I would just add to my comment above that although it is unfortunate that Obama did not attend the APEC meeting and China took a more leading role with Xi Jinping attending, it is a temporary blip on the radar. It does not represent any overall diminishment of the US role in the world. But we will need to assure the ASEAN members that we are committed to the relationship, as they fear an assertive China without a strong US presence to provide balance.
"China is probably going to set the agenda for the final agreements with Iran, not the US."
China is hardly in a position to "set the agenda for the final agreements with Iran." China is not even involved in the negotiations. Any agreements reached with Iran, should the talks result in any, will be the product of the US, the EU, and Iran negotiating them. Ultimately, Iran sees its future links with the US and the West as important as, or more so than, those with China.
Far too much emphasis is placed by some on China overtaking the US. It will not happen any time soon, if it happens at all. The idiocy of Ted Cruz and the Tea Party was an embarrassment, and it put a temporary dent in the US's reputation. But the world economy still runs on the US dollar, and that is not going to be replaced by a "basket" of currencies any time soon. Foreign investors still view US Treasuries as the safest investment. And Foreign businesses still look to the US as one of the safest places to do business and invest.
While China has demonstrated increasing assertiveness in laying claim to practically the entire South China Sea, as well as to the Senkaku Islands, it is far from ready to replace the US role in the world. China's interest is in assuring it has access to mineral and energy resources, but it has not really won many friends in the developing world with its aid. And as bumbling and unwieldy as it seems, the US model is still much more attractive to most countries than China's authoritarian model.
President Obama's absence at the APEC meeting, allowing China's Xi Jinping to take the leadership role at the summit, was the worst outcome in terms of our international role. This, at a time when we are attempting to reinforce our "pivot" toward Asia, weakened the US just as ASEAN countries in particular are looking to the US as a balancing force against Chinese territorial designs on the South China Sea. Obama's absence, unfortunately, will not inspire confidence that the US is a reliable partner to balance China's increasing assertiveness.
Sorry, Spyguy, but CIA drones and high altitutde aircraft have no way of penetrating underground facilities, and the CIA does not have "operatives on the ground" capable of infiltrating the Iranian nuclear program. That's why we are pushing for IAEA inspections.
Mark, neither the US Government in general nor the CIA in particular are supporting the MEK. The MEK has no platform within the Iranian government that would result in hard intelligence, and they have demonstrated a feckless approach that the CIA is certainly avoiding. The MEK has nothing of value to offer the US, and we are keeping them at arm's length. The CIA is not aiding them.
That the pro-Israeli community in the US employs the likes of Rudy Giuliani to flog their case on behalf of the MEK is irrelevant. The US Government does not take its marching orders from Rudy Giuliani. The fact is, regardless what Israel and its supporters may do, the US does not employ the MEK as an instrument of its Iran policy, either overtly or covertly.
What you are missing, Dennis, is an understanding of how the CIA actually operates and a nuanced view of the reach and overall competence of US (and other countries') government agencies. It is not easy to establish a network of agents in a country like Iran, where there is absolutely no US presence and, thus, no way to run agents. And to run agents from outside the country carries a huge risk for the agents and the operation. That's why it is so difficult to ascertain what is going on in countries like Iran and North Korea.
Your comment that the CIA must be all over Iran, and if they are not they are "incompetent in the extreme," demonstrates further a naive understanding of how intelligence operates in these situations. It also demonstrates an unwarranted faith that the US Government is always competent in its various endeavors. Historically, there have been enough failures to put that idea to bed.
The thing is, Joe, there are those, some who post on this blog, who think that anyone to the right of Che Guevara is a conservative. One must humor them.
Heretofore, Iran has made the lifting of ssanctions and international banking restrictions a prerequisite to any give on its part regarding the nuclear issue. That has been, and should be, a non-starter. The United States and the West should be prepared to lift sanctions and financial banking restrictions incrementally in response to solid steps Iran takes in allowing full, unfettered IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities, as well as appropariate disposal of any highly-enriched uranium it might possess.
No negotiations have to end immediately in an "all or nothing" conclusion. Both Iran and the US can establish "good faith" steps by incrementally agreeing to verifiable steps Iran takes on its nuclear program and the lifting of some sanctions by the US and the West. As negotiations move forward and more and more of these incremental steps are taken by both sides, the end result could be satisfactory for both sides. But it will take a lot more trust and verfication on the part of both sides than have been demonstrated to date.
"It all depends on the political persuasion of the federal judge or judges hearing the case."
You are correct Mark. Diggs-Taylor was a liberal judge and ruled as you would expect a liberal judge to rule. Her ruling was reversed by the conservative Sixth Circuit, which is the way you would expect a conservative court to rule.
The same thing occurs in other instances. For example the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit has had more rulings overturned than any other Appeals Court that I am aware of.
This is the natural order of things, if one can call it that. In the above cases, neither is "right" or "wrong." Rather whether one agrees with a court's decision or not depends on one's own political persuasion. There is no overarching standard by which one can definitively conclude the correctness of the courts' decisions.
It is a worldwide phenomenon, Ad Hominem, that the vast majority of illegal immigration is driven by the hope of economic advancement and to escape instability, not because of actual political persecution. That is the case whether the illegal immigration occurs across the Rio Grande or across the Mediterranean.
There is no hard evidence that tightening asylum laws would stem such illegal immigration because it has not been done yet, either in the United States or in the European Union. In both cases, once these illegal immigrants reach soil and make a claim of political asylum, they cannot be turned away until their cases are adjudicated. Common sense, however, suggests that if asylum laws were tightened and those attempting to use the system for economic gain were denied and turned back, the flow would drop to a trickle.
The European Union's asylum laws are probably too lax, as that is the magnet that pulls the illegal immigrants to make the dangerous voyage across the Mediterranean in their attempt to reach Europe and seek asylum. If the EU were to tighten up their asylum laws and make it much more difficult for illegal immigrants who reach EU soil to gain asylum, and if they were sent back, the flow would drop to a trickle.
Most of the illegal immigrants seeking asylum are not really political of social refugees under the United Nations definition. The vast majority are economic migrants who want a better life. One cannot blame them, of course, but the EU has neither the responsibility nor the obligation to accommodate them.
That many of the posts on this blog are so critical of almost every move made by the US Government, without the poster experiencing the Midnight Knock on the Door, is evidence that whatever NSA might be doing, it certainly is not adversely affecting those who freely comment here.
Again, Snowden's comment about NSA's activities "hurting the economy" is not borne out by the evidence. The economy is doing fine in spite of NSA's activities; there is no evidence that they have caused harm to the economy.
The example you give has not made a dent in the US economy, Huskynut. You might as well say that 60 percent of new restaurant startups fail within their second year of operation. Such failures are part of the economic equation and do not affect the overall economy, anymore than your example does.
"Snowden said this week of surveillance techniques: 'They hurt our economy. They hurt our country. They limit our ability to speak and think and live and be creative, to have relationships and to associate freely…'"
The usual Snowden babble. Easy to make sweeping statements that one does not even bother to justify with evidence. Hurt our economy? How, and by how much, Mr. Snowden? Limit our ability to speak and think? Risible, as I see no evidence that anyone contributing to this blog has had his ability to think and speak or write limited. I know of no one who has had relationships and associations limited, unless, of course, they were with terrorists who would do the US harm. The only limits are those that are a result of the self-limiting actions of those paranoid conspiracy theorists who are convinced that the US Government is "after them."
"On September 22 an horrific suicide bombing killed more than 80 people. They were worshiping in a church in Peshawar when two bombers detonated inside the building. An armed group, Jundallah, claimed the attack as revenge for US drone strikes."
Two points on the above-cited attack on Pakistani Christians.
A. Although Jundallah claimed the attack was revenge for US drone strikes, Christians have been under attack by Islamic militants in Pakistan and Egypt regardless of drone strikes. The attack might well have occurred in any case, and the drone strikes were simply used as an excuse.
B. But let's assume Jundallah did launch the church carnage as revenge for US drone attacks. What kind of twisted mind would kill one's own people because of drone strikes launched by outsiders (the US) who have nothing to do with the Pakistani Christians killed by the Islamist militants? Such twisted logic lends even more credence to the likelihood that Jundallah just wanted to kill Christians, and the drone strikes were used a pretext.
"The U.S. is being taught a lesson by their Asian counterpart, China."
The above comment is risible to anyone who knows how China operates in developing countries. I have seen first-hand how China's "aid" programs operate in the Pacific. In Samoa and Micronesia, the Chinese build modern buildings for government complexes without regard for the local conditions. they bring in all of their workers and do not hire or train any of the local people. It is the "Chinese way or the highway." After they leave, the structures are left without any followup maintenance or care. While the locals accept the structures, they resent the Chinese refusal to train or utilize local materials and labor, as well as the lack of followup.
Chinese "soft power." Laughable, and could only be invoked by someone who knows nothing about how the Chinese actually operate.
To explain the "disorder" (and that's a polite phrase to describe the utter failure to govern in Libya), and to serve as an apologist for said chaos, by using the analogy of the American Revolution demonstrates a lack of knowledge of both the American Revolution and what's occurring in Libya. The American Revolution was fought to throw off British rule. Neither during the Revolution nor after was there the utter chaos of militias within the American populace fighting, and succeeding to thwart the attempt to establish a unified government, initially under the Articles of Confederation and then under the Federal Constitution. There was disagreement concerning State's vs. Federal rights and responsibilities, but they were hammered out in conference.
There is absolutely no comparison between the establishment of the American Republic by those individuals deeply steeped in the Magna Carta, the philosophy of John Locke, and the Enlightenment; and those who are attempting to establish a government in Libya (and their opponents) whose legacy includes none of the above. I have argued from the beginning that it was pure naivete to even refer to something called the "Arab Spring." From the beginning it seemed more appropriate to refer to an "Arab Transition," and as events progress I am even more convinced of that.
Luis Posada Carriles has always denied involvement in the Cubana Airlines bombing. The United States refused to extradite him to Venezuela and Cuba because of the likelihood that he would be tortured.
Sound familiar? You no doubt would agree that the US should not send someone (such as Al-Qaeda an terrorist) to a country where he is likely to be tortured. You no doubt will equally appreciate the US government's refusal to send Carriles to Venezuela or Cuba for the same reason.
SOCOM is not an independent agency, Brian. It still reports to SECDEF. It is not unusual for a command to want its own INTEL capability. That does not mean it has gone off the reservation.
"As opposed to the Libyan government, which still needs to get permission from the local militia when it wants to turn on a water works. The Libyan government wasn’t protecting this guy."
That the Libyan government is weak and ineffective, and wasn't protecting Al-Libi is irrelevant when it comes to its condemnation of the US's snatching of Al-Libi off the street in Tripoli as an "affront to its sovereignty." It can hardly claim an "affront to its sovereignty" when there is hardly any "sovereignty" to which it can lay claim if it cannot even manage such security issues.
"because there might be disorder for a little while after the overthrow of the ancien regime. Henry Kissinger approves."
Actually, Joe, there is no evidence that the disordor in Libya will last, or that initiated by Morsi's Islamist authoritarian tendencies in Egypt would have lasted (without military intervention), "for a little while." There is an equally good chance the disorder would have lasted, and will last, for a long while and get worse. Remember the "Terror" after the French Revolution? It was not "disorder" that "lasted for a little while."
But then, to paraphrase you, "Robespierre would approve."
"Most Libyans oppose al-Qaeda, but many were upset by this affront to their national sovereighty."
Hard to sympathize with their sense of an "affront to their national sovereignty" when the terrorist Al-Libi was living openly in their midst and no one was doing anything about it. This is on par in principle with Pakistanis considering it an "affront" to their national sovereignty when the US seals took down Bin-Laden who had been living right in their midst. If you are allowing these terrorist leaders and operatives to live among you with impunity and do nothing about it, you cannot expect sympathy when someone else violates your sovereignty in order to do what you yourself should have done in order to stem terrorism and bring perpetrators the justice they deserve.
No, Farhad, the US counter-terrorism program has not increased terrorism; it in fact has degraded the top echelons of Al-Qaeda Central and its affiliated organizations. Drones have killed nowhere near the number of civilians that firefights on the ground would have killed. And finally, yes, the Administration, after careful intelligence and vetting, does kill terrorists who otherwise would not be brought before tribunals to receive the justice they so richly deserve.
Meanwhile, it was a very good weekend for US counter-terrorism with the capture by US Special Forces of Nazih Abdel-Hamed Ruqai (Nazih Al-Libi) in Tripoli, Libya. He masterminded the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salam. He no doubt is on a US navy vessel being interrogated and will be brought to the US to stand trial.
Regretfully, the Special Forces team that was after the leader of Al-Shabab in Somalia had to withdraw before confirming whether they killed him or not. Apparently the ground commander decided the firefight was so intense that it endangered many civilians. This illustrates the value of drones to kill terrorists, as they produce far fewer civilian casualties than full-blown fire fights usually do.
Mr. Bodden is absolutely correct. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is, has been, and will continue to be, "the boss." Don't ever think that anything Rouhani says or does will be done without Khamenei's blessing. And if Rouhani were to deviate from Khamenei's line (as he apparently did in the phone conversation with Obama), he (Rouhani) would be brought into line pronto.
Don't know to whom you refer when you throw around terms such as "You Players," "You Grown-ups," and other terms and phrases taken from your handy stack of 3x5 index cards. One thing for sure, though, is that the utterances of Khamenei and Sherman are certainly not false equivalences; they are equally offensive if one hopes to gain traction in each understanding the other.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's statement on his view of the United States: "We consider the government of the United States of America as an unreliable, arrogant, illogical, and trespassing government..." is hardly less offensive than Wendy Sherman's statement: "We know that deception is part of the DNA."
"Unreliable," "arrogant," "illogical," "trespassing government," "deception in DNA": they all sound equally offensive and equally petty, coming from two individuals who presumably are adults, one the de facto leader of his country, the other a high level foreign policy official.
"The real question is whether a place can be found in Egyptian politics for the Muslim Brotherhood."
And if a place can be found in Egyptian politics for the Muslim Brotherhood, the question then becomes: Can the Muslim Brotherhood behave in the manner of a mature political party that is one among several, without attempting to overreach its mandate and impose its views on the Egyptian state and public?
"I personally am a LOT safer after Snowden alerted the masses to some of what the government does to us."
No, Brian, you are not a lot safer. In fact, you are less safe since Snowden's unauthorized theft of classified information was dumped into the public realm. Now that Snowden has alerted terrorists who would do us harm to classified methods of linking up their phone conversations, they can take counter-measures. As a result, Snowden has made our counter-terrorism efforts more difficult and the rest of us less safe.
I did not state that Snowden committed treason. In fact, he did not commit treason, as he did not convey the classified information he took without authorization to an enemy engaged in hostilities against the US. Nevertheless, he engaged in unauthorized theft of highly classified information, and in revealing its contents he has done harm to US security, particularly in the area of counter-terrorism.
Ted Cruz and the Tea Party wing-nuts have certainly done their share of damage to national security with the shutdown, and Edward Snowden has done his share with the egregious violation of his security clearance and the trust (mistakenly) placed in him. Together, they represent the worst that America places in positions affecting national security. That one is a miscreant does not mitigate the actions of the other.
"There was a recognition during the Johnson administration that the Vietnam war was lost, but Johnson, McNamara and the generals didn’t feel they could bring themselves to admit to it. That is just one countless examples throughout history of “feelings” taking precedence over reason and a temporary hold on power."
Although Johnson and his top civilian and military advisers recognized they could not prevail in Vietnam, they continued pursuing the war not because they could not admit it, or because their "feelings" prevented them from doing so. Johnson and his advisers knew they could not prevail, but they were driven onward in the war's pursuit because they thought that to opt out would send a disastrous signal to our allies that the US would not stand by its commitments. That and the slim hope that some sort of Korea-like "truce" might eventually be engineered. They may have been misguided in this approach, but "feelings" had nothing to do with it.
There is hardly what one would call "chronic instability" in Bahrain. In fact, despite the crackdowns, Bahrain is remarkably stable, and it's Saudi ally will no doubt ensure that it remains so.
The US Fifth Fleet is primarily a stabilizing force in the Gulf. Aside from Iran, most states in the region welcome its presence.
"to folks who believe that the authority of a government flows from the consent of the governed, US support of any of the GCC nations is odious."
I appreciate your idealistic worldview, Brian. Nevertheless, the United States operates in a much grayer world than your binary black-and-white approach suggests. Accordingly, the US must deal with most governments as they are, not as we might wish them to be.
"Way past time to withdraw the naval base from Bahrain. It is illogical to maintain relations with that state but not with Iran. Iran even has far more oil."
The US naval base in Bahrain is an important asset, as it provides the US Fifth Fleet with a naval presence in a volatile region that it would otherwise not have. Moreover, If the US eventually reaches a reasonable modus vivendi with Iran, there is no reason why the US cannot maintain the Fifth Fleet presence in Bahrain and have relations with Iran that include being a customer for its oil. That Bahrain and Iran may not see eye to eye on certain issues does not preclude the US from having relations with both nations.
"Bill, "China’s rise, economically and militarily, will not reach the level of being an “existential threat." To the US? Or to India?"
To neither. The key component of the phrase is "existential." Certainly not to the US. And China is not about to threaten the very existence of India either. At most, there may be skirmishes, as there were in the 1962 "war". But the US is certainly not going to form a NATO-like alliance that obligates it to defend India against potential Chinese border or naval skirmishes.
"I also find your faith in “state capitalism” as restraint on geopolitical avarice quite unconvincing."
I mention "state capitalism" for two reasons. First, once imbedded in the international system of trade that has been an economic boon to China, it is far less likely to take major military action against the US, India, Japan, and others that would result in a major setback to its economic position. Second, I mention it to emphasize that China is no longer driven by the communist ideology that would have made it much more an existential threat if it were.
"The “existential threat” will be from China....This has already occurred in the recent Syria poison gas controversy where a Chinese warship was dispatched to the area of the Mediterranean Sea near Syria."
China's rise, economically and militarily, will not reach the level of being an "existential threat." What made the Soviet Union an existential threat was the ideological component, at least until its later years when its own internal contradictions rendered it a hollowed-out shell.
China is a straightforward, authoritarian, state capitalist country without the communist ideology that would have made it an existentialist threat had its rise occurred under Mao. China definitely is building up its military and naval capacity, as would any country, as it gains economic power and a place on the world stage. But that is far from being an existential threat.
As for China sending a naval vessel to the Mediterranean, that was simply meant as a signal that it, too, has status. But it did not represent any more of an existential threat than does Russia because it maintains a naval base in Syria at Tartus on the Mediterranean. China, of course, does represent a threat in the waters of the South China and East China Seas, where it has made unsupported claims that are not internationally recognized. This has led to sporadic clashes with Japanese and Philippine vessels. But it remains to be seen whether or not it would lead to any greater conflict. My guess is that it will not.
To bring all of this down to Joe's assumption that there is a US-Iranian-Indian alliance in our future that will be as important as NATO was in the 20th century, I see nothing in the actions of China, or any other country or international condominium, that would be the galvanizing force to make it happen, given the disparities in worldviews and national interests among the three.
On June 25, 1950 North Korea launched an unprovoked attack on the South. On June 27, UNSC Resolution 83 authorizing military action was approved. It was only after UNSC Resolution 83 was approved that the US and its allies began preparations to engage the North. You need to refresh yourself on the history of the conflict.
Regarding "not nice names," that is a figment of your imagination, and if that is your level of English, I recommend you refresh yourself on English language usage, as well as the history of the Korean War.
This is about the third time you have framed your projected US-Iranian-Indian alliance in terms of being just as important as NATO. And once again, I must take issue with your premise.
What made NATO so important, with relatively few disagreements over goals and objectives, were the presence of an existential threat in the form of the Soviet Union, and the shared Western heritage and culture of the members throughout most of NATO's history. Neither Iran nor India share that Western heritage and culture, and they often see the world through a very different lens than we do. That both are the result of Aryan cultures with Indo-European languages, and that India shares a democratic heritage with the US, are thin reeds, culturally speaking.
Today, there does not exist a threat, nor do I anticipate one in the future, equivalent to that represented by the Soviet Union (as correctly perceived by NATO members) that would be sufficiently existential to galvanize the US, Iran, and India into the kind of relatively seamless alliance that we had with NATO. In 1969, as part of the Nixon Doctrine, Iran under the Shah was the US's bulwark in the Near East, but those days are long gone. We certainly will never have such a close relationship with the theocratic regime in Tehran today, and I seriously doubt we will have it with whatever may replace the regime in the future, if indeed it is replaced at all.
India for decades remained aloof when it was tilting toward the Soviet Union as part of the so-called "Non-Aligned Movement." And while relations with the US have become more accommodating, and India has opened up its economy in a more market-oriented approach, India still sees the world through a very different prism than the US. India also is very nationalistic and would not take lightly any perception that it was following US policy. And then, of course, there is our decades-long balancing act between our interests in Pakistan and those in India.
That said, I do see where the US, Iran, and India might come together in the future, not so much in an alliance, but as partners in specific instances where they see their interests aligned. But only in specific instances, not in a formal alliance.
Caused when North Korea under Kim Il Sung launched an unprovoked invasion of the South, after first obtaining Stalin's approval. The US "intervention" was under a United Nations mandate to defend the South from the North's aggression.
"I think the concern is that if anthropomorphic climate change causes a 4dC rise, it will happen so suddenly that ecosystems will collapse."
Anthropomorphic climate change??? Are you suggesting that climate change can have human form, attributes, or characteristics? After all, "anthropomorphic" means having human form, attributes, or characteristics, such as some pets that begin to look like their owners.
I think you meant something like "man-caused," or "human-induced" climate change, but surely not anthropomorphic.
In addition to Alexis de Tocqueville establishing the original concept of "American Exceptionalism," even if he didn't use the exact phrase, there were others who recognized that America was an exceptional nation.
Prince Otto von Bismark purportedly said that "God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States of America," and he meant it as a compliment. It is clear that, Mr. Engelhardt's negativism notwithstanding, nineteenth century Europeans did view America as a country that was special and unique, and with good reason.
"I’m talking about actual property rights to “American exceptionalism.” It’s a phrase often credited to a friendly nineteenth century foreigner, the French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville. As it happens, however, the man who seems to have first used the full phrase was Russian dictator Joseph Stalin."
Although Stalin may have been the first to use the exact phrase and word sequence "American exceptionalism," it is still Alexis de Tocqueville who was the first to express the concept. In his seminal 1840 work "Democracy in America," de Tocqueville wrote:
"The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one."
De Tocqueville deserves credit for the original concept.
"Nice set of unsupported assertions. Got anything that shows that Obviousness?"
I am curious why you posted the two links in your comment, ostensibly in support of the above-cited quote? Neither of the linked articles contradicts in the slightest my assertion that "The more obvious explanation is that the Islamists are attracting fighters because they agree with the goals and program of the Islamists. That, and the fact that the Islamists are much the better field commanders and fighters than the moderates."
Do you just post links randomly without digesting or fully understanding their content?
It is far from obvious that the Islamists are winning fighters' loyalty because they are getting more outside support than the moderates. It is equally far from obvious that said fighters would side with the moderates were they to receive more outside support.
The more obvious explanation is that the Islamists are attracting fighters because they agree with the goals and program of the Islamists. That, and the fact that the Islamists are much the better field commanders and fighters than the moderates.
That these Islamist groups have broken from the Syrian National Council and repudiated the Free Syrian Army should be no surprise. They generally have the toughest commanders and fighters, and more important, their goals for a post-Assad Syria were never in alignment with the moderate SNC and its FSA. They have explicitly stated they want an Islamist government in Syria with Shari'a Law.
Some of us have been predicting this from the beginning and have counseled against US support for the rebels. It is risible to suggest that funneling arms to certain "vetted" groups among the rebels will ensure those arms stay out of the hands of the Islamists. Arms, like money, are fungible and cannot be kept within only one group, particularly with Islamist fighters and Al-Qaeda affiliates in the mix.
The US should stay out of the fray in Syria and let the conflict play itself out. We have no national interests in Syria that are worth getting involved. If Russia arms the Assad regime and Saudi Arabia and Qatar arm the rebels, so be it. The US managed its interests in the Near East reasonably well while living for 40 years with the Assad family running Syria. Should Assad eventually prevail, we can live with him. Should he fall, there is nothing we can do to ensure the Islamists won't prevail, and if they were to do so, the result would likely be much worse than Assad. The US should restrict its activity to providing support for the refugee camps in surrounding countries.
One major raison d'etre for the United Nations is to provide a platform for world leaders to both advance their agendas and vent frustrations publicly in a carefully choreographed political ballet. It is usually designed for maximum effect on the home audience as well as both proponents and opponents in the international community.
Thus it was with Dilma Rousseff's UN speech. No doubt she opposes the alleged NSA surveillance activity in Brazil, but she was equally playing to her Brazilian constituents, as her stock has plummeted in the polls. There have been mass demonstrations against her administration during the past couple of months, and using the US as a foil is a tried and true tactic in Latin America to divert the public's displeasure from its own government's activities to that of the US.
Nevertheless, like her cancellation of the state visit to Washington, Rousseff's UN speech will create only a ripple on the surface of what is a much deeper relationship between Brazil and the United States. It will no more be allowed to disrupt the US-Brazilian relationship than Obama's cancellation of the September summit with Vladimir Putin will be allowed to disrupt the US-Russian relationship. These displays or pique are as much about showmanship as they are about substance, probably more so.
I cannot for the life of me understand why so many put so much faith in Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets it either wrong or incomplete often enough to be considered the Encyclopedia of Misinformation. If any student, graduate or undergraduate, were to submit to me a research paper using Wikipedia as a cite, he would receive a failing grade.
"Hitler also had to eventually start a war or else his inflationary house of cards would have crumbled. He hoped, amongst other things, to recoup the cost of rearmament that way."
I would suggest that you have reversed Hitler's motive and goal. Hitler did not start World War II in order to recoup the cost of rearmament. He rearmed in order to start the war, dominate Europe, and gain "lebensraum" in the East and the breadbasket of the Ukraine.
"On the other hand, a war was always the way out for regimes in precarious situations, q.v. Argentine and the Malvinas/Falklands."
Just curious, how do you conclude that the Falklands War was a "way out" for Argentina? A way out of what? The Argentines were soundly defeated by the UK, and that defeat led to the removal of General Galtieri as President.
Final thought on Al-Shabab. If one year hence Joe is proven correct and Al-Shabab has effectively folded its tent, with the Nairobi attack a sort of final death rattle, I will stake Joe to a steak dinner, should he be anywhere near Washington, DC. That applies to Professor Cole as well.
On the other hand, if one year hence Al-Shabab has experienced a resurgence and has evolved into a regional organization and cat's paw for Al-Qaeda, well, I'll take mine medium rare please.
the service sector contributes about 63 percent to Kenya's GDP, and tourism dominates the service sector. I would suggest that this attack will chill tourism, at least for a couple of years, and that will have a rather large negative effect on the economy.
"There hasn’t been a drone strike in Somalia since June 2012."
The key phrase you are overlooking is "potential resurgence." Their potential resurgence (as evidenced by the Nairobi attack), plus their affiliation with Al-Qaeda, suggests we keep them on the counter-terrorism radar screen. Did I say drone them? No, I did not. But keep them on the radar, and if they are in a resurgent mode, then consider appropriate action.
The core members and leadership of the November 17 terrorist organization were tried and convicted in Athens in December 2003. Without its leadership and core members, the group is considered to be basically inactive now. I know something about their activities, as I was working just up the road in Sofia, Bulgaria when they assassinated the CIA station chief Richard Welch on December 23, 1975 in Athens.
After the assassination of Welch, they assassinated several US military officers and many Greek officials. They carried out sophisticated, well-planned assassinations, as well as bank robberies to finance their operations. I assure you, they were not "bush league." To suggest they were demonstrates a lack of understanding of how nimble and sophisticated they were in carrying out their operations. To conflate November 17 and Al-Shabab as being similar today makes no sense, as November 17 has been rendered inactive and Al-Shabab, as we have seen, remains very active.
"When President Obama and his defense and intel chiefs talk, correctly, about decimating al Qaeda, they’re talking about rendering them as bush league as al Shabab."
"Bush League" is a subjective term in the eye of the beholder. That such a Mumbai-like attack can be carried out in Nairobi suggests that it could be carried out against US interests in East Africa as well. If this proves to be a resurgence of Al-Shabab, as some have suggested, it pays to keep them on the radar.
"These people can’t project power into the United States, or even Europe."
They don't have to, Joe. They have affiliated themselves with Al-Qaeda, and it is enough that they have the potential to mount attacks against US interests in East Africa. (e.g., American Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998.) You may think Al-Shabab is on its last legs, and you have a right to your opinion. But there are counter-terrorism experts who know a lot more about the organization than either you or I, and they suggest we may be witnessing a resurgence in their ability to plan and execute attacks.
"“major terrorist acts” Look, it’s very sad and disturbing that a dozen guys with rifles can kill lots of people in a mall, but it’s not 9/11. It’s not even putting a bomb on a plane."
It doesn't have to be 9/11 or a bomb on a plane to be a major terrorist act. You had better refresh yourself on the definition of terrorism.
"“maintains a rural base in Somalia” translates to “hiding out in the countryside” and “can’t even establish itself as a power in freaking Somalia.”"
I don't recall you suggesting that about AQAP in Yemen, which you were happy to have droned, although they were operating in the "countryside."
"retains the ability to plan and execute major terrorist acts is a fairly low bar."
Since when has the ability to plan and execute major terrorist acts become a "fairly low bar" in your world view? It certainly isn't to the (at last count) 68 people who have been killed in this action.
"Basically, you just described the Manson Family, except they were at least able to “maintain a rural base” in California."
Al-Shabab has suffered political defeat in that it is no longer a force in Mogadishu or Kismayu (thanks to AMISOM). Nevertheless, it maintains a rural base in Somalia and, as is evident, retains the ability to plan and execute major terrorist acts. I doubt that it is "on its way to oblivion," anymore than Al-Qaeda was on its way to oblivion after it lost its base in Afghanistan, or AQAP is on its way to oblivion because it doesn't control Sanaa or Aden.
These terrorist groups can be degraded, and have been in the FATA of Pakistan, in Yemen, and to an extent in Somalia, but they cannot be eradicated, at least not in the short-term. That's why it is important to keep up the counter-terrorism pressure on them, including Al Shabab in Somalia, in order to deprive them as much as possible of their leadership and operational planners. If they cannot be driven into oblivion in the short-term, they can at least be forced to constantly revise their own security, and when drone strikes are on target, have their commanders and operational leadership taken out. Were that not the case, they would have carte blanche to plan and execute even more terrorist attacks.
The Republicans are in the same position now that the Democrats were in for 20 years after 1972. The McGovern "reforms" of the Democratic party, and McGovern's crushing defeat in 1972, destroyed any chances of winning the Presidency (Jimmie Carter was an anomaly who would not have won but for Nixon's crimes involving Watergate) until Bill Clinton and the Democratic Centrists won in 1992. In order to win the primary, Democratic candidates had to run so far to the left that they didn't stand a chance of winning the general election.
Republicans are now in the wilderness, just as the Democrats were then, and for the same reason. In order to win the primary, Republican candidates must run so far to the right that they don't stand a chance of winning the general election. Judging from the way the Tea Party and the party's extreme right seem to dominate, it looks like the Republicans will remain in the wilderness for many years, just as the Democrats did.
Robert Reich has never been a politician. You may be referring to his appointment as Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, but he has never run for political office. Aside from his term as Labor Secretary, he has pursued an academic career.
"We saw the President vs. the Lobby back when Obama was pushing a settlement freeze after all, and the Lobby won."
The Israeli Lobby had nothing to do with Obama's buckling on his attempt to get a settlement freeze. Obama and the administration were dealing directly with the Israelis in November-December 2010, trying to get a total freeze on settlements for 90 days. Netanyahu would not budge on the issue and refused to agree to the freeze. It was Netanyahu and the Israeli government itself, not the Lobby, who stiffed Obama on the freeze.
I agree, Joe, that given the right political chemistry, Iran, of all countries in the Near East, would be the most natural ally of the United States in the Region. In fact, under the Nixon Doctrine implemented in 1969, Iran under the Shah was the guardian of US interests in the region, as we pulled back from our defense commitments during the Vietnam War wind-down.
Nevertheless, I would not go so far as to consider an American-Iranian alliance as important as NATO was and is. There is nothing that I can see that suggests our national interests would align in the future as seamlessly as they did with the US and our NATO allies during the Cold War. For one thing, there is no existential threat to bind us together. For another, Iran is likely to have very different priorities in the region than the US.
I don't see a NATO-like alliance between the US and Iran, but I do see the possibility of an agreement to act in concert when both our interests are in alignment.
"If I recall correctly, Kissinger’s role in the overthrow of Allende was one of the charges included by Christopher Hitchens in his book, “The Trial of Henry Kissinger."
Christopher Hitchens certainly had it in for Henry Kissinger, but Hitchens was all over the map. You may recall that Hitchens supported the Iraq war and was one of the first voices to refer to Jihadists as "Islamofascism." I wouldn't put much faith in anything Hitchens wrote, as you never knew what his position would be the following day.
Like many on the Left, Mr. Bodden, you continue to confuse the attempts by the Nixon Administration to undermine Allende by supporting unions, the newspaper El Mercurio, and others, as well as thwarting IMF loans, throughout the three years of Allende's time in office, with the actual planning and execution of the coup. Senator Frank Church (no friend of Nixon) held hearings on the CIA and concluded that there was no CIA involvement in the planning and execution of the coup itself.
As I stated in my comment above, it is an enduring myth of the Left that the US planned and helped execute the coup. That was not the case. The US attempted to undermine Allende and provided $8 million over the three year period leading up to the coup. Obviously the US was pleased to see Allende go. But the question is what part did the US play in the coup itself, and the answer is, it did not play a role.
Your quote from John Pilger is of a conversation not long after Allende took office, when the Nixon Administration was trying to come up with a plan to destabilize Chile. It does not refer to any US plan for a coup.
"An atypical “Bill” comment, as this is a bald-faced lie instead of a straw man or a begged question. Other commenters have pointed out its untruth. It would be accurate to say: the CIA sought to preserve some deniability by distancing itself from its involvement with Operation Condor, efforts which included misinformation peddled by Peter Kornbluth."
Please provide your sources that led you to believe it is a "bald-faced lie," and what is the evidence you possess indicating Peter Kornbluh was part of the plot to sow misinformation.
Technical assistance to Latin American public security services was being provided even before Operation Condor was initiated. The fact is Condor was a Chilean-inspired and organized operation. The CIA did not set it up.
There are far more accurate and dependable resources on Operation Condor and events in Chile under Pinochet than Wikipedia, which at times resembles nothing so much as an Encyclopedia of Misinformation. I would suggest you begin with Peter Kornbluh's book "The Pinochet File," based on his in-depth research with the National Security Archives' project on Chile. There are other resources, but that would be a good start.
It must be tempting to look up topics on Wikipedia, and then present the information as if one had sagely known it all along. The problem is when Wikipedia gets it wrong or incomplete, as it often does, it is reflected in one's comments. Better to actually read the accounts of political scientists and historians who actually know something about the topic under discussion.
"That is wholly inaccurate and doesn’t represent the actual events on the ground. Yours is only half of a very dark time in U.S. hemispheric involvement. September 11, 1973 was America’s overthrow of Salvador Allende; it’s been very well documented and reported."
I would be glad to entertain your challenge to my comment on Operation Condor. Unfortunately, you have presented no facts or evidence to which I can respond.
Regarding Allende's overthrow, one of the Left's enduring myths is that the United States was behind the planning and execution of General Augusto Pinochet's 1973 coup in Chile. As was brought out in Senator Frank Church's 1975 Senate hearings on the CIA's intelligence activities, the CIA did provide $8 million over a three-year period to various opposition groups in Chile to keep them going, including labor unions, the anti-Allende newspaper El Mercurio (which Allende was attempting to shut down by having the nationalized banks withhold credit for newsprint), and others. Nevertheless, the U.S. provided neither funding nor assistance in the planning and execution of the coup itself. Although Embassy officials had evidence that something was afoot, they were not privy to the timing and actual plan itself.
Anyone who has served in Chile and studied the 1973 coup would find it laughable to hear someone insist that the Chilean military would need assistance from the U.S. The Chilean military was based on the Prussian model, was (and is) a very professional military, and was perfectly capable of planning and executing the coup on its own.
That the United States was glad to see Allende overthrown is undeniable. It does not follow, however, that the United States engineered the action that led to his overthrow.
The CIA monitored Operation Condor, and after it was established provided some technical assistance to individual countries. But it did not provide "strategic" knowledge to the group. The intelligence chiefs of the member states knew far more about the leftist guerrilla groups operating within their respective countries than the CIA or any other outside source.
You have fallen into the trap of ascribing everything that happened in Latin America to some nefarious CIA plot. In doing so, you fail to recognize that Latin Americans are agents in their own right and have made decisions, good or bad, on their own. To deny them their own agency is a form of "soft" discrimination that says more about you than it does about them.
Operation Condor was organized by Chilean intelligence chief Manuel Contreras under General Pinochet. Chile took the lead in organizing and setting the agenda. The CIA had nothing to do with either organizing it or supplying it, although the CIA did monitor its activities.
Operation Condor was established in October 1975, when Manuel Contreras invited the intelligence chiefs of Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia to Santiago for a meeting, at which time they agreed to coordinate their efforts to fight leftist guerrillas who were operating in their countries. At a subsequent meeting in Santiago in May 1976, Brazil joined the original five to review their efforts and discuss further long-range cooperation.
The United States was not a participant at Operation Condor's inception or subsequent meetings. This was totally a Southern Cone operation spearheaded by Chile. All of this has been thoroughly documented by Peter Kornbluth of the National Security Archive Project and is detailed in the book "The Pinochet File," as well as in other publications.
Rousseff's cancellation of her state visit to the US is more an attempt to shore up her waning support in Brazil rather than a principled snub at the US. There have been huge demonstrations against her government in Brazil for wasting money preparing for the World Cup and Olympics while ignoring the real needs of the people. With her popularity taking a dive, this "snub" is the old tactic of diverting Brazilians' attention to a perceived external threat and away from her own internal difficulties.
This, too, shall pass. Both Brazil and the US have too much at stake to allow Rousseff's pique to interfere with our relationship. It will be a mere blip on the radar screen.
"from its Northern neighbour, who lost 5 million citizens to the armed hands of the US."
You are referring to North Korea's unprovoked invasion of the South in 1950, and the US and allied efforts to defend the South and restore the status quo ante under a UN Security Council Resolution, aren't you? Any losses suffered by the North were wholly brought about by their own initial aggression against the South.
To finish my comment above, after inadvertently hitting the "reply" button.
Their extreme positions at times end up in a ludicrous convergence, such as the Left and the Tea Party's view that the US Government is the fascist enemy.
"I believe the left wing is no more rational than the right wing. Both adhere to the ideology that makes them feel good and relegated evidence to the distant background."
You have hit upon a core truth in today's environment. Both the left and the right refuse to acknowledge any evidence that does not support their ideologically-blinkered world view. Moreover, both not only relegate such evidence to the distant background; they manufacture evidence that appears to support their ideologically preconceived positions. Their extreme position at times end up in a ludicrous converg, such as the
"Professor, would there be any way for your site to start displaying an icon of a pot with a crack in it beside the comments of people who spent the last month blaming the victims of the chemical warfare attack for their own deaths?"
You have a good idea there, Joe. I suggest, however, that your criteria for display of the cracked pot icon be widened to include those who consistently parrot their own pet phrases over and over, regardless of the topic under discussion.
In the September 7 edition of the Washington Post, Max Fisher reported on Samantha Power's speech to the Center for American Progress, Joe. I have quoted his initial paragraph, but will spare you the entire manuscript.
"U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power delivered the following speech at the Center for American Progress on Friday advocating for the Obama administration's plan to launch limited off-shore strikes against Syria. The complete transcript, well worth reading in full, is below."
Cruise missile strikes are about as direct an interventionist activity as exists. Power and Rice have a history of advocating for direct US military intervention, whether it take the form of troops in Rwanda or missiles in Syria, as long as it is for "humanitarian" purposes. They are far less inclined to support military intervention on behalf of US national interests.
Both Powers and Rice criticized the US for not intervening in Rwanda, which definitely would have required armed force. They are not talking about delivering food aid and evacuating victims via military choppers.
If he wishes to leave the US that's his business. But then he loses any standing to chide and hector those who choose to remain and live in the US because he doesn't think they effectively oppose the US Government. He not only did it in his post above, he has done it in previous comments as well.
Such a stance reeks of hypocrisy. And the definition of hypocrisy applies: The homage vice pays to virtue.
"Which is something I saw a long time ago; and I elected to find a way out. More than a decade later I see no evidence "the people" have done much of anything to reverse the deterioration of the U.S. democracy."
As I recall your previous posts on the subject, you found your "way out" by leaving the United States to reside elsewhere. That "way out" certainly took no courage and did nothing to, in your words, "reverse the deterioration of US democracy." You are hardly in a position to chide "the people" in the US for a failure to execute a responsibility that you yourself abdicated ten years ago.
The Federal Reserve is not a private corporation. Congress created it in 1913 to maintain the stability of the financial system. The President appoints, and the Senate confirms, the members of its Board of Governors. And it's not out to make a profit after taking care of expenses. Any left over earnings go to Treasury after expenses are paid out. Moreover, the details of its responsibilities are subject to Congressional oversight.
The Fed is classified as an independent central bank, as neither the executive nor the legislature branches get a direct say in its decision-making, and it pays for its own operations (primarily by acquiring U.S. government securities on the open market). I know this is confusing for some people who conclude that it is a private corporation, but it most assuredly is not. In short, the Fed is an independent entity within the US Government.
"What do we have in common with a Saudi tyrant that still upholds slavery?"
Slavery was officially abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962. That does not mean that some Saudi households do not treat their Filipina and Indonesian help as if they were indentured servants, but it's a stretch to say that the king "upholds slavery."
"Your second paragraph reads like a political talk show guest spinning during a campaign."
If you think his drawing of "red lines" and emphatic pronouncements that Assad "must go" did not box him into an untenable position in which he either had to follow through or look impotent; and if you think that his threat to follow through with an "imminent" strike on Syria and then his sudden reversal to put the issue up to a Congressional vote that he was likely to lose did not make him look even more equivocal and impotent, then your idea of deft handling of foreign and defense policy is very different from mine.
Obama's primary foreign policy goal regarding Syria has for two years been Assad's ouster, with the chemical weapons issue only achieving prominence since their use a couple of months ago. I would say that Obama's agreement with Putin leaves Assad in a much more secure position than before the agreement, as I doubt that Obama will launch a strike on Syria now even if the agreement becomes contentious and delayed in its implementation. Plus, Putin will run interference for Assad, and the amount of arms we contemplate giving the rebels will hardly be enough to tip the balance.
Regarding Obama's loss of stature, his handling of the issue has been a series of rather amateurish moves from the beginning. His drawing of "red lines" and emphatic pronouncements that Assad "must go" boxed him into an untenable position in which he either had to follow through or look impotent. Although he appeared to follow through with his "imminent" strike on Syria, his sudden reversal to put the issue up to a Congressional vote that he was likely to lose made him look even more equivocal and impotent.
I am not a fan of Putin, but I think that the Russians appear to be in the driver's seat now, and, yes, comparatively speaking, that does appear to have diminished Obama in stature.
Russian influence no doubt is much more in Central Asian than in Syria. Nevertheless, if one is talking solely about the Near East, Syria is Russia's only real conduit for influence.
A. Russia no doubt is backing the Syrian government in part to protect Eastern Orthodox Christians and the primacy of secular rule over that of Islamic extremists. Nevertheless, I think the primary reason is that the alliance with Assad is the conduit through which Russia maintains a modicum of influence (and a naval base) in the Near East. Without Syria, Russia's influence would be nil.
B. Obama and Putin needed each other as dance partners in this diplomatic minuet. No doubt Obama's threat to launch a strike on Syria got Putin's attention. But Obama had boxed himself in with his "Red Lines" and talk of "Assad must go." Obama then brought into question his seriousness by reversing himself and taking it to Congress for a vote he would likely lose, after first indicating a strike was imminent. Kerry's London gaffe and Putin's jumping on it offered Obama a way out.
C. The results are a strike has been averted and Assad is strengthened. Putin has gained stature and Obama appears equivocal and amateurish. Finally, implementation of the chemical weapons agreement will prove contentious and painful, and the civil war will continue with no end in sight.
I would just add to my comment above that although it is unfortunate that Obama did not attend the APEC meeting and China took a more leading role with Xi Jinping attending, it is a temporary blip on the radar. It does not represent any overall diminishment of the US role in the world. But we will need to assure the ASEAN members that we are committed to the relationship, as they fear an assertive China without a strong US presence to provide balance.
"China is probably going to set the agenda for the final agreements with Iran, not the US."
China is hardly in a position to "set the agenda for the final agreements with Iran." China is not even involved in the negotiations. Any agreements reached with Iran, should the talks result in any, will be the product of the US, the EU, and Iran negotiating them. Ultimately, Iran sees its future links with the US and the West as important as, or more so than, those with China.
Far too much emphasis is placed by some on China overtaking the US. It will not happen any time soon, if it happens at all. The idiocy of Ted Cruz and the Tea Party was an embarrassment, and it put a temporary dent in the US's reputation. But the world economy still runs on the US dollar, and that is not going to be replaced by a "basket" of currencies any time soon. Foreign investors still view US Treasuries as the safest investment. And Foreign businesses still look to the US as one of the safest places to do business and invest.
While China has demonstrated increasing assertiveness in laying claim to practically the entire South China Sea, as well as to the Senkaku Islands, it is far from ready to replace the US role in the world. China's interest is in assuring it has access to mineral and energy resources, but it has not really won many friends in the developing world with its aid. And as bumbling and unwieldy as it seems, the US model is still much more attractive to most countries than China's authoritarian model.
President Obama's absence at the APEC meeting, allowing China's Xi Jinping to take the leadership role at the summit, was the worst outcome in terms of our international role. This, at a time when we are attempting to reinforce our "pivot" toward Asia, weakened the US just as ASEAN countries in particular are looking to the US as a balancing force against Chinese territorial designs on the South China Sea. Obama's absence, unfortunately, will not inspire confidence that the US is a reliable partner to balance China's increasing assertiveness.
Sorry, Spyguy, but CIA drones and high altitutde aircraft have no way of penetrating underground facilities, and the CIA does not have "operatives on the ground" capable of infiltrating the Iranian nuclear program. That's why we are pushing for IAEA inspections.
Mark, neither the US Government in general nor the CIA in particular are supporting the MEK. The MEK has no platform within the Iranian government that would result in hard intelligence, and they have demonstrated a feckless approach that the CIA is certainly avoiding. The MEK has nothing of value to offer the US, and we are keeping them at arm's length. The CIA is not aiding them.
That the pro-Israeli community in the US employs the likes of Rudy Giuliani to flog their case on behalf of the MEK is irrelevant. The US Government does not take its marching orders from Rudy Giuliani. The fact is, regardless what Israel and its supporters may do, the US does not employ the MEK as an instrument of its Iran policy, either overtly or covertly.
What you are missing, Dennis, is an understanding of how the CIA actually operates and a nuanced view of the reach and overall competence of US (and other countries') government agencies. It is not easy to establish a network of agents in a country like Iran, where there is absolutely no US presence and, thus, no way to run agents. And to run agents from outside the country carries a huge risk for the agents and the operation. That's why it is so difficult to ascertain what is going on in countries like Iran and North Korea.
Your comment that the CIA must be all over Iran, and if they are not they are "incompetent in the extreme," demonstrates further a naive understanding of how intelligence operates in these situations. It also demonstrates an unwarranted faith that the US Government is always competent in its various endeavors. Historically, there have been enough failures to put that idea to bed.
The thing is, Joe, there are those, some who post on this blog, who think that anyone to the right of Che Guevara is a conservative. One must humor them.
Heretofore, Iran has made the lifting of ssanctions and international banking restrictions a prerequisite to any give on its part regarding the nuclear issue. That has been, and should be, a non-starter. The United States and the West should be prepared to lift sanctions and financial banking restrictions incrementally in response to solid steps Iran takes in allowing full, unfettered IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities, as well as appropariate disposal of any highly-enriched uranium it might possess.
No negotiations have to end immediately in an "all or nothing" conclusion. Both Iran and the US can establish "good faith" steps by incrementally agreeing to verifiable steps Iran takes on its nuclear program and the lifting of some sanctions by the US and the West. As negotiations move forward and more and more of these incremental steps are taken by both sides, the end result could be satisfactory for both sides. But it will take a lot more trust and verfication on the part of both sides than have been demonstrated to date.
"It all depends on the political persuasion of the federal judge or judges hearing the case."
You are correct Mark. Diggs-Taylor was a liberal judge and ruled as you would expect a liberal judge to rule. Her ruling was reversed by the conservative Sixth Circuit, which is the way you would expect a conservative court to rule.
The same thing occurs in other instances. For example the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit has had more rulings overturned than any other Appeals Court that I am aware of.
This is the natural order of things, if one can call it that. In the above cases, neither is "right" or "wrong." Rather whether one agrees with a court's decision or not depends on one's own political persuasion. There is no overarching standard by which one can definitively conclude the correctness of the courts' decisions.
Sorry, Mr. McPhee, but what does your comment have to do with illigal migrants to the EU?
It is a worldwide phenomenon, Ad Hominem, that the vast majority of illegal immigration is driven by the hope of economic advancement and to escape instability, not because of actual political persecution. That is the case whether the illegal immigration occurs across the Rio Grande or across the Mediterranean.
There is no hard evidence that tightening asylum laws would stem such illegal immigration because it has not been done yet, either in the United States or in the European Union. In both cases, once these illegal immigrants reach soil and make a claim of political asylum, they cannot be turned away until their cases are adjudicated. Common sense, however, suggests that if asylum laws were tightened and those attempting to use the system for economic gain were denied and turned back, the flow would drop to a trickle.
The European Union's asylum laws are probably too lax, as that is the magnet that pulls the illegal immigrants to make the dangerous voyage across the Mediterranean in their attempt to reach Europe and seek asylum. If the EU were to tighten up their asylum laws and make it much more difficult for illegal immigrants who reach EU soil to gain asylum, and if they were sent back, the flow would drop to a trickle.
Most of the illegal immigrants seeking asylum are not really political of social refugees under the United Nations definition. The vast majority are economic migrants who want a better life. One cannot blame them, of course, but the EU has neither the responsibility nor the obligation to accommodate them.
That many of the posts on this blog are so critical of almost every move made by the US Government, without the poster experiencing the Midnight Knock on the Door, is evidence that whatever NSA might be doing, it certainly is not adversely affecting those who freely comment here.
Again, Snowden's comment about NSA's activities "hurting the economy" is not borne out by the evidence. The economy is doing fine in spite of NSA's activities; there is no evidence that they have caused harm to the economy.
The example you give has not made a dent in the US economy, Huskynut. You might as well say that 60 percent of new restaurant startups fail within their second year of operation. Such failures are part of the economic equation and do not affect the overall economy, anymore than your example does.
"Snowden said this week of surveillance techniques: 'They hurt our economy. They hurt our country. They limit our ability to speak and think and live and be creative, to have relationships and to associate freely…'"
The usual Snowden babble. Easy to make sweeping statements that one does not even bother to justify with evidence. Hurt our economy? How, and by how much, Mr. Snowden? Limit our ability to speak and think? Risible, as I see no evidence that anyone contributing to this blog has had his ability to think and speak or write limited. I know of no one who has had relationships and associations limited, unless, of course, they were with terrorists who would do the US harm. The only limits are those that are a result of the self-limiting actions of those paranoid conspiracy theorists who are convinced that the US Government is "after them."
"On September 22 an horrific suicide bombing killed more than 80 people. They were worshiping in a church in Peshawar when two bombers detonated inside the building. An armed group, Jundallah, claimed the attack as revenge for US drone strikes."
Two points on the above-cited attack on Pakistani Christians.
A. Although Jundallah claimed the attack was revenge for US drone strikes, Christians have been under attack by Islamic militants in Pakistan and Egypt regardless of drone strikes. The attack might well have occurred in any case, and the drone strikes were simply used as an excuse.
B. But let's assume Jundallah did launch the church carnage as revenge for US drone attacks. What kind of twisted mind would kill one's own people because of drone strikes launched by outsiders (the US) who have nothing to do with the Pakistani Christians killed by the Islamist militants? Such twisted logic lends even more credence to the likelihood that Jundallah just wanted to kill Christians, and the drone strikes were used a pretext.
"The U.S. is being taught a lesson by their Asian counterpart, China."
The above comment is risible to anyone who knows how China operates in developing countries. I have seen first-hand how China's "aid" programs operate in the Pacific. In Samoa and Micronesia, the Chinese build modern buildings for government complexes without regard for the local conditions. they bring in all of their workers and do not hire or train any of the local people. It is the "Chinese way or the highway." After they leave, the structures are left without any followup maintenance or care. While the locals accept the structures, they resent the Chinese refusal to train or utilize local materials and labor, as well as the lack of followup.
Chinese "soft power." Laughable, and could only be invoked by someone who knows nothing about how the Chinese actually operate.
To explain the "disorder" (and that's a polite phrase to describe the utter failure to govern in Libya), and to serve as an apologist for said chaos, by using the analogy of the American Revolution demonstrates a lack of knowledge of both the American Revolution and what's occurring in Libya. The American Revolution was fought to throw off British rule. Neither during the Revolution nor after was there the utter chaos of militias within the American populace fighting, and succeeding to thwart the attempt to establish a unified government, initially under the Articles of Confederation and then under the Federal Constitution. There was disagreement concerning State's vs. Federal rights and responsibilities, but they were hammered out in conference.
There is absolutely no comparison between the establishment of the American Republic by those individuals deeply steeped in the Magna Carta, the philosophy of John Locke, and the Enlightenment; and those who are attempting to establish a government in Libya (and their opponents) whose legacy includes none of the above. I have argued from the beginning that it was pure naivete to even refer to something called the "Arab Spring." From the beginning it seemed more appropriate to refer to an "Arab Transition," and as events progress I am even more convinced of that.
Luis Posada Carriles has always denied involvement in the Cubana Airlines bombing. The United States refused to extradite him to Venezuela and Cuba because of the likelihood that he would be tortured.
Sound familiar? You no doubt would agree that the US should not send someone (such as Al-Qaeda an terrorist) to a country where he is likely to be tortured. You no doubt will equally appreciate the US government's refusal to send Carriles to Venezuela or Cuba for the same reason.
SOCOM is not an independent agency, Brian. It still reports to SECDEF. It is not unusual for a command to want its own INTEL capability. That does not mean it has gone off the reservation.
"As opposed to the Libyan government, which still needs to get permission from the local militia when it wants to turn on a water works. The Libyan government wasn’t protecting this guy."
That the Libyan government is weak and ineffective, and wasn't protecting Al-Libi is irrelevant when it comes to its condemnation of the US's snatching of Al-Libi off the street in Tripoli as an "affront to its sovereignty." It can hardly claim an "affront to its sovereignty" when there is hardly any "sovereignty" to which it can lay claim if it cannot even manage such security issues.
"I look forward to everyone having no problem with other nations snatching war criminals and terrorists from the streets of America."
They won't have to because, unlike Libya and Pakistan, America captures and prosecutes known war criminals and terrorists operating on American soil.
"because there might be disorder for a little while after the overthrow of the ancien regime. Henry Kissinger approves."
Actually, Joe, there is no evidence that the disordor in Libya will last, or that initiated by Morsi's Islamist authoritarian tendencies in Egypt would have lasted (without military intervention), "for a little while." There is an equally good chance the disorder would have lasted, and will last, for a long while and get worse. Remember the "Terror" after the French Revolution? It was not "disorder" that "lasted for a little while."
But then, to paraphrase you, "Robespierre would approve."
"Most Libyans oppose al-Qaeda, but many were upset by this affront to their national sovereighty."
Hard to sympathize with their sense of an "affront to their national sovereignty" when the terrorist Al-Libi was living openly in their midst and no one was doing anything about it. This is on par in principle with Pakistanis considering it an "affront" to their national sovereignty when the US seals took down Bin-Laden who had been living right in their midst. If you are allowing these terrorist leaders and operatives to live among you with impunity and do nothing about it, you cannot expect sympathy when someone else violates your sovereignty in order to do what you yourself should have done in order to stem terrorism and bring perpetrators the justice they deserve.
I would expect a more mature response, Roland, than the cartoon image you project in your comment.
No, Farhad, the US counter-terrorism program has not increased terrorism; it in fact has degraded the top echelons of Al-Qaeda Central and its affiliated organizations. Drones have killed nowhere near the number of civilians that firefights on the ground would have killed. And finally, yes, the Administration, after careful intelligence and vetting, does kill terrorists who otherwise would not be brought before tribunals to receive the justice they so richly deserve.
Meanwhile, it was a very good weekend for US counter-terrorism with the capture by US Special Forces of Nazih Abdel-Hamed Ruqai (Nazih Al-Libi) in Tripoli, Libya. He masterminded the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salam. He no doubt is on a US navy vessel being interrogated and will be brought to the US to stand trial.
Regretfully, the Special Forces team that was after the leader of Al-Shabab in Somalia had to withdraw before confirming whether they killed him or not. Apparently the ground commander decided the firefight was so intense that it endangered many civilians. This illustrates the value of drones to kill terrorists, as they produce far fewer civilian casualties than full-blown fire fights usually do.
Mr. Bodden is absolutely correct. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is, has been, and will continue to be, "the boss." Don't ever think that anything Rouhani says or does will be done without Khamenei's blessing. And if Rouhani were to deviate from Khamenei's line (as he apparently did in the phone conversation with Obama), he (Rouhani) would be brought into line pronto.
Don't know to whom you refer when you throw around terms such as "You Players," "You Grown-ups," and other terms and phrases taken from your handy stack of 3x5 index cards. One thing for sure, though, is that the utterances of Khamenei and Sherman are certainly not false equivalences; they are equally offensive if one hopes to gain traction in each understanding the other.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's statement on his view of the United States: "We consider the government of the United States of America as an unreliable, arrogant, illogical, and trespassing government..." is hardly less offensive than Wendy Sherman's statement: "We know that deception is part of the DNA."
"Unreliable," "arrogant," "illogical," "trespassing government," "deception in DNA": they all sound equally offensive and equally petty, coming from two individuals who presumably are adults, one the de facto leader of his country, the other a high level foreign policy official.
"The real question is whether a place can be found in Egyptian politics for the Muslim Brotherhood."
And if a place can be found in Egyptian politics for the Muslim Brotherhood, the question then becomes: Can the Muslim Brotherhood behave in the manner of a mature political party that is one among several, without attempting to overreach its mandate and impose its views on the Egyptian state and public?
"I personally am a LOT safer after Snowden alerted the masses to some of what the government does to us."
No, Brian, you are not a lot safer. In fact, you are less safe since Snowden's unauthorized theft of classified information was dumped into the public realm. Now that Snowden has alerted terrorists who would do us harm to classified methods of linking up their phone conversations, they can take counter-measures. As a result, Snowden has made our counter-terrorism efforts more difficult and the rest of us less safe.
I did not state that Snowden committed treason. In fact, he did not commit treason, as he did not convey the classified information he took without authorization to an enemy engaged in hostilities against the US. Nevertheless, he engaged in unauthorized theft of highly classified information, and in revealing its contents he has done harm to US security, particularly in the area of counter-terrorism.
Ted Cruz and the Tea Party wing-nuts have certainly done their share of damage to national security with the shutdown, and Edward Snowden has done his share with the egregious violation of his security clearance and the trust (mistakenly) placed in him. Together, they represent the worst that America places in positions affecting national security. That one is a miscreant does not mitigate the actions of the other.
Read General McCalister’s book, “Dereliction of Duty” which documents 1960=1964."
The book "Dereliction of Duty" was written by Major General H.R. McMaster, (not McCalister).
"There was a recognition during the Johnson administration that the Vietnam war was lost, but Johnson, McNamara and the generals didn’t feel they could bring themselves to admit to it. That is just one countless examples throughout history of “feelings” taking precedence over reason and a temporary hold on power."
Although Johnson and his top civilian and military advisers recognized they could not prevail in Vietnam, they continued pursuing the war not because they could not admit it, or because their "feelings" prevented them from doing so. Johnson and his advisers knew they could not prevail, but they were driven onward in the war's pursuit because they thought that to opt out would send a disastrous signal to our allies that the US would not stand by its commitments. That and the slim hope that some sort of Korea-like "truce" might eventually be engineered. They may have been misguided in this approach, but "feelings" had nothing to do with it.
There is hardly what one would call "chronic instability" in Bahrain. In fact, despite the crackdowns, Bahrain is remarkably stable, and it's Saudi ally will no doubt ensure that it remains so.
The US Fifth Fleet is primarily a stabilizing force in the Gulf. Aside from Iran, most states in the region welcome its presence.
"to folks who believe that the authority of a government flows from the consent of the governed, US support of any of the GCC nations is odious."
I appreciate your idealistic worldview, Brian. Nevertheless, the United States operates in a much grayer world than your binary black-and-white approach suggests. Accordingly, the US must deal with most governments as they are, not as we might wish them to be.
"There’s National Interests here, folks…"
I'm pleased that finally you have recognized that fact. There is yet hope.
"Way past time to withdraw the naval base from Bahrain. It is illogical to maintain relations with that state but not with Iran. Iran even has far more oil."
The US naval base in Bahrain is an important asset, as it provides the US Fifth Fleet with a naval presence in a volatile region that it would otherwise not have. Moreover, If the US eventually reaches a reasonable modus vivendi with Iran, there is no reason why the US cannot maintain the Fifth Fleet presence in Bahrain and have relations with Iran that include being a customer for its oil. That Bahrain and Iran may not see eye to eye on certain issues does not preclude the US from having relations with both nations.
"Bill, "China’s rise, economically and militarily, will not reach the level of being an “existential threat." To the US? Or to India?"
To neither. The key component of the phrase is "existential." Certainly not to the US. And China is not about to threaten the very existence of India either. At most, there may be skirmishes, as there were in the 1962 "war". But the US is certainly not going to form a NATO-like alliance that obligates it to defend India against potential Chinese border or naval skirmishes.
"I also find your faith in “state capitalism” as restraint on geopolitical avarice quite unconvincing."
I mention "state capitalism" for two reasons. First, once imbedded in the international system of trade that has been an economic boon to China, it is far less likely to take major military action against the US, India, Japan, and others that would result in a major setback to its economic position. Second, I mention it to emphasize that China is no longer driven by the communist ideology that would have made it much more an existential threat if it were.
"The “existential threat” will be from China....This has already occurred in the recent Syria poison gas controversy where a Chinese warship was dispatched to the area of the Mediterranean Sea near Syria."
China's rise, economically and militarily, will not reach the level of being an "existential threat." What made the Soviet Union an existential threat was the ideological component, at least until its later years when its own internal contradictions rendered it a hollowed-out shell.
China is a straightforward, authoritarian, state capitalist country without the communist ideology that would have made it an existentialist threat had its rise occurred under Mao. China definitely is building up its military and naval capacity, as would any country, as it gains economic power and a place on the world stage. But that is far from being an existential threat.
As for China sending a naval vessel to the Mediterranean, that was simply meant as a signal that it, too, has status. But it did not represent any more of an existential threat than does Russia because it maintains a naval base in Syria at Tartus on the Mediterranean. China, of course, does represent a threat in the waters of the South China and East China Seas, where it has made unsupported claims that are not internationally recognized. This has led to sporadic clashes with Japanese and Philippine vessels. But it remains to be seen whether or not it would lead to any greater conflict. My guess is that it will not.
To bring all of this down to Joe's assumption that there is a US-Iranian-Indian alliance in our future that will be as important as NATO was in the 20th century, I see nothing in the actions of China, or any other country or international condominium, that would be the galvanizing force to make it happen, given the disparities in worldviews and national interests among the three.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue, Joe.
On June 25, 1950 North Korea launched an unprovoked attack on the South. On June 27, UNSC Resolution 83 authorizing military action was approved. It was only after UNSC Resolution 83 was approved that the US and its allies began preparations to engage the North. You need to refresh yourself on the history of the conflict.
Regarding "not nice names," that is a figment of your imagination, and if that is your level of English, I recommend you refresh yourself on English language usage, as well as the history of the Korean War.
This is about the third time you have framed your projected US-Iranian-Indian alliance in terms of being just as important as NATO. And once again, I must take issue with your premise.
What made NATO so important, with relatively few disagreements over goals and objectives, were the presence of an existential threat in the form of the Soviet Union, and the shared Western heritage and culture of the members throughout most of NATO's history. Neither Iran nor India share that Western heritage and culture, and they often see the world through a very different lens than we do. That both are the result of Aryan cultures with Indo-European languages, and that India shares a democratic heritage with the US, are thin reeds, culturally speaking.
Today, there does not exist a threat, nor do I anticipate one in the future, equivalent to that represented by the Soviet Union (as correctly perceived by NATO members) that would be sufficiently existential to galvanize the US, Iran, and India into the kind of relatively seamless alliance that we had with NATO. In 1969, as part of the Nixon Doctrine, Iran under the Shah was the US's bulwark in the Near East, but those days are long gone. We certainly will never have such a close relationship with the theocratic regime in Tehran today, and I seriously doubt we will have it with whatever may replace the regime in the future, if indeed it is replaced at all.
India for decades remained aloof when it was tilting toward the Soviet Union as part of the so-called "Non-Aligned Movement." And while relations with the US have become more accommodating, and India has opened up its economy in a more market-oriented approach, India still sees the world through a very different prism than the US. India also is very nationalistic and would not take lightly any perception that it was following US policy. And then, of course, there is our decades-long balancing act between our interests in Pakistan and those in India.
That said, I do see where the US, Iran, and India might come together in the future, not so much in an alliance, but as partners in specific instances where they see their interests aligned. But only in specific instances, not in a formal alliance.
"Korea…stalemate that exist to this day."
Caused when North Korea under Kim Il Sung launched an unprovoked invasion of the South, after first obtaining Stalin's approval. The US "intervention" was under a United Nations mandate to defend the South from the North's aggression.
"I think the concern is that if anthropomorphic climate change causes a 4dC rise, it will happen so suddenly that ecosystems will collapse."
Anthropomorphic climate change??? Are you suggesting that climate change can have human form, attributes, or characteristics? After all, "anthropomorphic" means having human form, attributes, or characteristics, such as some pets that begin to look like their owners.
I think you meant something like "man-caused," or "human-induced" climate change, but surely not anthropomorphic.
In addition to Alexis de Tocqueville establishing the original concept of "American Exceptionalism," even if he didn't use the exact phrase, there were others who recognized that America was an exceptional nation.
Prince Otto von Bismark purportedly said that "God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States of America," and he meant it as a compliment. It is clear that, Mr. Engelhardt's negativism notwithstanding, nineteenth century Europeans did view America as a country that was special and unique, and with good reason.
"I’m talking about actual property rights to “American exceptionalism.” It’s a phrase often credited to a friendly nineteenth century foreigner, the French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville. As it happens, however, the man who seems to have first used the full phrase was Russian dictator Joseph Stalin."
Although Stalin may have been the first to use the exact phrase and word sequence "American exceptionalism," it is still Alexis de Tocqueville who was the first to express the concept. In his seminal 1840 work "Democracy in America," de Tocqueville wrote:
"The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one."
De Tocqueville deserves credit for the original concept.
"Nice set of unsupported assertions. Got anything that shows that Obviousness?"
I am curious why you posted the two links in your comment, ostensibly in support of the above-cited quote? Neither of the linked articles contradicts in the slightest my assertion that "The more obvious explanation is that the Islamists are attracting fighters because they agree with the goals and program of the Islamists. That, and the fact that the Islamists are much the better field commanders and fighters than the moderates."
Do you just post links randomly without digesting or fully understanding their content?
It is far from obvious that the Islamists are winning fighters' loyalty because they are getting more outside support than the moderates. It is equally far from obvious that said fighters would side with the moderates were they to receive more outside support.
The more obvious explanation is that the Islamists are attracting fighters because they agree with the goals and program of the Islamists. That, and the fact that the Islamists are much the better field commanders and fighters than the moderates.
That these Islamist groups have broken from the Syrian National Council and repudiated the Free Syrian Army should be no surprise. They generally have the toughest commanders and fighters, and more important, their goals for a post-Assad Syria were never in alignment with the moderate SNC and its FSA. They have explicitly stated they want an Islamist government in Syria with Shari'a Law.
Some of us have been predicting this from the beginning and have counseled against US support for the rebels. It is risible to suggest that funneling arms to certain "vetted" groups among the rebels will ensure those arms stay out of the hands of the Islamists. Arms, like money, are fungible and cannot be kept within only one group, particularly with Islamist fighters and Al-Qaeda affiliates in the mix.
The US should stay out of the fray in Syria and let the conflict play itself out. We have no national interests in Syria that are worth getting involved. If Russia arms the Assad regime and Saudi Arabia and Qatar arm the rebels, so be it. The US managed its interests in the Near East reasonably well while living for 40 years with the Assad family running Syria. Should Assad eventually prevail, we can live with him. Should he fall, there is nothing we can do to ensure the Islamists won't prevail, and if they were to do so, the result would likely be much worse than Assad. The US should restrict its activity to providing support for the refugee camps in surrounding countries.
The Washington Post gave it full coverage with a bold lead-in: "Brazilian Leader Slams U.S. Over NSA Eavesdropping Program."
One major raison d'etre for the United Nations is to provide a platform for world leaders to both advance their agendas and vent frustrations publicly in a carefully choreographed political ballet. It is usually designed for maximum effect on the home audience as well as both proponents and opponents in the international community.
Thus it was with Dilma Rousseff's UN speech. No doubt she opposes the alleged NSA surveillance activity in Brazil, but she was equally playing to her Brazilian constituents, as her stock has plummeted in the polls. There have been mass demonstrations against her administration during the past couple of months, and using the US as a foil is a tried and true tactic in Latin America to divert the public's displeasure from its own government's activities to that of the US.
Nevertheless, like her cancellation of the state visit to Washington, Rousseff's UN speech will create only a ripple on the surface of what is a much deeper relationship between Brazil and the United States. It will no more be allowed to disrupt the US-Brazilian relationship than Obama's cancellation of the September summit with Vladimir Putin will be allowed to disrupt the US-Russian relationship. These displays or pique are as much about showmanship as they are about substance, probably more so.
"The Guardian offers a plausible explanation why Rouhani declined and opportunity to meet with Obama."
The Guardian's explanation is hardly plausible; it is risible: "Too complicated." "Alcohol present" (wine on the table!)
The plausible explanation is that the Supreme Leader Khamenei did not countenance a meeting at this time.
I cannot for the life of me understand why so many put so much faith in Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets it either wrong or incomplete often enough to be considered the Encyclopedia of Misinformation. If any student, graduate or undergraduate, were to submit to me a research paper using Wikipedia as a cite, he would receive a failing grade.
"Hitler also had to eventually start a war or else his inflationary house of cards would have crumbled. He hoped, amongst other things, to recoup the cost of rearmament that way."
I would suggest that you have reversed Hitler's motive and goal. Hitler did not start World War II in order to recoup the cost of rearmament. He rearmed in order to start the war, dominate Europe, and gain "lebensraum" in the East and the breadbasket of the Ukraine.
"On the other hand, a war was always the way out for regimes in precarious situations, q.v. Argentine and the Malvinas/Falklands."
Just curious, how do you conclude that the Falklands War was a "way out" for Argentina? A way out of what? The Argentines were soundly defeated by the UK, and that defeat led to the removal of General Galtieri as President.
Final thought on Al-Shabab. If one year hence Joe is proven correct and Al-Shabab has effectively folded its tent, with the Nairobi attack a sort of final death rattle, I will stake Joe to a steak dinner, should he be anywhere near Washington, DC. That applies to Professor Cole as well.
On the other hand, if one year hence Al-Shabab has experienced a resurgence and has evolved into a regional organization and cat's paw for Al-Qaeda, well, I'll take mine medium rare please.
Cheers,
Bill
"The economic effect is ephemeral and minor."
the service sector contributes about 63 percent to Kenya's GDP, and tourism dominates the service sector. I would suggest that this attack will chill tourism, at least for a couple of years, and that will have a rather large negative effect on the economy.
"There hasn’t been a drone strike in Somalia since June 2012."
The key phrase you are overlooking is "potential resurgence." Their potential resurgence (as evidenced by the Nairobi attack), plus their affiliation with Al-Qaeda, suggests we keep them on the counter-terrorism radar screen. Did I say drone them? No, I did not. But keep them on the radar, and if they are in a resurgent mode, then consider appropriate action.
"November 17 is a terrorist group, too."
The core members and leadership of the November 17 terrorist organization were tried and convicted in Athens in December 2003. Without its leadership and core members, the group is considered to be basically inactive now. I know something about their activities, as I was working just up the road in Sofia, Bulgaria when they assassinated the CIA station chief Richard Welch on December 23, 1975 in Athens.
After the assassination of Welch, they assassinated several US military officers and many Greek officials. They carried out sophisticated, well-planned assassinations, as well as bank robberies to finance their operations. I assure you, they were not "bush league." To suggest they were demonstrates a lack of understanding of how nimble and sophisticated they were in carrying out their operations. To conflate November 17 and Al-Shabab as being similar today makes no sense, as November 17 has been rendered inactive and Al-Shabab, as we have seen, remains very active.
"When President Obama and his defense and intel chiefs talk, correctly, about decimating al Qaeda, they’re talking about rendering them as bush league as al Shabab."
"Bush League" is a subjective term in the eye of the beholder. That such a Mumbai-like attack can be carried out in Nairobi suggests that it could be carried out against US interests in East Africa as well. If this proves to be a resurgence of Al-Shabab, as some have suggested, it pays to keep them on the radar.
"These people can’t project power into the United States, or even Europe."
They don't have to, Joe. They have affiliated themselves with Al-Qaeda, and it is enough that they have the potential to mount attacks against US interests in East Africa. (e.g., American Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998.) You may think Al-Shabab is on its last legs, and you have a right to your opinion. But there are counter-terrorism experts who know a lot more about the organization than either you or I, and they suggest we may be witnessing a resurgence in their ability to plan and execute attacks.
"The word “shabab” wouldn’t, by any chance, translate to “Republican,” would it?"
To use this tragedy as a vehicle for humor and to score political points is tasteless and very poor form.
"The operation was a success, madam, but unfortunately the patient died. Your co-pay is $4 trillion. You can pay at the window on your way out."
Another non-sequitur, this time descending into irrelevancy even by its own terms.
"“major terrorist acts” Look, it’s very sad and disturbing that a dozen guys with rifles can kill lots of people in a mall, but it’s not 9/11. It’s not even putting a bomb on a plane."
It doesn't have to be 9/11 or a bomb on a plane to be a major terrorist act. You had better refresh yourself on the definition of terrorism.
"“maintains a rural base in Somalia” translates to “hiding out in the countryside” and “can’t even establish itself as a power in freaking Somalia.”"
I don't recall you suggesting that about AQAP in Yemen, which you were happy to have droned, although they were operating in the "countryside."
"retains the ability to plan and execute major terrorist acts is a fairly low bar."
Since when has the ability to plan and execute major terrorist acts become a "fairly low bar" in your world view? It certainly isn't to the (at last count) 68 people who have been killed in this action.
"Basically, you just described the Manson Family, except they were at least able to “maintain a rural base” in California."
A total non-sequitur, not worthy of response.
Al-Shabab has suffered political defeat in that it is no longer a force in Mogadishu or Kismayu (thanks to AMISOM). Nevertheless, it maintains a rural base in Somalia and, as is evident, retains the ability to plan and execute major terrorist acts. I doubt that it is "on its way to oblivion," anymore than Al-Qaeda was on its way to oblivion after it lost its base in Afghanistan, or AQAP is on its way to oblivion because it doesn't control Sanaa or Aden.
These terrorist groups can be degraded, and have been in the FATA of Pakistan, in Yemen, and to an extent in Somalia, but they cannot be eradicated, at least not in the short-term. That's why it is important to keep up the counter-terrorism pressure on them, including Al Shabab in Somalia, in order to deprive them as much as possible of their leadership and operational planners. If they cannot be driven into oblivion in the short-term, they can at least be forced to constantly revise their own security, and when drone strikes are on target, have their commanders and operational leadership taken out. Were that not the case, they would have carte blanche to plan and execute even more terrorist attacks.
The Republicans are in the same position now that the Democrats were in for 20 years after 1972. The McGovern "reforms" of the Democratic party, and McGovern's crushing defeat in 1972, destroyed any chances of winning the Presidency (Jimmie Carter was an anomaly who would not have won but for Nixon's crimes involving Watergate) until Bill Clinton and the Democratic Centrists won in 1992. In order to win the primary, Democratic candidates had to run so far to the left that they didn't stand a chance of winning the general election.
Republicans are now in the wilderness, just as the Democrats were then, and for the same reason. In order to win the primary, Republican candidates must run so far to the right that they don't stand a chance of winning the general election. Judging from the way the Tea Party and the party's extreme right seem to dominate, it looks like the Republicans will remain in the wilderness for many years, just as the Democrats did.
"Those who remember Reich the politician...."
Robert Reich has never been a politician. You may be referring to his appointment as Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, but he has never run for political office. Aside from his term as Labor Secretary, he has pursued an academic career.
"We saw the President vs. the Lobby back when Obama was pushing a settlement freeze after all, and the Lobby won."
The Israeli Lobby had nothing to do with Obama's buckling on his attempt to get a settlement freeze. Obama and the administration were dealing directly with the Israelis in November-December 2010, trying to get a total freeze on settlements for 90 days. Netanyahu would not budge on the issue and refused to agree to the freeze. It was Netanyahu and the Israeli government itself, not the Lobby, who stiffed Obama on the freeze.
I agree, Joe, that given the right political chemistry, Iran, of all countries in the Near East, would be the most natural ally of the United States in the Region. In fact, under the Nixon Doctrine implemented in 1969, Iran under the Shah was the guardian of US interests in the region, as we pulled back from our defense commitments during the Vietnam War wind-down.
Nevertheless, I would not go so far as to consider an American-Iranian alliance as important as NATO was and is. There is nothing that I can see that suggests our national interests would align in the future as seamlessly as they did with the US and our NATO allies during the Cold War. For one thing, there is no existential threat to bind us together. For another, Iran is likely to have very different priorities in the region than the US.
I don't see a NATO-like alliance between the US and Iran, but I do see the possibility of an agreement to act in concert when both our interests are in alignment.
"If I recall correctly, Kissinger’s role in the overthrow of Allende was one of the charges included by Christopher Hitchens in his book, “The Trial of Henry Kissinger."
Christopher Hitchens certainly had it in for Henry Kissinger, but Hitchens was all over the map. You may recall that Hitchens supported the Iraq war and was one of the first voices to refer to Jihadists as "Islamofascism." I wouldn't put much faith in anything Hitchens wrote, as you never knew what his position would be the following day.
Like many on the Left, Mr. Bodden, you continue to confuse the attempts by the Nixon Administration to undermine Allende by supporting unions, the newspaper El Mercurio, and others, as well as thwarting IMF loans, throughout the three years of Allende's time in office, with the actual planning and execution of the coup. Senator Frank Church (no friend of Nixon) held hearings on the CIA and concluded that there was no CIA involvement in the planning and execution of the coup itself.
As I stated in my comment above, it is an enduring myth of the Left that the US planned and helped execute the coup. That was not the case. The US attempted to undermine Allende and provided $8 million over the three year period leading up to the coup. Obviously the US was pleased to see Allende go. But the question is what part did the US play in the coup itself, and the answer is, it did not play a role.
Your quote from John Pilger is of a conversation not long after Allende took office, when the Nixon Administration was trying to come up with a plan to destabilize Chile. It does not refer to any US plan for a coup.
"An atypical “Bill” comment, as this is a bald-faced lie instead of a straw man or a begged question. Other commenters have pointed out its untruth. It would be accurate to say: the CIA sought to preserve some deniability by distancing itself from its involvement with Operation Condor, efforts which included misinformation peddled by Peter Kornbluth."
Please provide your sources that led you to believe it is a "bald-faced lie," and what is the evidence you possess indicating Peter Kornbluh was part of the plot to sow misinformation.
Technical assistance to Latin American public security services was being provided even before Operation Condor was initiated. The fact is Condor was a Chilean-inspired and organized operation. The CIA did not set it up.
There are far more accurate and dependable resources on Operation Condor and events in Chile under Pinochet than Wikipedia, which at times resembles nothing so much as an Encyclopedia of Misinformation. I would suggest you begin with Peter Kornbluh's book "The Pinochet File," based on his in-depth research with the National Security Archives' project on Chile. There are other resources, but that would be a good start.
It must be tempting to look up topics on Wikipedia, and then present the information as if one had sagely known it all along. The problem is when Wikipedia gets it wrong or incomplete, as it often does, it is reflected in one's comments. Better to actually read the accounts of political scientists and historians who actually know something about the topic under discussion.
"That is wholly inaccurate and doesn’t represent the actual events on the ground. Yours is only half of a very dark time in U.S. hemispheric involvement. September 11, 1973 was America’s overthrow of Salvador Allende; it’s been very well documented and reported."
I would be glad to entertain your challenge to my comment on Operation Condor. Unfortunately, you have presented no facts or evidence to which I can respond.
Regarding Allende's overthrow, one of the Left's enduring myths is that the United States was behind the planning and execution of General Augusto Pinochet's 1973 coup in Chile. As was brought out in Senator Frank Church's 1975 Senate hearings on the CIA's intelligence activities, the CIA did provide $8 million over a three-year period to various opposition groups in Chile to keep them going, including labor unions, the anti-Allende newspaper El Mercurio (which Allende was attempting to shut down by having the nationalized banks withhold credit for newsprint), and others. Nevertheless, the U.S. provided neither funding nor assistance in the planning and execution of the coup itself. Although Embassy officials had evidence that something was afoot, they were not privy to the timing and actual plan itself.
Anyone who has served in Chile and studied the 1973 coup would find it laughable to hear someone insist that the Chilean military would need assistance from the U.S. The Chilean military was based on the Prussian model, was (and is) a very professional military, and was perfectly capable of planning and executing the coup on its own.
That the United States was glad to see Allende overthrown is undeniable. It does not follow, however, that the United States engineered the action that led to his overthrow.
The CIA monitored Operation Condor, and after it was established provided some technical assistance to individual countries. But it did not provide "strategic" knowledge to the group. The intelligence chiefs of the member states knew far more about the leftist guerrilla groups operating within their respective countries than the CIA or any other outside source.
You have fallen into the trap of ascribing everything that happened in Latin America to some nefarious CIA plot. In doing so, you fail to recognize that Latin Americans are agents in their own right and have made decisions, good or bad, on their own. To deny them their own agency is a form of "soft" discrimination that says more about you than it does about them.
Operation Condor was organized by Chilean intelligence chief Manuel Contreras under General Pinochet. Chile took the lead in organizing and setting the agenda. The CIA had nothing to do with either organizing it or supplying it, although the CIA did monitor its activities.
Operation Condor was established in October 1975, when Manuel Contreras invited the intelligence chiefs of Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia to Santiago for a meeting, at which time they agreed to coordinate their efforts to fight leftist guerrillas who were operating in their countries. At a subsequent meeting in Santiago in May 1976, Brazil joined the original five to review their efforts and discuss further long-range cooperation.
The United States was not a participant at Operation Condor's inception or subsequent meetings. This was totally a Southern Cone operation spearheaded by Chile. All of this has been thoroughly documented by Peter Kornbluth of the National Security Archive Project and is detailed in the book "The Pinochet File," as well as in other publications.
Rousseff's cancellation of her state visit to the US is more an attempt to shore up her waning support in Brazil rather than a principled snub at the US. There have been huge demonstrations against her government in Brazil for wasting money preparing for the World Cup and Olympics while ignoring the real needs of the people. With her popularity taking a dive, this "snub" is the old tactic of diverting Brazilians' attention to a perceived external threat and away from her own internal difficulties.
This, too, shall pass. Both Brazil and the US have too much at stake to allow Rousseff's pique to interfere with our relationship. It will be a mere blip on the radar screen.
"from its Northern neighbour, who lost 5 million citizens to the armed hands of the US."
You are referring to North Korea's unprovoked invasion of the South in 1950, and the US and allied efforts to defend the South and restore the status quo ante under a UN Security Council Resolution, aren't you? Any losses suffered by the North were wholly brought about by their own initial aggression against the South.
To finish my comment above, after inadvertently hitting the "reply" button.
Their extreme positions at times end up in a ludicrous convergence, such as the Left and the Tea Party's view that the US Government is the fascist enemy.
"I believe the left wing is no more rational than the right wing. Both adhere to the ideology that makes them feel good and relegated evidence to the distant background."
You have hit upon a core truth in today's environment. Both the left and the right refuse to acknowledge any evidence that does not support their ideologically-blinkered world view. Moreover, both not only relegate such evidence to the distant background; they manufacture evidence that appears to support their ideologically preconceived positions. Their extreme position at times end up in a ludicrous converg, such as the
"Professor, would there be any way for your site to start displaying an icon of a pot with a crack in it beside the comments of people who spent the last month blaming the victims of the chemical warfare attack for their own deaths?"
You have a good idea there, Joe. I suggest, however, that your criteria for display of the cracked pot icon be widened to include those who consistently parrot their own pet phrases over and over, regardless of the topic under discussion.
In the September 7 edition of the Washington Post, Max Fisher reported on Samantha Power's speech to the Center for American Progress, Joe. I have quoted his initial paragraph, but will spare you the entire manuscript.
"U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power delivered the following speech at the Center for American Progress on Friday advocating for the Obama administration's plan to launch limited off-shore strikes against Syria. The complete transcript, well worth reading in full, is below."
Cruise missile strikes are about as direct an interventionist activity as exists. Power and Rice have a history of advocating for direct US military intervention, whether it take the form of troops in Rwanda or missiles in Syria, as long as it is for "humanitarian" purposes. They are far less inclined to support military intervention on behalf of US national interests.
Both Powers and Rice criticized the US for not intervening in Rwanda, which definitely would have required armed force. They are not talking about delivering food aid and evacuating victims via military choppers.
"I wouldn’t blame anyone for taking a hike."
If he wishes to leave the US that's his business. But then he loses any standing to chide and hector those who choose to remain and live in the US because he doesn't think they effectively oppose the US Government. He not only did it in his post above, he has done it in previous comments as well.
Such a stance reeks of hypocrisy. And the definition of hypocrisy applies: The homage vice pays to virtue.
"I imagine you’d think the same of the citizens who left Germany just prior to WWII. Oh wait, it’s not the same; or is it?"
No, it's not the same. Not even close.
"Which is something I saw a long time ago; and I elected to find a way out. More than a decade later I see no evidence "the people" have done much of anything to reverse the deterioration of the U.S. democracy."
As I recall your previous posts on the subject, you found your "way out" by leaving the United States to reside elsewhere. That "way out" certainly took no courage and did nothing to, in your words, "reverse the deterioration of US democracy." You are hardly in a position to chide "the people" in the US for a failure to execute a responsibility that you yourself abdicated ten years ago.
"The Federal Reserve is a private corporation."
The Federal Reserve is not a private corporation. Congress created it in 1913 to maintain the stability of the financial system. The President appoints, and the Senate confirms, the members of its Board of Governors. And it's not out to make a profit after taking care of expenses. Any left over earnings go to Treasury after expenses are paid out. Moreover, the details of its responsibilities are subject to Congressional oversight.
The Fed is classified as an independent central bank, as neither the executive nor the legislature branches get a direct say in its decision-making, and it pays for its own operations (primarily by acquiring U.S. government securities on the open market). I know this is confusing for some people who conclude that it is a private corporation, but it most assuredly is not. In short, the Fed is an independent entity within the US Government.
"What do we have in common with a Saudi tyrant that still upholds slavery?"
Slavery was officially abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962. That does not mean that some Saudi households do not treat their Filipina and Indonesian help as if they were indentured servants, but it's a stretch to say that the king "upholds slavery."
"A pretty good case has already been made that the US’ closest ally in the region was behind most of the chemical attacks in Syria."
Where has that case been made, Brian, and what is the evidence cinching it as a "pretty good case"?
"Your second paragraph reads like a political talk show guest spinning during a campaign."
If you think his drawing of "red lines" and emphatic pronouncements that Assad "must go" did not box him into an untenable position in which he either had to follow through or look impotent; and if you think that his threat to follow through with an "imminent" strike on Syria and then his sudden reversal to put the issue up to a Congressional vote that he was likely to lose did not make him look even more equivocal and impotent, then your idea of deft handling of foreign and defense policy is very different from mine.
Doesn't "winning" 97 percent of the vote suggest that the fix is in? Who wouldn't abide by the results of such a foregone conclusion?
Obama's primary foreign policy goal regarding Syria has for two years been Assad's ouster, with the chemical weapons issue only achieving prominence since their use a couple of months ago. I would say that Obama's agreement with Putin leaves Assad in a much more secure position than before the agreement, as I doubt that Obama will launch a strike on Syria now even if the agreement becomes contentious and delayed in its implementation. Plus, Putin will run interference for Assad, and the amount of arms we contemplate giving the rebels will hardly be enough to tip the balance.
Regarding Obama's loss of stature, his handling of the issue has been a series of rather amateurish moves from the beginning. His drawing of "red lines" and emphatic pronouncements that Assad "must go" boxed him into an untenable position in which he either had to follow through or look impotent. Although he appeared to follow through with his "imminent" strike on Syria, his sudden reversal to put the issue up to a Congressional vote that he was likely to lose made him look even more equivocal and impotent.
I am not a fan of Putin, but I think that the Russians appear to be in the driver's seat now, and, yes, comparatively speaking, that does appear to have diminished Obama in stature.
Russian influence no doubt is much more in Central Asian than in Syria. Nevertheless, if one is talking solely about the Near East, Syria is Russia's only real conduit for influence.
Three points:
A. Russia no doubt is backing the Syrian government in part to protect Eastern Orthodox Christians and the primacy of secular rule over that of Islamic extremists. Nevertheless, I think the primary reason is that the alliance with Assad is the conduit through which Russia maintains a modicum of influence (and a naval base) in the Near East. Without Syria, Russia's influence would be nil.
B. Obama and Putin needed each other as dance partners in this diplomatic minuet. No doubt Obama's threat to launch a strike on Syria got Putin's attention. But Obama had boxed himself in with his "Red Lines" and talk of "Assad must go." Obama then brought into question his seriousness by reversing himself and taking it to Congress for a vote he would likely lose, after first indicating a strike was imminent. Kerry's London gaffe and Putin's jumping on it offered Obama a way out.
C. The results are a strike has been averted and Assad is strengthened. Putin has gained stature and Obama appears equivocal and amateurish. Finally, implementation of the chemical weapons agreement will prove contentious and painful, and the civil war will continue with no end in sight.
Succinct and on the mark, Professor.