations as long as Israel is continuing its aggression and occupation [of Arab territories].”
Davutoglu said Erdogan would visit Damascus at the beginning of December.
In Lebanon, a senior Hamas official, Ali Baraka, said Turkey’s actions underlined its “responsibility” toward the Palestinians.
The United States gently criticized Turkey for canceling the NATO military exercise over Israel’s participation.
US State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said that “as to the question of whether there was a government that was invited to participate and then removed at the last minute, we think it’s inappropriate for any nation to be removed from an exercise like this at the last minute.”
He was asked whether that was what had happened, and if Israel was the spurned country. He confirmed both.
AP contributed to this report.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.