Category Archives: foreign policy

The US and Syria

Posted on by
Reply

[emphasis added] Israel launched its second airstrike in three days in the Syrian capital Sunday targeting a shipment of extremely accurate guided Iranian-made missiles intended for Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group, according to an intelligence official in the Middle East.

The attack, which signaled a sharp escalation of Israel’s involvement in Syria’s bloody civil war, was confirmed to the Associated Press hours after Syria’s state media reported that Israeli missiles struck a research center near Damascus, setting off explosions and causing casualties.

This also follows another strike against Syrian military targets conducted by Israel in January.

Israel’s public position—and it’s an entirely valid position in its own right—is that it will not allow such relatively upgraded weapons to move to Hezbollah control.  Plainly, the Israeli government is emotionally up to the task, and the IAF is up to the task in personnel and equipment.

Is President Barack Obama, the anti-jobs outsourcer, outsourcing US responses vis-à-vis Syria?

Yeah, And?

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama, through his State Department, had this to say about al Assad’s massacre of Syrian civilians last Thursday [emphasis in the original]:

Massacre in al-Bayda
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 4, 2013

The United States is appalled by horrific reports that more than 100 people were killed May 2 in gruesome attacks on the coastal town of al-Bayda, Syria.  Regime and Shabiha forces reportedly destroyed the area with mortar fire then stormed the town and executed entire families, including women and children. We extend our deepest condolences to the families of the victims of this tragedy.

We strongly condemn atrocities against the civilian population and reinforce our solidarity with the Syrian people.  As the Assad regime’s violence against innocent civilians escalates, we will not lose sight of the men, women, and children whose lives are being so brutally cut short.

We call on all responsible actors in Syria to speak out against the perpetration of unlawful killings against any group, regardless of faith or ethnicity.  Those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law and serious violations and abuses of human rights law must be held accountable.

So, what are you going to do, Ace?  Besides sitting on the sidelines whining about it all, I mean?  “[W]e will not lose sight of the men, women, and children whose lives are being so brutally cut short.”  No, we’ll watch the hell out of the butchery, while lowing meekly.

Smooth move, Ace.

 

h/t The Weekly Standard

Answering the Phone

Posted on by
Reply

Adam Housley, writing for Fox News, had this on the Benghazi fiasco:

On the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help—but the State Department and White House never gave the military permission to cross into Libya[.]

Normal ops in locations like Benghazi has the Chief of Mission in charge—Ambassador Chris Stevens in this case—who has procedures for calling for help and transferring authority in exigent circumstances.  With Stevens (and such protection as he was allowed to have) trapped, his “distress button” was pushed, and authority was transferred to State, where again in the Benghazi case, response oversight and authority transferred to then-Secretary Hillary Clinton and one of her Undersecretaries, Patrick Kennedy.

Housley cited some of his sources:

Sources said that shortly after the attack began around 9:40 pm, special forces put out the calls for assets to be moved into position.

“What that does is that enacts…every asset, every element to respond and it becomes a global priority,” one source said.  “I would tell you that was given and the only reason it was given is because of special operations pack.”

However, the source said, “Assets did not move.”

It seems apparent that when the phone rang at 4 am, Clinton said, “What difference does it make,” rolled over, and went back to sleep.

Obama’s Syrian Timidity

Posted on by
Reply

From The Wall Street Journal:

President Barack Obama said the White House needed further proof that Syria’s security forces gassed civilians and rebels to change his “calculus….”

And

[T]he president walked a fine line by defending his insistence that he would not tolerate the use of chemical weapons, but also by saying he would not be pressured into quick military action in Syria.

Of course, it’s not possible to help the 70,000 Syrians already butchered by al Assad.  I’m sure, though, the surviving Syrians, including those who will be killed by al Assad’s repudiated government in the coming days and weeks will by heartened by Obama’s…studiousness.

Bill Murray, ex of the CIA and experienced in the area had this (I’m at a loss to know whether he offered this as an excuse or a description):

Lebanon was like a tar baby.  It sticks to your fingers, and you can’t get away from it.  Syria is the same way.  There’s not going to be a happy outcome no matter what you do.

Granted.  Stop worrying, then, about consequences, and do the right thing.  No more stalling, no more looking for excuses not to act.

Benghazi and Clinton

Posted on by
Reply

From the House GOP Interim Progress Report…on the Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi Libya:

During 2012, in numerous communications with the State Department, officials from the U.S. Mission in Libya stress both the inadequacy of security as well as the need for additional personnel. Two critical cables warrant specific mention:

March 28, 2012, Ambassador Cretz sends a cable to Secretary Clinton requesting additional security assets.

April 19, 2012, the response cable from the Department of State to Embassy Tripoli, bearing Secretary Clinton’s signature, acknowledges Ambassador Cretz’s request for additional security but instead articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.

In her testimony before Congress in January, Clinton said,

With specific security requests they didn’t come to me.  I had no knowledge of them.

It’s true enough that the boss’ signature is routinely added to correspondence that has been prepared by subordinates and then sent out.  This, of course, does not absolve the boss of responsibility for the content or outcome of that correspondence.  The addition of the boss’ signature is solely at the discretion of that boss.  Secretary of State Clinton had, to coin a phrase, constructive knowledge of her cable acknowledging the deteriorating security conditions at her Benghazi Consulate, and she ordered the continued withdrawal of security from that Consulate, anyway.  Furthermore, by her position and her decision to delegate the application of her signature to her correspondence, she had imputed knowledge of the situation and of her decision to proceed with her security drawdown.  She simply lied in her testimony before Congress.

The Interim Report can be seen here and here.

Remember this in 2016.