Showing posts with label Middle East policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East policy. Show all posts

Friday, January 3, 2020

A PNAC accolite is happy with the assassination


The original PNAC (Project for the new American century) plan was to take out (regime change) Syria (after Iraq), but that seems to have proven more difficult than the brilliant planners expected.  So, we'll go with Iran.  What a swell idea.
[December 14, 2017]   Years ago there was a plan, A Clean Break: Project for the New American Century (PNAC), to wreck the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians and to re-mold the Middle East. It first involved destroying Iraq or in the discredited words of Paul Wolfowitz, “The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.”

Destroying Syria was to be next. And then Iran. In 2006, columnist Taki Theodoracopulos warned in TheAmerican Conservative of the “Clean Break” plan “to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.

[...]

Core promoters of the PNAC plan signed an open letter to then President Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. They were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick and John Bolton, all solid members of the Neoconservative project.

[...]

I reported in TAC in 2010 of neoconservative David Wurmser (subsequently Vice President Cheney’s principal advisor) forecasting “if Saddam Hussein were driven from power, Iraq would be ‘ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects, and key families,’ and out of the ‘coming chaos in Iraq and most probably in Syria,’ the United States and her principal allies, namely Israel and Jordan, could redraw the region’s map.”

Of course, all this was years ago, but the plan remains, supported by many powerful American war interests.

  The American Conservative
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Retrospective

Check out this Jeremy Scahill podcast for a clear understanding of alQaeda v. ISIS and how we got here.



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Regarding the fake reasons for "responding" to Iran's UNCONFIRMED drone attack on Saudi oil site



On SAUDI ARABIA.   FFS.  We don't have a mutual defense pact with Saudi Arabia.  Also, Saudi Arabia has, for several years, been at war with Yemen, who, by the way, HAS CLAIMED CREDIT FOR THE BOMBING.

From the Yemeni perspective, the attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil jugular represent long-awaited reprisals for a Saudi-led bombing campaign that has killed thousands of Yemeni civilians since 2015.


Meanwhile, Yemen, the Middle East’s poorest country, is collapsing as a viable state, overcome by famine, disease, and chaos.

[...]

Iran’s involvement has increased over time.

[...]

Trump’s reneging on the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposing US sanctions has poured oil on the fire.

Iran’s oil exports have not just been cut off, but its market share has been handed to Saudi Arabia. This alone would trigger Iranian reprisal. But Trump has also emboldened Iranian hardliners by declaring that the US seeks to avoid war.

In other words, US policy toward Iran now has no carrot and no stick.


  Forbes
That is the only way Trump knows how to act. He's one big bundle of nerves striking back each time he feels he's been hit. And he has absolutely no one with half a brain to conduct any type of foreign policy - only sycophants. Anyone who might try to seriously advise him has been shot down and fired.
Washington should leverage the attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure that have caused unprecedented outage to push for a resolution to the disastrous war in Yemen. Riyadh needs an exit strategy, now.
They won't get it from Washington.
Trump realizes his sanctions are driving Tehran to desperation.
Which pleases him no end, I'm sure. He loves to score hits on others.
What is Trump’s plan? One day he agrees to negotiate. The next day he’s talking war. To most observers, it looks like the US president has no idea.
It looks that way because it is that way.
Changes have taken place in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These two US allies used to be far more cautious. Both preferred to work with Washington, with ruling sheikhs making their concerns known behind closed doors.

Now, the two monarchies have adopted far more confrontational and independent approaches to the region.
Because there's no leadership in Washington, and the president is an easy mark.
We should expect Iran to continue disrupting the Persian Gulf oil business – and reviving its nuclear program– until Washington lifts those sanctions. The sooner United States gets back to the negotiating table the better.
Don't hold your breath.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Maybe an actual diplomat would have been a better choice

Jason Greenblatt, the Trump administration’s special envoy for Middle East peace, tasked with working on the “ultimate deal” for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is to leave the post, it has been announced.

[...]

Donald Trump tweeted that Greenblatt, one of his former lawyers, would be leaving “to pursue work in the private sector”.

“Jason has been a loyal and great friend and fantastic lawyer,” Trump said. “His dedication to Israel and to seeking peace between Israel and the Palestinians won’t be forgotten. He will be missed. Thank you Jason!”

  The Guarian
So dedicated he quit.
Greenblatt, a real estate lawyer with no experience in diplomacy, began working on the would-be plan in 2017 with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in what the president has said would be the “ultimate deal”.

[...]

The only part of the Kushner-Greenblatt scheme that has been made public was an economic “workshop” in Bahrain, which was intended to drum up interest in investment in the future of the Palestinian territories. However, it was boycotted by most Palestinian businesses.

[...]

It was reported on Thursday that a 30 year-old Kushner aide, Avi Berkowitz – who graduated from law school in 2016 and has no Middle East experience, would take over some of Greenblatt’s role.
Great. Replace inexperience and incompetence with inexperience and incompetence.
During Greenblatt’s time in office, the US severed its diplomatic links with the Palestinians, closed down its consulate in Jerusalem, and ordered the Palestinian mission in Washington to shut down. Earlier this year, the US cut all aid to the Palestinian territories.

[...]

Kushner, Greenblatt and the current US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman have all been supportive of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and few expect the plan to put pressure on Israel to withdraw them.

“The plan is doomed. It is not going anywhere, but it will be a marker in the sand,” said Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington. “The two-state solution is doomed and this plan will seal its end. It will create a new normal in the conflict, for future US administrations.”
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, December 17, 2018

The genius who will bring peace to the Middle East




Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat [...] has met with Kushner and others in the Trump administration 33 times, and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has had four summit meetings of his own. But Erekat’s last meeting with Kushner took place more than a year ago and it did not go well, according to his account of the situation.

[...]

Kushner revealed Trump’s plan to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, blowing up a long-standing agreement by US presidents to hold back on such a move until the final status of Jerusalem is resolved. It didn’t go well from there.
"The last conversation I had with Mr Kushner was in the White House — the 37th meeting.

I tell him ‘Jared, the president is supposed to sign the waiver not to move the embassy.’

He said ‘we’re not going to sign.’

I said ‘what do you mean we’re not going to sign? The president promised us in the White House that he would not take any step that may preempt or pre-judge Jerusalem, not before negotiations.’

He said ‘it’s our business and we will conduct our policies according to our interests.’

I told him ‘look: if you do this, you will have disqualified yourself from any role in the peace process.’

He replied: ‘Don’t threaten me.’

I said ‘read my lips: you will have disqualified yourself from any role in the peace process.’

He said ‘you don’t know the changes that are happening around you in the Arab world.’

I told him, ‘the best thing for me is to be a student — so teach me.’

‘DON’T BE SARCASTIC,’ he shouted.

I said ‘I’m not being sarcastic. What do you mean by changes? Do you think Arab countries will open embassies in Tel Aviv and accept Jerusalem, with the Al-Aqsa mosque, as Israel’s capital? To them Jerusalem is a red line — all of them! Saudis, Qataris, Egyptians, Jordanians, Bahrainis. So what are you talking about?’

He said ‘this is our business, our policies.’

I said ‘if you do this, you will bring Israelis and Palestinians to brink of disaster.’

Theodore Roosevelt once said the White House is an office of international morality. And he’s right. But this White House needs giant statesmen, not real estate agents."

  BuzzFeed
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Monday, February 12, 2018

Hello? Is this thing on?



His budget just allotted billions more for the military, a great deal of which goes to the Middle East.

He doesn't even know if his hair is flapping in the breeze.  How could he know what the hell he's doing in the Middle East?



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, November 20, 2017

Carte blanche for Saudi

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have found themselves at odds of late with US State Department diplomats and Defense Department leadership, taking provocative actions by blockading Qatar; summoning Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Riyadh earlier this month, where he abruptly resigned; and blockading since Nov. 6 major Yemeni ports from desperately needed humanitarian aid shipments in retaliation for a Nov. 4 Houthi missile strike targeting Riyadh's international airport.

[...]

Saudi and Emirati officials have suggested to US diplomatic interlocutors that they feel they have at least tacit approval from the White House for their hard-line actions, in particular from President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, who Trump has tasked with leading his Middle East peace efforts.

[...]

But growing US bureaucratic dismay at perceived Saudi/Emirati overreach, as well as Kushner’s mounting legal exposure in the Russia investigations, has many veteran US diplomats, policymakers and lobbyists urging regional players to be cautious about basing their foreign policy on any perceived green light, real or not, from the Kushner faction at the White House.

[...]

When the Saudis and Emiratis were about to launch the blockade of Qatar in June, then-US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart Jones got a call in the middle of the night from UAE Ambassador Otaiba to inform him of the impending action. Jones’ reaction was “extremely harsh. ‘What are you guys doing? This is crazy,’” a former US ambassador to the region told Al-Monitor. “And … Yusuf [Otaiba]'s response was, ‘Have you spoken to the White House?’”

  Al-Monitor
I'm sure. The Saudis know who's in the oval office. And it's not veteran diplomats, policymakers or lobbyists.
[US Ambassador to Yemen Gerald] Feierstein, now with the Middle East Institute, told Al-Monitor. “But I think that over the course of time, State and Defense have won that fight. And my sense is if [Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson and [Secretary of Defense James] Mattis are together and pushing hard, they can win those arguments. … Clearly, when the two of them are together, they can successfully push back on the White House.”
And yet, we don't even have an ambassador to Saudi Arabia now.
"If something happens to Jared — he gets distracted or is no longer on the scene — what happens to [their] critical relationship with the White House?"

[...]

Some veteran US policymakers doubt that Kushner is giving Prince Mohammed the green light for all his actions.

“My guess is it is vague,” Bruce Riedel, a long-time CIA and White House official and Saudi specialist, told Al-Monitor. “Jared doesn’t know details.”

[...]

Former US Ambassador Feierstein wondered if the recent Saudi recall of Hariri to Riyadh was part of the Kushner peace chessboard.

“Is this a peace process play?” Feierstein wondered. “Is this somehow a US/Israel/Saudi Arabia kind of strategy that is playing out, aimed at isolating Hezbollah and basically destabilizing the Hezbollah-dominated government in Beirut in exchange for some Israeli concession on the peace process with the Palestinians? … What exactly is the full deal out there?”
Whatever it is, if it's coming from Jared Kushner, it's about funneling money into the Trump organization. Trump didn't appoint Kushner to handle Middle East deals because of his (nonexistent) diplomatic or foreign policy expertise.
“The problem is that the Saudis think Trump and Kushner are the only ones whose views matter,” Konyndyk told Al-Monitor. “And they're probably right.”

“I doubt [Kushner would] give an explicit green light on [the Yemen] blockade,” Konyndyk added. “But the Saudis were champing at the bit to crack down on the place, and the only thing holding them back was the United States saying no repeatedly. In that situation, you don't have to say ‘yes.’ Just have to stop saying ‘no.’"
And keep selling them the weapons to destroy Yemen.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

PNAC on Track

In 2013, when the United States first considered intervening in the Syria war, teams of U.S. Air Force commandos scouted out, across the Middle East, no fewer than 300 potential sites for new bases to support a possible intervention force.

Since then, the Pentagon has established or expanded scores of bases in Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, among many other countries. Now we’ve located what appear to be another two new bases—one in Jordan near the border with Syria, and another a short distance across the same border in southern Syria. The two airstrips could support drones, helicopters, and special operations airplanes.

  The Daily Beast



Read it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, June 23, 2017

This Will Cause Some Personal Conflict for Many Trump Supporters

President Donald Trump’s administration is being sued for attempting to deport Chaldean Christians back to Iraq, an unexpected development for a president who vowed to assist persecuted Middle Eastern Christians.

[...]

Over the past week and a half, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents rounded up roughly 100 Chaldean Christians from Iraq — mostly on a Sunday — sparking a flurry of protests led by family members and advocates. ICE claims all of those arrested have outstanding removal orders and criminal offenses, but demonstrators argue most already served their time years ago, and that deporting those arrested to Iraq will only subject them to persecution from local authorities or murderous groups such as ISIS.

[...]

The case also challenges whether ICE had the right to detain the arrestees in the first place, and whether it was proper for the government to transfer the detainees to a center in Ohio — far away from their lawyers.

[...]

“If you’re from Syria and you’re a Christian, you cannot come into this country. And they’re the ones that are being persecuted,” [Trump said during his campign], noting he thought it was “unbelievable” and that “[we] have to do something about it.”

“If I run and I win, I will be the greatest representative of the Christians that they’ve had in a long time,” he added later.

  Think Progress
He said a lot of things then. He's a bullshit artist. And he's ALWAYS the greatest, the best, the most of something.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Laughable and Frightening At the Same Time

Jared Kushner, son-in-law and senior adviser to President Donald Trump, will travel to the Middle East this week to meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders about a potential peace deal.

  TPM
Peace deals are just like any business deal.
The official told the Journal that Kushner and these leaders will talk about “their priorities and potential next steps.”
Whose priorities? The Trump Family Cabal?
Jason Greenblatt, the Trump administration’s top official in charge of Israeli-Palestinian peace, will travel to the region on Monday, and Kushner will join on Wednesday, according to the Journal.
So, that's a "yes" then.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:


Thursday, June 15, 2017

Apparently, the Trump Administration Will Simply Go Around Him

And that's probably not a bad idea. But how screwed up is that? Impeach or all get on the same page.
The US has signed a $12bn deal to supply dozens of F-15 jets to Qatar, despite recent high-profile claims by President Donald Trump alleging Qatar’s “high-level funding” of terrorism.

  Guardian
I wonder what the Saudis think about that.
Hailed by Qatar, the deal underlines the reigning confusion inside the Trump administration as it handles one of its first big foreign policy crises, which was in large part triggered by Trump.

Qatar is facing a severe economic and diplomatic boycott by Saudi Arabia and its regional allies, who cut ties last week accusing it of funding terrorist groups, a charge Doha denies.

[...]

Trump has repeatedly echoed the accusations against Qatar, despite attempts by his defence secretary, James Mattis, and secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to offer a more neutral and nuanced position.

He doubled-down on his accusations on Friday, saying: “The nation of Qatar has unfortunately been a funder of terrorism, and at a very high level,” adding “the time has come to call on Qatar to end its funding.”
But, hey, we'll sell them some F-15s.
A European diplomat in the Gulf said the timing of the deal appeared coincidental. “Presumably, the US could have delayed the deal if they’d wanted to, although I don’t think there’s a great connect between sales and foreign policy.”
Apparently not.

I remember as a youngster hearing constantly about the evil Russian empire during the first cold war and how we had to be on constant guard against them and their imminent threat to our very existence. On the other hand, I understood we were selling them lots and lots of wheat. I wondered why, if we thought they might wipe us out at any minute, we were feeding them. Silly child. Logic has no place in politics.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Don't Worry, the Military Economy Is Safe


The move to open the throttle on using military force — and accept a greater risk of civilian casualties — in troubled parts of the Muslim world comes as the Trump administration is also trying to significantly increase military spending and cut foreign aid and State Department budgets.

The proposal to cut so-called soft-power budgets, however, is meeting with stiff resistance from some senior Republicans on Capitol Hill, as well as from top active-duty and retired generals and admirals, who fear perpetual conflicts if the root causes of instability and terrorism are not addressed.

[...]

[More than three dozen members of America’s national security establishment,] in a letter sent on Sunday to [Defense Secretary Jim] Mattis, warned that “even small numbers of unintentional civilian deaths or injuries — whether or not legally permitted — can cause significant strategic setbacks,” increasing violence from militant groups or prompting partners and allies to reduce collaboration with the United States.

  NYT
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sunday, January 8, 2017

Thanks in Part to US-Backed Saudi Bombing

Throughout his tenure, President Obama has made it clear he has no appetite for involving the United States in another Middle East conflict. Yet the U.S. is bombing daily in Syria and Iraq. And in a separate conflict that's receiving far less attention, the U.S. is increasingly embroiled in Yemen.

Since March 2015, the U.S. has been providing support to a Saudi-led military coalition fighting Houthi rebels. The Houthis ousted Yemen's government and forced the president, Abed Mansour Hadi, to flee to Saudi Arabia.

[...]

Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, says the U.S. is becoming an indispensable partner to Saudi Arabia and its bombing campaign there.

[...]

"It's wild to me that we're not talking more about this," he says. "The U.S. is at war in Yemen today, there's no doubt about it."

[...]

"The United States provides the bombs. We provide the refueling planes in mid-air. We provide the intel," Murphy tells NPR. "I think it's safe to say that this bombing campaign in Yemen could not happen without the United States."

  NPR
Hey. Collateral damage. It's war.
The U.S. role is not risk-free. A U.S. Navy destroyer, the USS Mason, came under a cruise missile attack Wednesday as it sailed near the coast of Yemen. This was the second time this has happened this week, according to U.S. officials, who said no one on the ship was injured.
Well thank God it's only Yemeni children who are dying.
Murphy is one of several members of Congress calling for the administration to end its support for the Saudi-led effort in Yemen. This comes after airstrike on a funeral in the capital city, Saana, over the weekend killed at least 140 people and injured more than 525 others.
Yeah, to be fair, one of those people may have already been dead.
This is not the first time airstrikes have landed on civilian targets — hospitals and wedding halls have also been hit in the past. Kirby says the U.S. was not certain whether the bombing at the funeral was deliberate or an accident.
Because that would mean the difference between right and wrong.
The war has so far killed an estimated 10,000 people, nearly half of them civilians, according to the United Nations.
Hey. Collateral damage. It's war.

By the way..."Throughout his tenure, President Obama has made it clear he has no appetite for involving the United States in another Middle East conflict."

Really?
[MAR 30, 2016]

To cite just some recent examples: In October, the president authorized the first sustained deployment of U.S. special-operations forces to Syria to complement his air campaign against the Islamic State. In January, reports emerged that the Obama administration was rethinking its troop drawdown in Afghanistan, given the deteriorating security situation there, and considering sending more troops to Iraq and Syria. The next month, Obama released a defense budget that included an increase of $2.5 billion over the previous year to expand the fight with ISIS to North and West Africa, and billions more for sending heavy weapons, armored vehicles, and other equipment to Eastern and Central Europe to counter Russian aggression. In the past several weeks alone, we’ve learned of Pentagon plans to dispatch military advisers to Nigeria against the jihadist group Boko Haram and to launch an aerial offensive in Libya against the Islamic State. U.S. bombing raids recently killed 150 suspected militants in Somalia and over 40 in Libya. By one measure, in fact, the U.S. military is now actively engaged in more countries than when Obama took office.

  The Atlantic

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

No One Could Have Guessed

State Department Press Release October 5:


"We strongly condemn," although we did just give you $38 billion fucking dollars.
It is deeply troubling, in the wake of Israel and the U.S. concluding an unprecedented agreement on military assistance designed to further strengthen Israel's security, that Israel would take a decision so contrary to its long term security interest in a peaceful resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians

  US State Dept
And we are just so shocked because you've never done this before.  Why, it almost seems like you don't want a peaceful resolution of your conflict with the Palestinians.  It almost looks as if you want to drive them completely out of their own country.  Some could even imagine you want to destroy Palestine.  We're really baffled here.  And shocked.  Did we say we're shocked?
Since the recent Quartet report called on both sides to take affirmative steps to reverse current trends and advance the two state solution on the ground, we have unfortunately seen just the opposite.

[...]

Israelis must ultimately decide between expanding settlements and preserving the possibility of a peaceful two state solution.
What a damned joke. Israelis made that decision a very long time ago. And they've been expanding settlements ever since.
Such moves will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from many of its partners, and further call into question Israel's commitment to achieving a negotiated peace.
As if they care. They're still getting tens of billions of dollars from their sugar daddy. Who needs international community? They only need one partner - the one with the money.

And....here comes Hillary!


Gee, what made them think they could get away with it?


Tuesday, August 16, 2016

THAT's His Plan?!

In a speech in Ohio, the candidate outlined his plans to combat Islamic extremism, including a new screening test for arrivals to the US.

[...]

The billionaire initially proposed a blanket ban on all Muslims but has changed it to one that is based on an unspecified list of countries that export terror.

The latest proposal includes creating an ideological test for immigrants entering the country, with questions addressing how each applicant views American values such as religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights.

"Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country," he said.

[...]

Mr Trump said that the test will not only expose terrorist sympathisers, but also will "screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles".

  BBC
Because they might be terrorists, but they are completely honest when tested.
The kind of relentless attacks on the Islamic State [Trump] advocates — along with taking and holding the oil fields, which may well be a violation of international law — would require a considerable presence by American troops or their allies, and foreign bases to launch the drones.

  NYT
Don't give me that "international law" BS. We haven't concerned ourselves with international law for many a year now. In fact, Dubya publicly scoffed at it.
Peter Feaver, a former Bush administration official who handled Iraq strategy and now teaches at Duke University, and who has signed two letters from national security officials opposing Mr. Trump’s candidacy, praised Mr. Trump for giving a “surprisingly serious” speech on counterterrorism.

But he also said that “given how vehemently Trump has denounced Bush’s national security team, it is striking how much of this speech depends on counterterrorism ideas developed by the Bush administration. It is not a perfect copy — we never contemplated seizing the oil for our own purposes and we were far more concerned about how anti-Muslim rhetoric might demoralize the moderate Muslim voices we were seeking to empower. But the good parts are not new — they are imported from the Bush approach — and the new parts are not good.”
"We never contemplated seizing the oil for our own purposes." Just gaining control over the leaders who control the oil. Technically different. And it is true that Dubya got called on the carpet for calling (admitting) his invasion of Iraq a crusade.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, April 29, 2016

Just Deny It


Deny.  So what if people know better?  Why not?  It's always been my mother's approach.  She's 84 and showing no signs of changing.
The problem for Kirby was that Obama has repeated the promise [of no boots on the ground in Syria] at least 16 times since 2013.

[...]

After reporters pointed out the mistake, Kirby tried to walk back his claim by defining the phrase “boots on the ground” to exclude special forces.

“When we talk about boots on the ground, in the context that you have heard people in the administration speak to, we are talking about conventional, large-scale ground troops,” said Kirby. “I’m not disputing the fact that we have troops on the ground, and they’re wearing boots.”

  The Intercept
You just have to redefine the terms. Well, not if you're my mother, but if you're the White House spokesman, at least to date, you do.
In Iraq, when a U.S. special forces soldier was killed during a raid on an ISIS-held prison, the White House insisted that U.S. forces were only flying helicopters carrying Kurdish commandos, and that it was a “unique circumstance.” They refused to call the exchange “combat,” prompting outrage from veterans groups.

A second American soldier was killed in a rocket attack in northern Iraq last month, while guarding a U.S. base near Mosul. The White House called it “an enemy action,” not “combat.”

[...]

The Obama administration has company in Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton. During a Democratic debate in February, Clinton said “we will not send American combat troops back to Syria or Iraq. That is off the table. But we do have special forces.”
I wonder if the special forces themselves feel like combat troops when they're being shot at. I bet they're carrying guns to shoot back.

Let me fix this reporting problem for the administration (and Hillary): relabel whole brigades "special forces".

Friday, March 11, 2016

We Know Where the Buck DOESN'T Stop

Speaking to The Atlantic, Obama acknowledged the problems faced by Libya since the fall of Gaddafi in 2011, referring to the situation as a “mess” – and in private as a “s**t show.”

“...We actually executed this plan as well as I could have expected: We got a UN mandate, we built a coalition, it cost us $1 billion — which, when it comes to military operations, is very cheap. We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict. And despite all that, Libya is a mess,” he said.

  RT
We did everything right, then? What's the problem?

According to Obama, the "cheap" deal notwithstanding, the Brits and French are the cause of Libya being "a mess."  (A mess.  Christ in velvet underpants.  It's not your kids' room.  Or your health care policy.)
He went on to state that the ‘mess’ was largely due to the inaction of British Prime Minister David Cameron, who was “distracted by a range of other things” at the time.

He also criticized France’s then-President Nicolas Sarkozy for being too eager to take credit for the intervention to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.
Christ, the man isn't even out of office yet and he's badmouthing allied leaders.
"Sarkozy wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign," Obama said, "despite the fact that [the US] had wiped out all the air defenses and essentially set up the entire infrastructure."

Obama said that such bragging on the part of Sarkozy was fine, because it allowed the US to “purchase France's involvement in a way that made it less expensive for us and less risky for us.”

“From the perspective of a lot of the folks in the foreign-policy establishment, well, that was terrible. If we're going to do something, obviously we've got to be up front, and nobody else is sharing in the spotlight,” he said, noting that Sarkozy was voted out of office less than a year after the fall of Gaddafi.
WHO'S bragging? Good god, man. Get a grip.
Speaking more generally on what he calls a “free rider” mentality in times of conflict, Obama explained that EU countries have had a “habit” of pushing the US to act over the past several decades, but then shown “an unwillingness to put any skin in the game.”

The US president went on to stress that “free riders aggravate me.”

“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong,” Obama said, “there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.”
Un-fucking-believable.
[Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper stressed] that the current situation in Libya is "much, much worse than it used to be during the Gaddafi regime."

Speaking more generally on what he calls a “free rider” mentality in times of conflict, Obama explained that EU countries have had a “habit” of pushing the US to act over the past several decades, but then shown “an unwillingness to put any skin in the game.” The US president went on to stress that “free riders aggravate me.” "It is a huge mess there, bloodshed, a failed state, militia controlling most of the country. Also now, Islamic State has more than 7,000 fighters in Libya," he said.

[...]

"I believe Obama realized that it was a huge mistake and miscalculation, and he is trying to blame everybody else except himself," he said, adding that such a move by an American president is "unprecedented."
Well, I guess. But then, other Banana Republics have the same type of leadership. Why should we be any different?

Buckle up, Buttercup. Making way for Donald Trump.

Or Hillary Clinton.  Perhaps that's why Obama is saying all this crap now.  Look, it's not Hillary's fault, even though she was Secretary of State at the time.

This from The Atlantic reporter who did the interview:
Since that first meeting in 2006, I’ve interviewed Obama periodically, mainly on matters related to the Middle East. But over the past few months, I’ve spent several hours talking with him about the broadest themes of his “long game” foreign policy, including the themes he is most eager to discuss—namely, the ones that have nothing to do with the Middle East.

  The Atlantic
I bet!

"We now operate in a wold in which we can assume neither competence nor good faith from the authorities, and the consequences of this simple, devastating realization is the defining feature of American life..."  ~ Chris Hayes, Twilight of the Elites

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.