Tag Archives: foreign policy

Hillary Clinton’s “Reset”

Posted on by
Reply

From Thursday’s The New York Times comes this lurid tale of money and women.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale [to Rosatom of a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West] gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by…Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

2009-2013, you’ll recall, was Hillary Clinton’s term as Secretary of State.

There’s this additional money:

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr Clinton received $500,000 [that pay disparity, again] for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Clinton’s response to this? Here it is, through her National Press Secretary, Brian Fallon:

[No one] has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Notice that. She didn’t deny the NYT‘s reporting, she wholly ignored the question of her involvement in the turning over of American uranium mines to Russia, instead all she had was a “You got nothin’ on me, copper.”

Clinton’s “Reset” button for Russia actually translates from the Russian as “overcharged.”

She’s overcharged for, indeed. For Americans. Cheap, though, for Russia.

But we–and she–are just haggling over her price.

A Saudi Cease Fire

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Libya and Europe’s ejection of Muammar Gadhafi from power. Shortly into the air campaign supporting Libyan rebel efforts, that campaign nearly ground to a halt because the Europeans—really—ran out of ordnance to drop on Gadhafi and his loyalist forces. The Unites States had to step in and rearm the European forces in order for the campaign to continue.

Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia called a halt to its air campaign in support of the just-overthrown government and against Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia declared late Tuesday that strikes against the Houthis would transition to a mostly political phase, but left open the possibility of using military action to halt the spread of the militants.

This was followed the next day by the Houthis continuing their advance, including capture of the government forces’ brigade headquarters in Taiz, the country’s third largest city, and it had been immediately preceded by the terrorists’ capture of a major seaport, apparently in preparation for receiving Iranian seaborne arms shipments.

The US isn’t rearming/resupplying the Saudis as far as I can tell. This bodes ill for the Saudis and for Araby in general—and for Israel, on the back side of Araby from Iran—in the coming confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I hope I’m being overly paranoid. The Saudis also released a statement:

…the new phase of operations “will support the Yemeni government on the ground as it works toward building a stable and secure Yemen[.]”

We’ll see.

Update: It appears the Saudis, or at least their coalition, are resuming airstrikes against the Houthis.  If true, this would be to the good.

An alternative reason for the ceasefire may be this:

The Obama administration told the Saudis the military campaign should be wrapped up quickly because it was no longer having the desired effect, senior US officials said. In the private messages, the administration said the campaign risked escalating into a broader conflict….

The “broader conflict” which President Barack Obama fears is one with Iran.  Never mind that someone needs to stand up to the Iranians and halt their expansion and their hegemonic dreams, and the Obama administration hasn’t the heart for it.  Never mind, too, that the Yemeni situation is only a small part of those dreams, and Iran is unlikely to force the question here.  Yet.

Signals

Posted on by
Reply

An aircraft carrier has been sent to join the little flotilla sailing up and down the Gulf of Aden, and the Obama administration is very adamant about what it’s there for.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insisted Tuesday that the US ships were “only” there to “ensure the shipping lanes remain open and safe”—and “not to do anything in terms of those Iranian ships.”

Regarding the premise that we intended anything serious in the waters off Yemen, like intercepting Iranian ships delivering weapons to their terrorists in Yemen, Harf was indignant:

That is blatantly untrue—so this discreet movement of US assets is for a discreet purpose.

President Barack Obama repeated the premise through his Press Secretary, Josh Earnest:

…the ships are in the region primarily to “protect the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce.”

No, the signaling is quite clear, and Iran has received the message. Obama is so desperate for his “deal” with Iran regarding the latter’s nuclear weapons program that he’s perfectly willing to watch Iranian arms shipments to terrorists in the Middle East from close up. He’s perfectly willing to put our sailors so close that they can see the Iranian sailors biting their thumbs at us.

What’s Up With This?

Posted on by
Reply

In their minds, the murderers and accomplices of Germany, and Poland, and Hungary, and so many, many other places didn’t do something evil. They convinced themselves it was the right thing to do, the thing they had to do.

That’s what FBI Director James Comey said with an absolutely straight face at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s 2015 National Tribute Dinner, and he repeated them in all seriousness in his Washington Post editorial at the link. Poles as a society were accomplices in the holocaust.

This is the same FBI Director who has demanded FBI access to the encryption keys of messages that American citizens send to each other so that his FBI can snoop at will.

Hmm….

Ramadi and Strategy

Posted on by
Reply

JCS Chairman Martin Dempsey said last week that losing Ramadi to the Daesh would be unimportant from a strategic perspective; it would have only symbolic importance.

I have a couple of thoughts about that. First, symbolism in a war has vast importance, to the morale of the defenders and to the morale of the attackers. Doolittle’s raid on Tokyo had no strategic importance whatsoever, but it was critically important: the symbolism of the raid—”we can hit you wherever we wish, whenever we wish”—had immediate impact on Japan’s strategic thinking and on American and Australian military and civilian morale, even though the raid did trivial physical damage.

So it is with Ramadi, especially for an Iraqi army that presently has no heart and little willingness to stand and fight, much less attack and fight. Tikrit, after all, was recaptured, to the extent it has been, by Iraqi militias and American bombing; the army itself played only a supporting role. Ramadi’s loss would simply add to the army’s mindset that it would only lose any encounter with Daesh. Ramadi’s loss also would add fuel to the ongoing conflict between Sunni Iraq and Shia Iraq. Symbolism matters in Iraq, too, and symbolic importance is…important.

Second, Doolittle’s raid came within the framework of an actual strategic plan for wresting the Pacific and its island nations back from Japan, driving Japan from the Asian mainland, and ultimately defeating Japan. In the present case, it’s entirely possible that Ramadi has no strategic importance, but this administration has no coherent strategy against which to measure Ramadi’s importance.