Tag Archives: foreign policy

On the War on Terror

Posted on by
1

President Barack Obama said this to the terrorists in his 2009 inaugural address,

We say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

Obama had this to say about terrorists in his speech last Thursday concerning his evolving counterterrorism policy:

Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror.

Therefor,

[T]his war, like all wars, must end.  That’s what history advises.  That’s what our democracy demands.

Never mind that wars don’t end because one side wants them to.  Wars end when one side has been clearly crushed or otherwise begs for surrender.

The terrorists haven’t quit.  Obama insists that “core” al Qaeda is “on the run.”  “Core” al Qaeda is a cynical sophistry: al Qaeda has spread its control, through its branches, affiliates, and allies, far beyond the mountains of Afghanistan into Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, throughout the Maghreb, and is gaining influence in Syria and regaining it in Iraq.  The terrorists are not done; Obama has given them no reason to agree to the quitting.

Which side now faces defeat?  Which side now is begging to be let off the field?

The US, Russia, and Syria

Posted on by
Reply

In an article on the related topic of Arab nations asking the US to finally, please, get involved in the Syrian situation instead of hiding out on the sidelines, there appeared this gem:

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced on Tuesday a plan to host a new international conference on Syria, possibly by month-end in Geneva.

Let me see if I understand this.  Lavrov told Kerry, “We’ll talk later.”  Or did Lavrov, instead, tell Kerry, “Let’s talk later?“

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.