Errors by the party in power can get America into trouble; real catastrophes require consensus.
Rarely have both parties been as unanimous about a development overseas as they have in their shared enthusiasm for the so-called Arab Spring during the first months of 2011. Republicans vied with the Obama Administration in their zeal for the ouster of Egypt’s dictator Hosni Mubarak and in championing the subsequent NATO intervention against Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Both parties saw themselves as having been vindicated by events. The Obama Administration saw its actions as proof that soft power in pursuit of humanitarian goals offered a new paradigm for foreign-policy success. And the Republican establishment saw a vindication of the Bush freedom agenda.
I’ve been closely reading the Gang of Eight immigration reform bill introduced into the Senate (the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act”). And I have to admit the more I read, the more I feel sullied. To say it is deeply flawed is a sad understatement, like describing a catastrophic category-5 hurricane as a “bad storm”.
They were celebrating in Cairo the arrival of four new U.S. F-16s and the likelihood that the United States would give $2 billion in aid to Egypt this year. They were also celebrating the warm welcome given to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Is there a contradiction here?
And also given the ongoing violence in Egypt and the Islamist regime’s declaration of a state of emergency in three governates–a policy it and other opposition groups always rejected under the previous government–it is reasonable for the United States to postpone military gifts of F16s, advanced tanks, and other weapons to Cairo.
Chuck Hagel is unqualified and ill-qualified to become America’s Secretary of Defense. Hagel is too cozy with enemies of the U.S. and is openly hostile towards Israel, one of America’s closest allies. According to FOX News, Hagel “appeared to agree with the assertion that America is ‘the world’s bully’” and that he has “complained about the ‘Jewish lobby.’” Yahoo! News noted Hagel’s beliefs about the “‘Jewish lobby’ and its influence on American-Israeli ties.” According to Senator John Cornyn (R), “Hagel voted against a 2007 measure that called for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to be designated a terrorist group;” “In July 2008, Hagel recommended that Washington go beyond direct talks and establish a U.S. diplomatic mission in Tehran;” “in his 2008 book, ‘America: Our Next Chapter,’ Hagel appeared to suggest that the United States could live with a nuclear Iran;” and, “Hagel wants us to be softer on the Iranians, he thinks we should be tougher on the Israelis.” Given Hagel’s dubious track-record, the nonprofit organization SecureAmericaNow.org has been lobbying against his confirmation as U.S. defense secretary. SecureAmericaNow has provided a set of resources enabling concerned citizens to help block President Obama’s move to confirm Senator Hagel.
Three thoughts as the U.S. Senate gears up to consider on Jan 31 the nomination of Chuck Hagel for the position of secretary of defense:
(1) It’s more than a bit curious that Barack Obama should nominate a politician of no distinction, with no significant bills to his name, no administrative accomplishments, and no known ideas, to the hugely important post of secretary of defense. It’s even more curious that Hagel is known for only two foreign policy/defense views: being soft on Iran and hostile to Israel. This certainly sends a strong signal to Israel.
The US Senate vote on the nomination of John Brennan and Chuck Hagel to the positions of CIA Director and Defense Secretary, respectively, will shape US power projection and posture of deterrence, global sanity, war on Islamic terrorism and the US determination to avert the wrath of a nuclear Iran.
John Brennan presented his position on Iran in the July, 2008 issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: “A critical step toward improved US-Iranian relations would be for US officials to cease public Iran-bashing, a tactic that may have served short-term domestic political interests, but that has heretofore been wholly counterproductive to U.S. strategic interests.”
The Hamas government in Gaza denied reports that the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, had recruited an employee at the office of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. …
On the eve of the January 22, 2013 Israeli election, the Israeli constituent demonstrates more realism than Israeli politicians. Israelis highlight security imperatives when responding to reality-driven polls, which pose questions based on the stormy Arab Winter and not on the mirage of the Arab Spring.
Increasingly, Israelis recognize that — in the Middle East — bolstered security constitutes a solid base for survival and for the pursuit of peace. They realize that the pursuit of peace, by lowering the threshold of security, could jeopardize survival, as well as the slim chance for peace.
The late Senator Daniel Inouye (D), Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore (third in the line of succession to the presidency) was the most effective architect-ever of mutually-beneficial US-Israel strategic cooperation. He was a tenacious defender of the US Constitution and the role of the legislature as a co-determining, co-equal branch of government; a humble American patriot and a realist who rejected wishful-thinking in the interest of advancing US national security.
As facts about the September 11th attack on the United States embassy in Benghazi, Libya continue to unravel at a furious pace, scathing accusations of culpability are being hurled by both prominent Republican leaders and Democrats regarding exactly who is at fault for the heinous murders of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel.
On Sunday morning, October 14th, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R) leveled conspiracy charges against the White House for attempting to cover up the attack. Appearing on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Senator Graham said he knows for a fact the administration was told within 24 hours of the incident it was carried out by al-Qaeda operatives.
Ahmadinejad has been perfectly clear about his intentions for the West. Now, on the verge of attaining nuclear capacity, Iran will only need one small nuclear bomb to wipe out the entire power grid of the United States of America.
How much do you know about the greatest threat to Western civilization, today?
US commitments to the security of Israel should enhance — not constrain — Israel’s independence of action. US commitments to the security of Israel should upgrade Israel’s role as a national security producer for the US — a major strategic ally. They should not relegate Israel to a national security-consumer — a client state.
The conservative movement appears to be at a crossroads in its approach to the threat of Islamic supremacism—not only abroad but at home. Does the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as the dominant force of the “Arab Spring” bode ill for America? Or is the Brotherhood merely another “political actor” as the Obama administration would have us believe? Is Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, a potential security risk worth investigating, as Representative Michele Bachmann and four conservative congressmen have suggested? Or is the mere raising of this question a witch-hunt, as Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner and numerous Democrats maintain?
In October 2011, U.S. attorney general Eric Holder and FBI director Robert Mueller revealed the thwarting of an elaborate plot by elements in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington at a posh D.C. eatery, utilizing members of the Los Zetas Mexican drug cartel.[1]
The foiled terrorist plot, with its Latin American connections, focused new attention on what had until then been a largely overlooked political phenomenon: the intrusion of the Islamic Republic of Iran into the Western Hemisphere. An examination of Tehran’s behavioral pattern in the region over the past several years reveals four distinct strategic objectives: loosening the U.S.-led international noose to prevent it from building nuclear weapons; obtaining vital resources for its nuclear project; creating informal networks for influence projection and sanctions evasion; and establishing a terror infrastructure that could target the U.S. homeland.
Israelis spying on Americans is in the news again: leaders of the Jewish state just petitioned for Jonathan Pollard’s release and the Associated Press reported with alarm that U.S. national security officials at times consider Israel to be “a genuine counterintelligence threat.” Its tone of breathless outrage suggests: How dare they! Who do they think they are?
Antonio Prohias drew the wordless “Spy vs. Spy” cartoon, a cold-war phenomenon, from 1961 to 1987.
Articles/Entries
