Tag Archives: foreign policy

Speeding Up

Posted on by
Reply

John Kerry, the guy presently sitting in the Secretary of State’s chair, is in the Middle East, talking about speeding up the talking about what to do about al-Assad and the Daesh.

The goal is to accelerate everything.

Everything helps move everything else. If we can get a cease-fire, if we can get a political process, that greatly facilitates what we can then talk to Russians and others about in terms of coordination to go after Daesh[.]

An aside: why on earth would we want a cease fire with murderous thugs, whether Bashar al-Assad, as Kerry is going on about above, or with the Daesh?

Here’s the meat of the thing, though:

He said efforts to speed up the diplomacy and military action already were under way before coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, claimed by Islamic State, killed 130 people.

“Are we all talking about things that might be able to augment it, move faster? You better believe it,” Mr Kerry said.

This is nonsense. The way to move things faster is to do the things promptly. We should talk to those we want to join us in the actions to destroy al-Assad and the Daesh and lay out what those actions need to be. We should give those we want to join us a reasonable, brief period of time to understand those actions and determine their capacity to take part—a capacity we already know because, of course, we have alert embassies in those nations.

And then we should act. Those others can join us or not, but it’s…suboptimal…to wait on those others and their dithering. Al-Assad and the Daesh only benefit from delay.

Again: the way to move things faster is to move them faster, and with less intervening talk. Full stop.

Moving in the Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

For 13 years the countries of Southeast Asia have tried building a framework with China to resolve their territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

That plan has been eclipsed in part, officials at high-level talks in Malaysia this weekend acknowledged, in favor of a blunter strategy for dealing with China: strengthening alliances between countries anxious about Beijing’s increasingly assertive behavior.

This also runs counter to the People’s Republic of China’s strongly stated and often repeated preference for dealing with each of the South China Sea nations in strictly bilateral talks—one-on-one talks that the PRC could easily dominate.

Events like Vietnam and the Republic of the Philippines moving outside ASEAN to deal directly with each other and with other interested parties are intended to give those with disputes with the PRC’s sea grab a more powerful position from which to answer the PRC’s aggressions.

These budding arrangements also surround the signing of a new US-ASEAN strategic partnership, an arrangement that is intended to guide interactions between the two over the next five years and to

deepen the relationship as well as priority areas for cooperation not just between the two sides, but also on regional, global and transnational issues.

Whatever that means.

It’s good that the South China Sea nations are beginning to band together in order to better address the PRC’s acquisitiveness. That their moves don’t involve the US, despite President Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” is…instructive.

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.