Tag Archives: foreign policy

Political Experience

Posted on by
Reply

As the terrorist threat becomes ever more apparent—Paris, for instance—political experience in a Presidential candidate would seem to be at a premium, according to political…pundits. I agree: given the US’ role in the world, even after President Barack Obama’s seven-year retreat, a retreat actively supported by the Democratic Party, political experience is highly important. Especially with the damage done by that retreat, political experience is highly important. So is an ability to learn policy issues and rationally to form policy and adjust it as empirical data flow in.

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is often touted as unbeatable in the Democratic primary campaign—she is—and she’s just as often touted (a few too early polls notwithstanding) as virtually unbeatable in the general election. Her political experience is the support for that unbeatability.

Let’s see, then, what are some highlights of her political experience?

  • HillaryCare
  • Bimbo Eruptions
  • For the Iraq War before she was against it (sound familiar?)
  • Successfully passed three Senate bills: created a historic site, named a post office, named a stretch of highway
  • For Keystone XL before she was against it
  • Foreign government “contributions” to her (and her husband’s and daughter’s) Clinton Foundation while sitting in the Secretary of State’s chair
  • Communications security and classified material handling while sitting in the Secretary of State’s chair
  • Libya
  • Benghazi

Clinton has remained steadfast in all of these, save for her flip-flopping on Iraq and Keystone. Especially, she has remained steadfast on Obamacare (née HillaryCare), security matters, Libya, and Benghazi.

She should run on her political experience. The Republican Presidential candidate should run on her political experience.

There’s Containment, and There’s Containment

Posted on by
Reply

Recall President Barack Obama’s claim, on the morning of the Daesh’s terrorist attacks in Paris, that Daesh was contained.

Now he’s saying he was right in that assessment:

[H]e insisted that the reason he said they’re contained, hours before terror teams launched deadly raids across Paris, is because “they control less territory than they did last year.”

That may be marginally true: the Kurds have successfully pushed toward Raqqa in Syria, and they’ve driven Daesh from Sinjar in Iraq.

How important is that bit of geography, though? Daesh has expanded from attacks within and at the periphery of the geography it holds to attacks in two different continents—the airliner bombing in Egypt and those Paris attacks.

Physically contained? Geographically contained, maybe. Maybe. But plainly not physically contained—Egypt and France. And plainly not contained as a practical matter.

It’s hard to believe that neither Obama’s echo chamber nor Obama don’t understand this.

EU Border Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission President, says the Paris attack won’t cause the EU to change its strategy for handling the flood of refugees from Syria, North Africa, and elsewhere.

Jean-Claude Juncker…urged citizens and politicians not to confuse the Paris perpetrators with those seeking shelter from war and terror.

It’s becoming apparent that one of the Islamic terrorists entered France legally, via Greece, on a Syrian passport. But that’s just one of the seven, or so, terrorists who butchered so many innocents. How, exactly, does Juncker propose that “citizens and politicians” sort out the terrorists from the refugees (and “ordinary” migrants, legal or otherwise) when they’re all so thoroughly mixed in among each other as the flood crosses the EU’s “borders?” The Paris butchery clearly demonstrates that the EU’s existing strategy is worse than unequal to the task, it’s a signal and tragic failure.

Russia and the PRC Want Their Safe Spaces

Posted on by
Reply

The two are upset over American Presidential campaign remarks. Zhu Haiquan, speaking for the PRC’s DC embassy:

We hope relevant US politicians will view China in an objective and rational way and refrain from making irresponsible remarks[.]

Yuri Melnik, Press Secretary for Russia’s DC embassy:

It is regretful that the anti-Russian rhetoric has become part of stump speeches for many candidates[.]

Zhu is right, our politicians do need to view the PRC (and Russia, come to that) objectively and rationally. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has left it to the Presidential candidates to do so. Regarding Melnik’s concerns, we do need to be more oppositionally oriented toward Russia, a staunch enemy of the United States and a naked aggressor toward its neighbors. Again, though, the Obama administration has abandoned the task to the candidates.

Strategy and Foreign Policy

Posted on by
Reply

This is how Frank Bruni ended his Saturday op-ed in The New York Times [emphasis in the original]:

I felt sick. For a few hours, even a few days, I’d like to focus on the pain of Parisians and how that magnificent city reclaims any sense of order, any semblance of safety. I’d like not to wonder if Hillary Clinton’s odds of election just ticked upward or downward or if Donald Trump’s chest-thumping bluster suddenly became more seductive.

I’d like not to be told, fewer than 18 hours after the shots rang out, how they demonstrate that Americans must crack down on illegal immigration to our own country. I read that and was galled, and not because of my feelings about immigration, but because of my feelings about the automatic, indiscriminate politicization of tragedy.

The Paris atrocity inflicted by Islamic terrorists (Daesh is claiming responsibility) is but one battle in the long war against terrorists. Yet, in Bruni’s mind, we’re not supposed to assess the inputs to the battle, its outcome, or corrective actions to be taken from that analysis until enough time has passed to satisfy his safe space requirements. Time, incidentally, in which Daesh and/or other terrorist organizations can complete their own analyses and plan future battles.

This is how the Left understands strategy, this is how the Left understands foreign policy. Which is to say, they understand neither.