Tag Archives: foreign policy

Obama and our Border

Posted on by
Reply

Howard Kurtz has said,

Would a presidential visit solve anything? Not really.

Not by itself, no (and that’s the thrust of his piece—not by itself, but it would help).

However, it’s always important—overtly useful, even—for the guy in charge to go to the scene and see with his own eyes, hear with his own ears, smell with his own nose, touch with his own hands, the situation that’s of such grave concern, like the children’s humanitarian crisis currently expanding along our border with Mexico.

For President Barack Obama not merely to avoid this necessity here but actively to refuse it is to raise a question: of what is he so terrified that he might see, hear, smell, touch? The reality of the situation?

Obama says that members of his staff have been to the border many times, and they keep him closely informed. Recall, though, that this is the same staff that have been keeping him so closely informed that he usually doesn’t find out about this or that until he reads it in the newspapers.

Obama also says that he didn’t go because he didn’t want just another photo opportunity. He’s only projecting his own failing here, though; no one else who wanted him to go—not Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), not Congressman Henry Cuellar (D, TX)—were interested in that; they were interested only that Obama go see for himself, go speak with the personnel on scene for himself, go talk to the children himself.

Obama’s not interested, though.

Spinners Gotta Spin

Posted on by
Reply

Iraq’s Prime Minister offered this to Russian media a bit ago concerning ISIS’ blitz from Syria down through Tikrit to the doorstep of Baghdad:

If we had air cover we would have averted what had happened.

And it’s all the US’ fault, he says, for not “speeding up” delivery of some F-16s.

Never mind that ISIS, as badly outnumbered by the Iraqi “army” as shepherds and their dogs are by the sheep they herd, didn’t have any air cover, either.

A Thought on a European Polity

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote about this a bit ago. Daniel Hannan, Conservative Party MEP for South East England, has a more recent thought.

Churchill [as early as 1946] makes clear that this United States of Europe should not include Britain:

There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. Why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent and why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings in shaping the destinies of men?

In case anyone had missed the point, Churchill ended with a call for Britain and the Commonwealth, along with the United States and perhaps even Russia, to “be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe, and champion its right to live and shine”.

Hannan and a number of his fellow Center-Right MEPs are working out the details of a new proposal to achieve that:

a European Common Market—a lightly but effectively regulated free trade area, stretching from Iceland and the Faroe Islands to Turkey and Armenia—within which a smaller group of states could form a political union without prejudice to the non-participants.

At this point, it’s a long shot, but today is different from 1946. There’s a better chance. I say good luck to Hannan and his fellows.

Funding Israel’s Enemies

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, Hamas terrorists butchered three Israeli teenagers—one of them holding dual citizenship: he was an American, too. Shortly after, a Palestinian was butchered in an act of claimed vengeance. The Israelis promptly tracked down and arrested six suspects in the Palestinian’s murder. Hamas celebrated the butchery of the three Israelis (and American) and have pressed their terrorism with a continuing barrage of rocket attacks into Israel, ostensibly to “punish” Israel for its impertinence in objecting to the murders and, more so, for Israel’s rudeness in existing.

The Obama administration has pushed both the Israelis and Palestinians to “show restraint,” as though President Barack Obama seriously believes there is a moral equivalence between the two acts and between the two societies. Indeed, Obama wrote in his op-ed for Haaretz

[I]n President Abbas, Israel has a counterpart committed to a two-state solution and security cooperation with Israel.

We’re seeing now the Hamas Palestinian Authority leader’s view of “security” cooperation with Israel.

Yet, the moral equivalence which Obama insists exists between a democratic Israel—a democracy that includes its Arab citizens—and the terrorist organization that the Palestinian Authority has become since its integration with Hamas acts to justify $400 million in annual aid, first to the PA, and now to Hamas.

Whether it’s the intent or not, the effect is that this continued aid funds a terrorist gang whose primary goal is the destruction of Israel. And Obama knows this.

Some Folks Know What They’re About

Posted on by
2

The leader of Iraq’s Kurds said his forces won’t relinquish territory they are defending against Sunni rebels, adding to worries that continued fighting could speed the breakup of Iraq along ethnic and religious lines.

After Sunni insurgents led by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham launched their military offensive in northern Iraq three weeks ago, Kurdish fighters stepped into the breach left by the Baghdad government’s ineffective and retreating armed forces.

On Friday, Massoud Barzani, president of Iraq’s semiautonomous Kurdish region, said that control of Kirkuk and other towns now guarded by Kurdish forces wouldn’t revert to the central government in Baghdad when the crisis subsides.

“Now this [issue]…is achieved,” he said, alluding to the Kurds’ long-running aspiration for self-rule in their northern Iraqi stronghold.

I’m not convinced this is all bad. The Kurds know who’ll defend the territory against invaders and terrorists—and it’s not the Iraqi army. After all, aside from both Shia and Sunni animosity toward the Kurds, the Iraqi “army” is showing it’s not capable of defending much of anything, as their failing attempt to resecure Tikrit is demonstrating.

An aside for Mr Bradley’s benefit: these aren’t “Sunni rebels,” nor are they “Sunni insurgents;” they’re ISIS terrorists. It’d be good to cut out the disingenuous euphemisms and refer to a shovel as the shovel that it is.