Category Archives: foreign policy

Don’t Lead. Act. They’ll Follow, or Not

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State (and Secretary of the Treasury) James Baker offered A Roadmap for Restoring American Leadership in a recent Wall Street Journal, and it’s worth a careful read. While his seven steps are entirely appropriate, though, it occurs to me that they must come as steps two through eight, instead.

There are many things we need to do first, and we need to do them unilaterally, without waiting on other nations to…follow. Consult, certainly. Attempt to persuade, certainly. Attempt to get others to act, also if not in concert, certainly.

But, to paraphrase a man, some things can’t wait.  Some things need prompt action. We’re still big enough, prosperous enough, strong enough to do those things alone, and where the urgency of the matter won’t pause for consensus, we have an obligation to act first and build consensus later. See Russia’s partition of Ukraine, ISIS’ dismantling of Iraq, if you doubt that.

There’s another aspect of leading that’s missed in the multilateralist, gotta have a UN imprimatur, gotta have European/Russian/Chinese/whomever agreement to our leading before we can…lead, also. That aspect is “by example.”

We can’t set any kind of useful example if we aren’t acting.

ISIS’ Purpose in Invading Iraq

Posted on by
Reply

The assumed purpose for the terrorist organization’s invasion is to seize Iraq as part of the Caliphate the terrorists claim to be restoring. This may be true. However, there are other purposes that may be in play, also, if not instead.

One such purpose would be to destabilize Iraq while exposing the paper tiger that President Barack Obama’s United States has become. This purpose envisions ISIS shooting the place up, exacerbating along the way extant sectarian violence, and then withdrawing into Syria, if not into strongholds in northwestern Iraq. Keeping captured weapons, while demonstrating ISIS’ reach, to their economic betterment from…supporters…of the drive for the Caliphate.

And there’s this:

[ISIS has] obtained significant numbers of tanks, trucks, and US-origin Humvees in recent military operations in Iraq and those arms are being shipped to al Qaeda rebels in Syria[.]

Now one branch of Syrian rebels has several examples of our weaponry.

Oh, and this, admittedly a bit of a stretch as an ISIS purpose: Iranian forces are now operating in Iraq. The enemy of my enemy bit.

Hmm….

In Which Russia Creates an Opportunity

Posted on by
Reply

Russia on Monday cut gas supplies to Ukraine as a payment deadline passed and negotiators failed to reach a deal on gas prices and unpaid bills amid continued fighting in eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine’s Naftogaz company head Andriy Kobolev said Russia had cut the supply of gas to Ukraine, but that Ukraine can manage without Russian gas until December.

There’s no reason at all we can’t fill this newly created market with American natural gas, even if it will take longer than next December to get the delivery chain up and running.

By extension and demonstration, this also creates a market opportunity to sell American natural gas throughout Europe. Even with a seaborne “pipeline,” we can deliver at a lower price than Russia can.

All we need is an administration willing to take advantage of the opportunity.

A Pet Peeve

Posted on by
Reply

And in my hubris, I’m going to write about it. In an article about ISIS likely having captured a supply of Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, Fox News commits the crime. Unfortunately, Fox News is just one of far too many news organizations that do this.

fallen into the hands of Sunni insurgents.

And

fall into the hands of the radical group.

No. These are not “insurgents,” nor are they a “radical group.” ISIS is a terrorist organization. Full stop.

A Token Force, more Dithering

Posted on by
Reply

Now the Obama administration is “weighing” sending 100 (count ’em) Special Forces soldiers to…some place…in Iraq. With their hands tied behind their backs.

The troops would fall under the authority of the US ambassador in Baghdad and would not be authorized to engage in combat, another US official said. Their mission would be “non-operational training” of both regular and counterterrorism units, which the military has in the past interpreted to mean training on military bases[.]

So, no support, no qualified leadership at the top, and they’ll likely be on bases that the Iraqi “army” abandons at the first sniff of gun smoke.

This is not an optimal use of our SF.