Today is the anniversary of the UN General Assembly resolution 181 establishing Israel, Nov, 29 1947. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 called for the partition of the British-ruled Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. It was approved on November 29, 1947 with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions and one absent (see list at end of document). The resolution was accepted by the Jews in Palestine, yet rejected by the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab states.
The international basis of it was the British White Paper Balfour Declaration. "The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It bread in poart "
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Really interesting history of US President Harry Truman's decision to recognize Israel, against the advise of his advisors. "Defying the experts' advice and confident in the rightness of the Zionist cause, Harry Truman exerted his presidential prerogative and directed his U.N. delegation to lobby America's friends and clients to support the Partition Resolution in November 1947. Then, on May 14, 1948—again defying the uniform advice of his State and War Departments—he issued a de facto recognition of the State of Israel within hours of its declaration of independence.
Truman's decision came from a profound conviction that Israel belonged in the world as surely as the United States of America belonged in the world. Moreover, in this matter he had reason to believe that popular opinion would sustain him, and so it did."
He saw himself as King Cyrus, the Persian King of the 6th century BCE who defeated the Babylonians and let the Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.
The Arabs still reject the UN resolution. The Palestinians by poll want no Israel. The idea of a 2 state solution, one Jewish and one Arab, as envisioned by the UN resolution, has always and still is rejected by the Palestinians http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/poll-palestinians-want-all-of-israel.html Israel under Barak and Olmert offered a final resolution deal, but got back intifadas.
Moses said to the people in his final charge "I put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life...Be strong and resolute..for the Lord will not forsake you" Deut. 30 and 31. Former US National Debate Champion and Ordained Rabbi tackles issues of Public Policy, Israel, Islamic Terrorism, Antisemitism, Jewish Wisdom and the Chicago Bears
Sunday, November 29, 2015
POLL: Palestinians want all of Israel, not just West Bank and Gaza
- A recent poll found that 48% of Palestinians interviewed believe that the real goal of the "intifada" is to "liberate all of Palestine." In other words, approximately half of Palestinians believe that the "intifada" should lead to the destruction of Israel, which would be replaced with a Palestinian state -- one that now would be ruled by Hamas and jihadi organizations such as Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.
- It is notable that only 11% of respondents said the goal of the "intifada" should be to "liberate" only those territories captured by Israel in 1967.
- The Palestinians do not, according to the poll, have a problem with "settlements" or "poor living conditions." They have a problem with Israel's existence. Palestinians do not see a difference between a West Bank "settlement" and cities inside Israel -- or differentiate between Jews living there. They are all depicted as "settlers" and "colonialists."
Friday, November 27, 2015
Leftist/Obama/Democrat LIES are the basis of the economy wrecking agenda for the Climate Change Conference
Leftist/Obama/Democrat LIES are the basis of the economy wrecking agenda for the Climate Change Conference
Obama is willing to create world-wide depression and make it impossible for poor African nations to ever get out of poverty, through imposition of draconian economy busting new environmental regulations for the small chance that oceans will not rise 1/10 of an inch 200 years from now. And that is supposed to scare Isis how?
Lies include
1. 97% of scientists agree
2. The world is heating up
3. Climate change, if any, is the result of human activity
4. The fool Bernie Sanders is now seriously asserting that Islamic terrorism is caused by climate change and Obama suggested that his attending the conference is a rebuke to Isis!
1. 97% of scientists agree
2. The world is heating up
3. Climate change, if any, is the result of human activity
4. The fool Bernie Sanders is now seriously asserting that Islamic terrorism is caused by climate change and Obama suggested that his attending the conference is a rebuke to Isis!
The purpose of the leftist climate change agenda is to make their cronies wealth, redistribute earned wealth, and destroy USA economy with ridiculous demands on emissions
See http://dangerousdemocraticparty.blogspot.mx/p/climate-chang…
And more at https://www.facebook.com/What-global-warming-3533310613572…/
See http://dangerousdemocraticparty.blogspot.mx/p/climate-chang…
And more at https://www.facebook.com/What-global-warming-3533310613572…/
see more at today's piece http://www.wsj.com/…/clash-for-obama-on-climate-change-summ…
When market forces make alternate energy sources efficient and nore productive, world economies will embrace them. Until then it is a ruse to weaken USA, enrich Al Gore etc., and take our eye off the ball of iran, Isis, Obama's radicalism etc.
When someone says "white privilege", say "Nonsense"
When someone says "white privilege", say "Nonsense". Minorities get into college with much lower scores. That's minority privilege. Minorities get city and Federal bsns contracts based on quotas, not merit. Affirmative action in this country is minority privilege. Racism was virtually defeated except for tiny fringes of the culture, until obama and the left decided, ala Alinsky training' to exacerbate tension in the culture by pitting groups against one another. Anti-Semitism is a much bigger problem in USA than anti Black crimes. see http://time.com/63960/hate-crimes-anti-semitism/
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/…/how-obamas-efforts-…
Obama not criticized because of racism. It is because his POLICIES are ruining America. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/…/obama-not-criticize… it is obama's polices that wage war on Blacks.http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/…/obamas-war-on-black…
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/…/how-obamas-efforts-…
Obama not criticized because of racism. It is because his POLICIES are ruining America. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/…/obama-not-criticize… it is obama's polices that wage war on Blacks.http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/…/obamas-war-on-black…
Thursday, November 26, 2015
outlines the Muslim Brotherhood's plan for the destruction of Western civilization
ACT for America president and founder Brigitte Gabriel, speaks at the Family Research Council's Watchmen on the Wall event about the threat of radical Islam. In this clip she outlines the Muslim Brotherhood's plan for the destruction of Western civilization. The Muslim Brotherhood has spawned dozens and dozens of organizations across the globe, including the terrorist organizations al Qaeda, Hamas, and numerous Muslim organizations in America.
How to deal with your LIBERAL/Lefty/Democrats Family at Thanksgiving
How to deal with your LIBERAL/Lefty/Democrats Family at Thanksgiving
Obama and liberals have prepared talking points to attack conservatives at Thanksgiving.
Obama says
1. Syrian refugees =Mayflower people
Response: Mayflower had 13% supporters of Isis? Translates to 1300 of the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama wants to bring in this year. All our intelligence services say we CANNOT vet them. 25% USA CURRENT Muslims support violent jihad. 80% are military age men, not child orphans. Obama is just LYING! Ask Why do the Democrats want to endanger Americans by bringing in more Muslim refugees?
2. Left says Syrian refugees=Jews fleeing Hitler watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esMZGhg7IvA
It is a morally perverse ananalogy
3. They want us to discuss gun control. Response: we need MORE guns out there to defend ourselves vs Isis murderers and criminals. Make guns harder to get, only Isis and criminals will have them. If they say “can we agree people on no fly lists shouldn’t have? Response: Obama can put anyone he wants on no fly list and there is no appeal. Clever way to get political opponents not to have guns.
4. They say Terrorism caused by climate change. Obama going to Climate change conference is best answer to Isis. Laugh. and then Barack Obama says he will “rebuke” ISIS by attending a global climate conference in Paris next week.Obama willing to create world-wide depression and make it impossible for poor African nations to ever get out of poverty, through imposition of draconian economy busting new environmental regulations for the small chance that oceans will not rise 1/10 of an inch 200 years from now. And that is supposed to scare Isis how?
5. If they say “Why do Republicans want to cut programs to the poor? Because Dem's program HURT the poor” answer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlTFmBk4KP4
6. You ask Why Obama/Hillary have done nothing to slow Isis and al quida.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCx2i0XoJxs
7. because Obama is a jihadist. Hundreds of examples: http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/obama-is-jihadist-hundreds-of-examples.html
8. If they stoop to blaming Bush, explain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1IWUNzgpuk
Democrats caused the 2008 recession and the subsequent problems
9. If they say Obama has been a good president
Obama is the worst Prez in US history (50 reasons) and Hillary will be worse
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/obama-is-worst-prez-in-us-history-and.html
10. If they say they will vote for Hillary: Why would you suport the most corrupt person ever to run for president?
Hillary is the most corrupt person ever to run for president and pro-Islamic jihadist and anti-israel
a. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/hillarys-anti-israel-history-pro.html. . http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/hillary-is-most-corrupt-and-dangerous.html
b. the record is clear that U.S. foreign policy collapsed on Clinton’s watch and the world is a far more dangerous and far less free place as a result. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-record-is-clear-that-us-foreign.html
11. If they bring up college campuses, say the colleges are caving in to PC and ruining our youth. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/we-must-save-our-college-campuses-it-is.html
12. if they say police are gunning down blacks. a. 90% black deaths caused by blacks in Democratic run cities, because of Democratic welfare polices destroying black families, lead to more gang activity. see point 5 above
13. If Israel comes up and some idiot says it is Israel's fault http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/muslim-terrorists-stabbing-jews-in.html
14. if they bemoan racial tension, respond a. Obama has been president 7 years b. Obama is behind it on purpose. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/obama-soros-rioters-isispalestinian.html
Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Obama and liberals have prepared talking points to attack conservatives at Thanksgiving.
Obama says
1. Syrian refugees =Mayflower people
Response: Mayflower had 13% supporters of Isis? Translates to 1300 of the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama wants to bring in this year. All our intelligence services say we CANNOT vet them. 25% USA CURRENT Muslims support violent jihad. 80% are military age men, not child orphans. Obama is just LYING! Ask Why do the Democrats want to endanger Americans by bringing in more Muslim refugees?
2. Left says Syrian refugees=Jews fleeing Hitler watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esMZGhg7IvA
It is a morally perverse ananalogy
3. They want us to discuss gun control. Response: we need MORE guns out there to defend ourselves vs Isis murderers and criminals. Make guns harder to get, only Isis and criminals will have them. If they say “can we agree people on no fly lists shouldn’t have? Response: Obama can put anyone he wants on no fly list and there is no appeal. Clever way to get political opponents not to have guns.
4. They say Terrorism caused by climate change. Obama going to Climate change conference is best answer to Isis. Laugh. and then Barack Obama says he will “rebuke” ISIS by attending a global climate conference in Paris next week.Obama willing to create world-wide depression and make it impossible for poor African nations to ever get out of poverty, through imposition of draconian economy busting new environmental regulations for the small chance that oceans will not rise 1/10 of an inch 200 years from now. And that is supposed to scare Isis how?
5. If they say “Why do Republicans want to cut programs to the poor? Because Dem's program HURT the poor” answer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlTFmBk4KP4
6. You ask Why Obama/Hillary have done nothing to slow Isis and al quida.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCx2i0XoJxs
7. because Obama is a jihadist. Hundreds of examples: http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/obama-is-jihadist-hundreds-of-examples.html
8. If they stoop to blaming Bush, explain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1IWUNzgpuk
Democrats caused the 2008 recession and the subsequent problems
9. If they say Obama has been a good president
Obama is the worst Prez in US history (50 reasons) and Hillary will be worse
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/obama-is-worst-prez-in-us-history-and.html
10. If they say they will vote for Hillary: Why would you suport the most corrupt person ever to run for president?
Hillary is the most corrupt person ever to run for president and pro-Islamic jihadist and anti-israel
a. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/hillarys-anti-israel-history-pro.html. . http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/hillary-is-most-corrupt-and-dangerous.html
b. the record is clear that U.S. foreign policy collapsed on Clinton’s watch and the world is a far more dangerous and far less free place as a result. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-record-is-clear-that-us-foreign.html
11. If they bring up college campuses, say the colleges are caving in to PC and ruining our youth. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/we-must-save-our-college-campuses-it-is.html
12. if they say police are gunning down blacks. a. 90% black deaths caused by blacks in Democratic run cities, because of Democratic welfare polices destroying black families, lead to more gang activity. see point 5 above
13. If Israel comes up and some idiot says it is Israel's fault http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/muslim-terrorists-stabbing-jews-in.html
14. if they bemoan racial tension, respond a. Obama has been president 7 years b. Obama is behind it on purpose. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/obama-soros-rioters-isispalestinian.html
Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Obama attending climate summit is supposed to scare Isis how?
Barack Obama says he will “rebuke” ISIS by attending a global climate conference in Paris next week.Obama willing to create world-wide depression and make it impossible for poor African nations to ever get out of poverty, through imposition of draconian economy busting new environmental regulations for the small chance that oceans will not rise 1/10 of an inch 200 years from now. And that is supposed to scare Isis how?
Obama and Hillary are both Islamic terrorist appeasers. They have been pretending to fight Isis with their phony, pretend coalition of 65 nations that do nothing, “JV”, “no strategy yet” “contained” “killers with good social media” all the while Isis controls a caliphate bigger than Indiana and took down a Russian passenger jet and killed 129 in paris in last 2 weeks. Hillary is as misguided here as she is about everything. The record is clear that U.S. foreign policy collapsed on Clinton’s watch and the world is a far more dangerous and far less free place as a result.
WHY? Obama, born and raised a Muslim, never converted away from Islam and supports radical jihad. Hundreds of examples..
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/obama-is-jihadist-hundreds-of-examples.html http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/hillarys-anti-israel-history-pro.html. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/hillary-is-most-corrupt-and-dangerous.html. http://www.hannity.com/articles/war-on-terror-487284/retired-marine-colonel-democrats-totally-delusional-14126639
Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Obama and Hillary are both Islamic terrorist appeasers. They have been pretending to fight Isis with their phony, pretend coalition of 65 nations that do nothing, “JV”, “no strategy yet” “contained” “killers with good social media” all the while Isis controls a caliphate bigger than Indiana and took down a Russian passenger jet and killed 129 in paris in last 2 weeks. Hillary is as misguided here as she is about everything. The record is clear that U.S. foreign policy collapsed on Clinton’s watch and the world is a far more dangerous and far less free place as a result.
WHY? Obama, born and raised a Muslim, never converted away from Islam and supports radical jihad. Hundreds of examples..
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/obama-is-jihadist-hundreds-of-examples.html http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/hillarys-anti-israel-history-pro.html. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/11/hillary-is-most-corrupt-and-dangerous.html. http://www.hannity.com/articles/war-on-terror-487284/retired-marine-colonel-democrats-totally-delusional-14126639
Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Chicago riots? an example of the Obama-Soros-rioters-Isis/Palestinian jihadists nexus
Obama-Soros-rioters-Isis/Palestinian jihadists nexus
Chicago is bracing for riots the next few days, following the release of a video from events 14 months ago of rogue cop shooting a pcb black man holding a knife 16 times. There were several other officers there first. He was charged today with first degree murder. George Soros spent $33 million financing professional rioters in Furgeson and we are hearing he is on on this too. he is also spending heavily to finance the migration of the syrian refugees. To complete the circle, Isis has been recruiting the rioters in Furgeson and baltimore. Soros and Obama are joined at the hip. Soros also was the initial financer of JStreet, which they intially denied until tax records came out.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all
http://humanevents.com/2010/09/09/the-obamasoros-connection/
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/faux-conservative-group-is-funded-by-america-hater-george-soros
http://www.anarchistnews.org/content/isis-recruiting-criminals-anarchists-who-participated-ferguson-riots
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/backlivesmatter-in-cahoots-with.html http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/democrats-purposefully-exacerbating.html
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/08/jstreet-happy-to-do-mr-obamas.html
Democrats purposefully exacerbating racial tension as taught to do so by radical Saul Alinsky
a. Obama WAR ON BLACKS: Record black unemployment/blacks suffer under Obama http://www.newsmax.com/…/obama-blacks…/2014/01/08/id/545866/
b. History of racism of democrats http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/07/democratic-party-are-racists.html
c. Obama purposefully increasing racial tension http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/…/why-racial-tensions…-
d. Soros is funding the rioters http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/…/tax-records-show-george-so…/
e. Farrakhan calls for mass murder of whites http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/…/blacks-fail-to-rebuke-anti…/
f. http://conservatives4palin.com/2015/08/sheriff-david-clarke-barack-obama-started-this-war-on-police.html
g. Obama wrongly condemns police on 3 occasions when the black man was guilty but says nothing when “Black lives matter” movement advocates cop killings and cops are then killed in cold blood
h. Murder rates skyrocketing in major cities as Obama fuels racial tension and anti police atmosphere http://www.foxnews.com/…/baltimore-killings-soar-to-level-…/
i. Phony "gender wage gap" is a democratic lie http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/gender-wage-gap-is-another-democratic-lie.html
j. Blacks lives were steadily IMPROVING in every category until Democrats started the giveaways.
Chicago is bracing for riots the next few days, following the release of a video from events 14 months ago of rogue cop shooting a pcb black man holding a knife 16 times. There were several other officers there first. He was charged today with first degree murder. George Soros spent $33 million financing professional rioters in Furgeson and we are hearing he is on on this too. he is also spending heavily to finance the migration of the syrian refugees. To complete the circle, Isis has been recruiting the rioters in Furgeson and baltimore. Soros and Obama are joined at the hip. Soros also was the initial financer of JStreet, which they intially denied until tax records came out.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all
http://humanevents.com/2010/09/09/the-obamasoros-connection/
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/faux-conservative-group-is-funded-by-america-hater-george-soros
http://www.anarchistnews.org/content/isis-recruiting-criminals-anarchists-who-participated-ferguson-riots
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/backlivesmatter-in-cahoots-with.html http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/democrats-purposefully-exacerbating.html
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/08/jstreet-happy-to-do-mr-obamas.html
Democrats purposefully exacerbating racial tension as taught to do so by radical Saul Alinsky
a. Obama WAR ON BLACKS: Record black unemployment/blacks suffer under Obama http://www.newsmax.com/…/obama-blacks…/2014/01/08/id/545866/
b. History of racism of democrats http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/07/democratic-party-are-racists.html
c. Obama purposefully increasing racial tension http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/…/why-racial-tensions…-
d. Soros is funding the rioters http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/…/tax-records-show-george-so…/
e. Farrakhan calls for mass murder of whites http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/…/blacks-fail-to-rebuke-anti…/
f. http://conservatives4palin.com/2015/08/sheriff-david-clarke-barack-obama-started-this-war-on-police.html
g. Obama wrongly condemns police on 3 occasions when the black man was guilty but says nothing when “Black lives matter” movement advocates cop killings and cops are then killed in cold blood
h. Murder rates skyrocketing in major cities as Obama fuels racial tension and anti police atmosphere http://www.foxnews.com/…/baltimore-killings-soar-to-level-…/
i. Phony "gender wage gap" is a democratic lie http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/gender-wage-gap-is-another-democratic-lie.html
j. Blacks lives were steadily IMPROVING in every category until Democrats started the giveaways.
welfare dependency, births to teen unwed others, unemployment, drugs, fatherless households, gang ,memberships, black on black crime
Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Why do the Democrats want to endanger Americans by bringing in more Muslim refugees?
Question: why are the 65 Muslim nations not taking a single refugee? What do they know Obama won't admit to?
To the liberal fools who mouth Obama's jihadist demands we admit more Syrian muslims as refugees::
if you care about reality, Obama is LYING. All our intelligence agencies say we CANNOT VET THEM.
1. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/09/10/homeland-security-chair-we-dont-have-sufficient-intelligence-to-vet-syrian-refugees/
2. FBI http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/no-ability-to-vet-syrian-refugees--568060995781
3. http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/obama-admin-lied-about-vetting-syrian-refugees/
4. http://www.infowars.com/us-intel-experts-warn-of-gaping-holes-in-refugee-vetting/
5. Greeks say we cannot http://news.yahoo.com/nearly-impossible-jihadists-among-migrants-greeks-warn-084048253.html
Obama lies when he says it is widows and orphans. 80% are military age men.
Obama won't even listen to intelligence reports
http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/bombshell-obama-rejects-intel-on-known-islamic-terrorists/
He has just pretended to fight isis now for 18 months: JV, "contained" no strategy yet, telling pilots to not drop bombs, warning isis with leaflets when we strike etc. and he condemns Egypt fighting isis. http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/obama-condemns-egypt-bombing-isis-in-retaliation-for-slaughter-of-christians and http://www.yesimright.com/obama-ordered-our-air-force-to-stand-down-when-fighting-isis-hes-finished/
Kerry and Bernie think global warming causes terrorism.
Need more proof we need to fear more Muslim immigrants we already have?
Obama has been letting in over 200,000 a year now.
Muslim immigrants attacking Jews in USA today https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/54027/in-disturbing-hate-crime-muslim-taxi-driver-attacks-jewish-passenger-in-new-york-city-jewish-world
And now Obama has Geoge Soros funding this massive Muslim migration, just as he had him fund the professional rioters in Furgeson. http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/why-is-soros-funding-muslim-immigration-in-the-us/
Most Americans know Obama and Hillary are appeasing radical Islamic terrorists and endangering America. The rest are so stupid we can’t pay attention. POLL OUT TODAY Today 66 percent consider the country “at war” with radical Islam. Two-thirds of voters -- and nearly half of Democrats -- oppose the administration’s plan for the U.S. to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. Why does Obama lie and lie like this, endangering us all?
Obama does not care since he is a committed Islamic jihadist. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/10/obama-is-jihadist-hundreds-of-examples.html and that 80% Muslims vote Democratic, plus the multi millions Clinton Foundation received from Islamic jihad nations
77 percent think it’s likely at least one of those coming in through this process will be a terrorist who will “succeed in carrying out an attack on U.S. soil.” Duh. We’ve had 41 Muslim terrorist attacks here since 9-11 here. see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.html for the list.
And Huge % USA Muslims support violence
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed
Hillary of course lies and agrees with obama.
Israel deals with these barbarians everyday.
4 stabbings in Israel today. Muslim terrorists are the same everywhere
Monday, November 23, 2015
the record is clear that U.S. foreign policy collapsed on Clinton’s watch and the world is a far more dangerous and far less free place as a result.
August 29, 2014
Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy Failures
Do not be fooled by Hillary Clinton’s attempt to rehabilitate her term as Secretary of State ahead of the 2016 presidential election. From 2009 to 2013, Clinton embodied U.S. foreign affairs even as President Obama’s avowed policy of self-effacement descended into listless, desultory abdication. Notwithstanding her recent critiques of Obama’s performance, Clinton’s failures as Secretary of State helped bring war to Europe, an arms race to Asia, and inferno to the Middle-East. The U.S. and its international standing are weaker for Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.
Clinton’s mistakes began early, with her contribution to the misconceived and poorly executed Russia Reset. President Obama campaigned on a sunshine foreign policy platform, and one of his first foreign policy priorities was to improve relations with Russia. Bilateral relations froze when Russia invaded Georgia in August, 2008, and President Bush deployed warships into the Black Sea and facilitated Georgia’s recall of its combat troops from Iraq. Secretary Clinton’s first major assignment was meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva in March, 2009. They drank, ate, talked, and posed for now-infamous photos in which the pair “pushed” a kitschy, red, plastic button mislabeled with the Russian word for “overcharge” instead of “reset.”
Clinton’s mistakes began early, with her contribution to the misconceived and poorly executed Russia Reset. President Obama campaigned on a sunshine foreign policy platform, and one of his first foreign policy priorities was to improve relations with Russia. Bilateral relations froze when Russia invaded Georgia in August, 2008, and President Bush deployed warships into the Black Sea and facilitated Georgia’s recall of its combat troops from Iraq. Secretary Clinton’s first major assignment was meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva in March, 2009. They drank, ate, talked, and posed for now-infamous photos in which the pair “pushed” a kitschy, red, plastic button mislabeled with the Russian word for “overcharge” instead of “reset.”
To give substance to the show, Clinton and Lavrov discussed the U.S.’s “flexibility” on plans made during the Bush administration to build installations housing missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia vehemently opposes locating interceptors in Eastern Europe, and Poland and the Czech Republic incurred Russia’s wrath for agreeing to host the systems anyway. Six months after the Geneva meeting, the U.S. cancelled deployment of the systems, leaving Poland and the Czech Republic bereft of the economic and security benefits of the installations but still saddled with Russian anger.In the first of what would become a pattern, the U.S. sacrificed allies’ interests to a rival in the fatuous hope that the rival would feel some sort of gratitude or obligation in return. The Wall Street Journal’s scathing editorial has proven prescient. TheJournal warned that bowing to Russian pressure would only encourage it to demand ever more concessions and that “[n]ext time, perhaps, the West can be seduced into trading away the pro-Western government of Georgia, or even Ukraine.” The Journal continued that “inclusion in NATO and EU was supposed to have [ended great power use of Eastern and Central Europe as bargaining chips], but Russia's new assertiveness, including its willingness to cut off energy supplies in winter and invade Georgia last year, is reviving powerful fears.” The Journal and a litany of foreign policy commentators rightly predicted that Putin would take such gestures only as an invitation to aggression.
Five years later, Russia’s annexation of Crimea is a fait accompli. Russian armored vehicles and tanks have moved across Ukraine’s border and it is unclear if East Ukraine will fall to rebels leavened with Russian Special Forces. Reports from late August indicate Russian paratroopers have been captured in Ukraine.
As was the case to a lesser degree in Georgia, the impetus for Russia’s invasion of Crimea and other aggressive behavior in Ukraine was Ukraine’s popular revolt against a Russian client government in favor of joining Europe. NATO’s failure to respond in any meaningful way not only raises doubts about the wisdom of nations from the former Soviet sphere orienting with the West, it has called into question the alliance’s very viability. If Russia moves on against the Baltic States, will NATO respond? In a game contest of perceptions, does Russia think the U.S. and its allies will rouse themselves to meet their treaty obligations for some frozen, little country so far from core Europe?
Since 2009, Russia has also violated missile and nuclear test ban treaties, cracked down on domestic dissent, de facto criminalized homosexuality and sent nuclear bombers on sorties off the U.S. mainland. In 2010 and 2011, Clinton was deeply involved in the negotiations that culminated in the New START treaty and rewarded Russia for armament cuts it was making already. There new treaty provided no recognizable benefit to the U.S. other than political cover for the Obama Administration to cut U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Clinton has called the Russia Reset “brilliant.” It is a debacle.
The 2011 “pivot” to Asia has proven as bad. In theory, it meant refocusing American foreign policy on the tandem issues of China’s emerging military challenge and the region’s robust economic growth and importance. China’s impression that the pivot entailed a robust containment strategy is not all wrong. But in practice it has meant further abandonment of European obligations and abdication of responsibilities in the Middle-East without discernible benefit.
Perversely, the pivot may have destabilized Asia and damaged security. The U.S. declared its intention to bolster military capacity in Asia, but increased deployments haven’t materialized and the Department of Defense has said they “can’t happen” due to plummeting Department of Defense budgets. Promising to strengthen the U.S.’s military position in Asia and then admitting the inability to carry through projects weakness and invites challenge.
Recognizing the military incapacity implied by Obama and Clinton’s Potemkin Pivot, China has aggressively asserted specious territorial claims. Under China’s “Nine-Dash” policy it claims exclusive economic rights in approximately all of the South China Sea. The precise coordinates of the nine dashes bounding China’s claims are not public, but they decidedly exceed China’s legal boundaries and encroach on Japan’s, Vietnam’s and the Philippines’s internationally recognized rights.
To substantiate its demand for exclusive rights in international and foreign waters, China has built and annexed new islands and claimed existing islands already belonging to its neighbors. These fabricated “Chinese” territories give a patina of legitimacy to China’s nine-dash claims because, if legitimate, China would have economic rights to a zone surrounding those territories.
Challenged by China’s ruse and bereft of a U.S. counterbalancing force, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam, the primary victims of China’s expansion, are acquiring arms to fight back. The badly-overmatched Philippines and Vietnam have already clashed with the Chinese Navy and its sea-going irregulars. The Philippines are now acquiring obsolete U.S. frigates explicitly to establish a minimum deterrent against China. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abo has generously reinterpreted Japan’s constitution to allow robust military acquisitions and actions for the first time since the end of World War II.
In both the Russia Reset and the Asia Pivot, Obama and Clinton naively believed that they were uniquely able to woo or cajole Russia and China, even where administrations before them had failed. Instead, responding to signals that the U.S. lacks either the ability or fortitude to stand against them, Russia and China are both literally expanding, acquiring new territory at the expense of Western-oriented U.S. allies. Those allies and others similarly situated no longer assume the U.S. is capable of – or even interested in - meeting its foreign obligations, and are understandably looking for other means of protecting their own interests.
But while shrinking from geopolitical rivals in Russia and China is a severe error, Clinton and Obama’s most lasting legacy may be the slaughter in the Middle-East. Clinton was Secretary of State when the U.S. pulled all troops out of Iraq, the first inexplicable and obvious mistake that opened the door for the Islamic State (“IS,” a/k/a the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a/k/a the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)). IS began as an insurgent group in Iraq, a former al-Qaeda affiliate supposedly ostracized for being too extreme. Once U.S. troops left Iraq in 2011, IS expanded rapidly.
Clinton now claims she opposed Obama’s decision to withdraw all troops from Iraq. Some insiders corroborate parts of her story, including James Jeffrey, who was Ambassador to Iraq at the time. However, Obama’s rationalization for the precipitate troop withdrawal was that there was no Status of Forces agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, and leaving troops on the ground without such an agreement created legalistic dangers to U.S. troops to go along with the kinetic ones. While Clinton has blamed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for failing to reach an SFA, it was her job as Secretary of State to negotiate an agreement and she failed to do so.
The premature U.S. withdrawal left other gaps filled by adverse forces. As violence ramped up after the U.S. departure, U.S. influence over the Maliki government evaporated and Iran stepped into the void. Absent U.S. pressure and guidance, Maliki’s sectarianism asserted itself and he denied Sunnis access to meaningful participation in government, whereas American presence and pressure would have pushed broad inclusion. The excluded Sunni leadership, in turn, was more receptive to IS.
Across the border in Syria, too, IS seized power because there was no substantive opposition force. Early in the Syrian Civil War a multitude of rebel groups jockeyed for men, arms and support, and the U.S. remained aloof of any of them. As Clinton told Jeffrey Goldberg, “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people . . . left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” The articulated reason the U.S. never provided substantial arms or materiel to help create a credible fighting force was that the U.S. did not have strong enough relationships with the rebel groups to feel confident that arms used against Assad would not someday be turned against the U.S. or its allies. As head of U.S. foreign missions, Clinton again bears responsibility for failing to create and foster those predicate relationships.
Allowing IS’s rise and the resultant carnage in Iraq and Northern Syria does not even touch on the horrors of the Syrian civil war itself. Hundreds of thousands have been killed. Millions displaced across borders to Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and even Iraq threaten to further destabilize those countries. Assad has targeted civilian populations, used chemical weapons, and systematically raped, tortured and murdered. Despite intermittent reports that the U.S. would arm rebels, the U.S. still has done nothing of substance to bring Assad down.
At root, Clinton simply miscomprehended the conflict itself. More than two years ago, Clinton said “[i]t should be abundantly clear to those who support [Syrian President Bashar al- Assad’s] regime [that] their days are numbered.” If she had been right, and the Assad regime had collapsed in late 2012 or early 2013, IS may never have expanded into Syria, never consolidated anti-Assad forces under its banner, never gained notoriety, fame and growing international Islamist support. Without a base in Syria, IS may never have returned to terrorize Iraq. Maybe if Clinton were correct in her stated assessment of the Syrian war, IS would never have grown into the force it is today.
But Clinton was flat wrong, with horrific consequences she cannot run away from. Due to the administration’s combined failures of abandoning Iraq and abstaining from any practical role in Syria, the IS’s self-declared Caliphate now stretches across great swaths of both countries and threatens Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. IS is systematically destroying kafir holy sites, recently eradicated the nearly 2000-year-old Christian community in Mosul, is trying to exterminate the Yazidis, and is pressing Kurdish forces hard. The situation today is so dire that U.S. troops have returned to Iraq -- without a Status of Forces agreement.
Clinton’s mishandling of the Arab Spring is another recurring theme, though nowhere so bloody as in Syria. In Egypt, decades of U.S. foreign policy reflected the calculation that the stability of an unpleasant but relatively benign strongman was better than the discord and disruption threatened by its near-certain Muslim Brotherhood replacement. In 2011, though, Obama and Clinton backed popular calls for political reform and then criticized President Hosni Mubarak’s first proposals.
Belatedly, Clinton backed off aggressive calls for Mubarak’s immediate departure. The Egyptian Constitution required elections within 60 days from the President’s resignation. The Muslim Brotherhood had been the only organized opposition party in the country for a generation and was bound to dominate any snap elections. Clinton therefore called for an orderly “transition” that would allow other parties to organize and compete.
Too late. Mubarak stepped down and the Brotherhood dominated the ensuing 2012 elections. Predictably, the new president, Mohamed Morsi, imposed an Islamist agenda. Having thoroughly alienated the relatively urbane Cairenes within a year, Morsi was overthrown in a popularly-support military coup led by General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi was elected President earlier this year.
There remains a chance that Sisi will transition to democracy, perhaps on the pre-Erdogan Turkish model in which a strong military is the guarantor of secular democracy. Steady, confident U.S. leadership would be critical, though, and the U.S. has shown neither constancy not trustworthiness in Egypt. Obama and Clinton criticized Mubarak’s slow reform, then backed a tempered transition, then supported free elections when Mubarak resigned, then backed Morsi even after the population turned against his extremism, then condemned Sisi’s overthrow of Morsi even though the population supported it. Pew polling shows favorable views of the United States among Egyptians have fallen from 27% in 2009 to 10% today. The U.S. generally and Clinton personally have precious little credibility or goodwill in Egypt.
The instinct to support democracy abroad is a good one, but Clinton and Obama failed to distinguish between democracy in name and democracy in practice. There was good reason the Egyptian military and U.S. policy makers have long opposed the Muslim Brotherhood. Time after time Islamist organizations have taken power through elections and never left, repressing popular opposition and fomenting violence abroad. Egypt and the Obama Administration needed only look next door to the Gaza Strip, where Hamas (the Brotherhood’s Palestinian Branch) won an election in 2006 and has not allowed one since, choosing instead to militarize the territory and lob missiles at Israel. Clinton and Obama failed to recognize that the Brotherhood would abuse instead of embrace democracy.
In Libya, too, Clinton and Obama failed to foresee and prepare for the repercussions of decapitating the regime. Muammar Qaddafi was a cruel, evil man, an avowed enemy of the United State, and a terrorist. Nobody questions the decision to back his overthrow. But the United States never had a coherent plan in Libya, and leading from behind turned out to mean feckless spectating.
In the absence of a sustained Western influence, Libya has foundered. Once Qaddafi was gone -- tortured, sodomized and murdered by the rebels -- an Islamist insurrection began almost immediately. The U.S. Embassy in Libya, headed by Ambassador Christopher Stevens, requested additional security both at the Embassy in Tripoli and at the exposed consulate in Benghazi. Those requests were not honored.
On September 11, 2012, Stevens and three others Americans were killed when the Benghazi consulate and a nearby CIA annex came under coordinated attack. In the days following, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, claimed the attack was a spontaneous response to an obscure internet video. That claim was false. While the White House and State Department have not disclosed what they knew and when, the U.S. government knew in real time that Benghazi was a well-planned, coordinated attack and not merely a spontaneous demonstration gone terribly awry.
Benghazi itself was not a foreign policy failure, it was a terrorist attack. However, Clinton’s mistakes contributed both to the attack and subsequent government evasions. Clinton’s inability to foresee and prevent Libya’s dissent into a terrorist safe haven is certainly a foreign policy failure. Otherwise, Benghazi is more a leadership failure. Clinton’s State Department failed to provide the additional security Ambassador Stevens requested and he and three others were murdered. Clinton failed either to properly educate Rice or to rein her in, and she attempted the video ruse. That is a leadership failure. When Mrs. Clinton later railed, “what difference . . . does it make” whether the attack was premeditated or spontaneous, it was deplorable hubris.
Meanwhile, fighting has reached Tripoli and Libya’s neighbors are now actively involved in preventing yet another failed Islamist state from arising.
At the opposite end of the greater Middle-East, Clinton and Obama failed to capitalize on a once-in-a-generation opportunity in Iran. Since its inception, the self-styled Islamic Republic of Iran has opposed the U.S. in every way. The Iranian revolution was consciously anti-American and post-Shah Iran’s first great act was kidnapping US diplomats in 1979. Since then, Iran and its Hezb’allah terrorist arm have conducted terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its allies, and more recently armed and trained insurgents killing U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One reason for optimism on Iran has been the disconnect between the mullahs and the Iranian population. Before the revolution, Iran was quite Westernized, and it has long been gospel in Foggy Bottom that the Iranian population is among the most pro-American in the world.
At last, in 2009, the tension between the anti-U.S. Iranian leadership and pro-U.S. Iranian population tore open. Ultra-radical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner in his reelection bid, but all three of his opponents claimed the election had been rigged. Protesters took to the streets in unprecedented numbers and staying power.
Yet the US did nothing. There were no pronouncements about the universal right to free expression and representation, no admonitions that the Iran should abide the will of its people. There was no effort whatsoever to help the Iranian population improve their own lives and at the same time lessen the threat of terror and war in the Middle-East.
Isolated and unsupported, the protesters were crushed. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Basij militia beat, raped and murdered the protesters into submission. The Green Revolution died with the protesters.
Ahmadinejad proceeded to quite a successful second term at Clinton’s, Obama’s and the United States’ expense. He duped Obama and Clinton into deferring nuclear sanctions and meanwhile expanded Iran’s nuclear program. He consolidated Iran’s control and influence in Iraq and deployed troops and irregular assets to wage Assad’s war in Syria.
None of the various explanations for Obama and Clinton’s failure to support the Green Revolution is adequate. Some have opined they worried U.S. support for the protesters would inadvertently undercut the opposition by giving credence to regime accusations that they were Western stooges or CIA plants. Others have suggested more plausibly that Obama and Clinton simply prioritized “engagement” with Iran and believed that support for the protesters would undercut nuclear negotiations and the bizarre hope that Iran would help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whatever rationale they embraced at the time, Obama and Clinton squandered a unique opportunity to support democratic reform at the expense of an implacable theocratic enemy.
Clinton failed to understand and address myriad other international developments. On her watch, Boko Haram grew from a local disputant to a regional threat in West Africa, while al-Shabaab expanded in East Africa, and the Taliban resurged in Afghanistan. Venezuela remains benighted by incompetent socialist oligarchs and ruinous economic failure despite Hugo Chavez’s long illness and death. The U.S. angered England by abandoning longstanding policy (again) and seeming to back Argentina in the dispute over the Falkland Islands. Israel repeatedly found itself strong-armed into poor positions by the Administration’s headlong pursuit of an ephemeral deal at all costs.
While the vast majority of Clinton’s mistakes were criticized contemporaneously, some of them are admittedly made with the benefit of hindsight. However, Clinton wants to be President of the United States and appears intent on claiming her stint as Secretary of State as a qualification. And the U.S. deserves a successful president and foreign policy apparatus. That means understanding the cascading repercussions of seemingly isolated decisions; soberly assesses foreign counterparts’ good or bad intentions; quickly putting unfolding events into broader context and answering difficult questions correctly the first time even when the facts and circumstances are murky. Like any other assignment, good foreign policy must ultimately be judged by the results. As Clinton indulges hindsight revisionism at Obama’s expense, it is fair to ask why she didn’t live up to minimum expectations.
Yes, Clinton was merely a cabinet member, but all of the aforementioned mistakes fell squarely within her portfolio. If Clinton disagreed with Mr. Obama’s decisions, why did she fail to persuade him? Why didn’t she make the case more forcefully? More publicly? More successfully? Why didn’t she reach an agreement with Nouri al-Maliki? The Syrian rebels? Why did she pursue the reset debacle? Why did she back the failed pivot? Why were allies repeatedly left aghast as the U.S. took harmful decisions without consultation or forewarning? To the extent she was a dupe or merely the titular Secretary while somebody else wielded real power, why did she allow herself to be coopted? Why didn’t she do something?
No, Secretary Clinton is responsible for four years of U.S. backsliding on the world stage. It was her job to observe and interpret foreign events, advise the President, and formulate and execute policy to benefit the U.S. and its allies and confound U.S. enemies. It does not matter which component of her responsibilities she failed; the record is clear that U.S. foreign policy collapsed on Clinton’s watch and the world is a far more dangerous and far less free place as a result.
Jonathan Levin is an attorney and blogs at punditryandpontification.com
Do not be fooled by Hillary Clinton’s attempt to rehabilitate her term as Secretary of State ahead of the 2016 presidential election. From 2009 to 2013, Clinton embodied U.S. foreign affairs even as President Obama’s avowed policy of self-effacement descended into listless, desultory abdication. Notwithstanding her recent critiques of Obama’s performance, Clinton’s failures as Secretary of State helped bring war to Europe, an arms race to Asia, and inferno to the Middle-East. The U.S. and its international standing are weaker for Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.
Clinton’s mistakes began early, with her contribution to the misconceived and poorly executed Russia Reset. President Obama campaigned on a sunshine foreign policy platform, and one of his first foreign policy priorities was to improve relations with Russia. Bilateral relations froze when Russia invaded Georgia in August, 2008, and President Bush deployed warships into the Black Sea and facilitated Georgia’s recall of its combat troops from Iraq. Secretary Clinton’s first major assignment was meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva in March, 2009. They drank, ate, talked, and posed for now-infamous photos in which the pair “pushed” a kitschy, red, plastic button mislabeled with the Russian word for “overcharge” instead of “reset.”
To give substance to the show, Clinton and Lavrov discussed the U.S.’s “flexibility” on plans made during the Bush administration to build installations housing missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia vehemently opposes locating interceptors in Eastern Europe, and Poland and the Czech Republic incurred Russia’s wrath for agreeing to host the systems anyway. Six months after the Geneva meeting, the U.S. cancelled deployment of the systems, leaving Poland and the Czech Republic bereft of the economic and security benefits of the installations but still saddled with Russian anger.
In the first of what would become a pattern, the U.S. sacrificed allies’ interests to a rival in the fatuous hope that the rival would feel some sort of gratitude or obligation in return. The Wall Street Journal’s scathing editorial has proven prescient. TheJournal warned that bowing to Russian pressure would only encourage it to demand ever more concessions and that “[n]ext time, perhaps, the West can be seduced into trading away the pro-Western government of Georgia, or even Ukraine.” The Journal continued that “inclusion in NATO and EU was supposed to have [ended great power use of Eastern and Central Europe as bargaining chips], but Russia's new assertiveness, including its willingness to cut off energy supplies in winter and invade Georgia last year, is reviving powerful fears.” The Journal and a litany of foreign policy commentators rightly predicted that Putin would take such gestures only as an invitation to aggression.
Five years later, Russia’s annexation of Crimea is a fait accompli. Russian armored vehicles and tanks have moved across Ukraine’s border and it is unclear if East Ukraine will fall to rebels leavened with Russian Special Forces. Reports from late August indicate Russian paratroopers have been captured in Ukraine.
As was the case to a lesser degree in Georgia, the impetus for Russia’s invasion of Crimea and other aggressive behavior in Ukraine was Ukraine’s popular revolt against a Russian client government in favor of joining Europe. NATO’s failure to respond in any meaningful way not only raises doubts about the wisdom of nations from the former Soviet sphere orienting with the West, it has called into question the alliance’s very viability. If Russia moves on against the Baltic States, will NATO respond? In a game contest of perceptions, does Russia think the U.S. and its allies will rouse themselves to meet their treaty obligations for some frozen, little country so far from core Europe?
Since 2009, Russia has also violated missile and nuclear test ban treaties, cracked down on domestic dissent, de facto criminalized homosexuality and sent nuclear bombers on sorties off the U.S. mainland. In 2010 and 2011, Clinton was deeply involved in the negotiations that culminated in the New START treaty and rewarded Russia for armament cuts it was making already. There new treaty provided no recognizable benefit to the U.S. other than political cover for the Obama Administration to cut U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Clinton has called the Russia Reset “brilliant.” It is a debacle.
The 2011 “pivot” to Asia has proven as bad. In theory, it meant refocusing American foreign policy on the tandem issues of China’s emerging military challenge and the region’s robust economic growth and importance. China’s impression that the pivot entailed a robust containment strategy is not all wrong. But in practice it has meant further abandonment of European obligations and abdication of responsibilities in the Middle-East without discernible benefit.
Perversely, the pivot may have destabilized Asia and damaged security. The U.S. declared its intention to bolster military capacity in Asia, but increased deployments haven’t materialized and the Department of Defense has said they “can’t happen” due to plummeting Department of Defense budgets. Promising to strengthen the U.S.’s military position in Asia and then admitting the inability to carry through projects weakness and invites challenge.
Recognizing the military incapacity implied by Obama and Clinton’s Potemkin Pivot, China has aggressively asserted specious territorial claims. Under China’s “Nine-Dash” policy it claims exclusive economic rights in approximately all of the South China Sea. The precise coordinates of the nine dashes bounding China’s claims are not public, but they decidedly exceed China’s legal boundaries and encroach on Japan’s, Vietnam’s and the Philippines’s internationally recognized rights.
To substantiate its demand for exclusive rights in international and foreign waters, China has built and annexed new islands and claimed existing islands already belonging to its neighbors. These fabricated “Chinese” territories give a patina of legitimacy to China’s nine-dash claims because, if legitimate, China would have economic rights to a zone surrounding those territories.
Challenged by China’s ruse and bereft of a U.S. counterbalancing force, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam, the primary victims of China’s expansion, are acquiring arms to fight back. The badly-overmatched Philippines and Vietnam have already clashed with the Chinese Navy and its sea-going irregulars. The Philippines are now acquiring obsolete U.S. frigates explicitly to establish a minimum deterrent against China. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abo has generously reinterpreted Japan’s constitution to allow robust military acquisitions and actions for the first time since the end of World War II.
In both the Russia Reset and the Asia Pivot, Obama and Clinton naively believed that they were uniquely able to woo or cajole Russia and China, even where administrations before them had failed. Instead, responding to signals that the U.S. lacks either the ability or fortitude to stand against them, Russia and China are both literally expanding, acquiring new territory at the expense of Western-oriented U.S. allies. Those allies and others similarly situated no longer assume the U.S. is capable of – or even interested in - meeting its foreign obligations, and are understandably looking for other means of protecting their own interests.
But while shrinking from geopolitical rivals in Russia and China is a severe error, Clinton and Obama’s most lasting legacy may be the slaughter in the Middle-East. Clinton was Secretary of State when the U.S. pulled all troops out of Iraq, the first inexplicable and obvious mistake that opened the door for the Islamic State (“IS,” a/k/a the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a/k/a the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)). IS began as an insurgent group in Iraq, a former al-Qaeda affiliate supposedly ostracized for being too extreme. Once U.S. troops left Iraq in 2011, IS expanded rapidly.
Clinton now claims she opposed Obama’s decision to withdraw all troops from Iraq. Some insiders corroborate parts of her story, including James Jeffrey, who was Ambassador to Iraq at the time. However, Obama’s rationalization for the precipitate troop withdrawal was that there was no Status of Forces agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, and leaving troops on the ground without such an agreement created legalistic dangers to U.S. troops to go along with the kinetic ones. While Clinton has blamed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for failing to reach an SFA, it was her job as Secretary of State to negotiate an agreement and she failed to do so.
The premature U.S. withdrawal left other gaps filled by adverse forces. As violence ramped up after the U.S. departure, U.S. influence over the Maliki government evaporated and Iran stepped into the void. Absent U.S. pressure and guidance, Maliki’s sectarianism asserted itself and he denied Sunnis access to meaningful participation in government, whereas American presence and pressure would have pushed broad inclusion. The excluded Sunni leadership, in turn, was more receptive to IS.
Across the border in Syria, too, IS seized power because there was no substantive opposition force. Early in the Syrian Civil War a multitude of rebel groups jockeyed for men, arms and support, and the U.S. remained aloof of any of them. As Clinton told Jeffrey Goldberg, “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people . . . left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” The articulated reason the U.S. never provided substantial arms or materiel to help create a credible fighting force was that the U.S. did not have strong enough relationships with the rebel groups to feel confident that arms used against Assad would not someday be turned against the U.S. or its allies. As head of U.S. foreign missions, Clinton again bears responsibility for failing to create and foster those predicate relationships.
Allowing IS’s rise and the resultant carnage in Iraq and Northern Syria does not even touch on the horrors of the Syrian civil war itself. Hundreds of thousands have been killed. Millions displaced across borders to Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and even Iraq threaten to further destabilize those countries. Assad has targeted civilian populations, used chemical weapons, and systematically raped, tortured and murdered. Despite intermittent reports that the U.S. would arm rebels, the U.S. still has done nothing of substance to bring Assad down.
At root, Clinton simply miscomprehended the conflict itself. More than two years ago, Clinton said “[i]t should be abundantly clear to those who support [Syrian President Bashar al- Assad’s] regime [that] their days are numbered.” If she had been right, and the Assad regime had collapsed in late 2012 or early 2013, IS may never have expanded into Syria, never consolidated anti-Assad forces under its banner, never gained notoriety, fame and growing international Islamist support. Without a base in Syria, IS may never have returned to terrorize Iraq. Maybe if Clinton were correct in her stated assessment of the Syrian war, IS would never have grown into the force it is today.
But Clinton was flat wrong, with horrific consequences she cannot run away from. Due to the administration’s combined failures of abandoning Iraq and abstaining from any practical role in Syria, the IS’s self-declared Caliphate now stretches across great swaths of both countries and threatens Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. IS is systematically destroying kafir holy sites, recently eradicated the nearly 2000-year-old Christian community in Mosul, is trying to exterminate the Yazidis, and is pressing Kurdish forces hard. The situation today is so dire that U.S. troops have returned to Iraq -- without a Status of Forces agreement.
Clinton’s mishandling of the Arab Spring is another recurring theme, though nowhere so bloody as in Syria. In Egypt, decades of U.S. foreign policy reflected the calculation that the stability of an unpleasant but relatively benign strongman was better than the discord and disruption threatened by its near-certain Muslim Brotherhood replacement. In 2011, though, Obama and Clinton backed popular calls for political reform and then criticized President Hosni Mubarak’s first proposals.
Belatedly, Clinton backed off aggressive calls for Mubarak’s immediate departure. The Egyptian Constitution required elections within 60 days from the President’s resignation. The Muslim Brotherhood had been the only organized opposition party in the country for a generation and was bound to dominate any snap elections. Clinton therefore called for an orderly “transition” that would allow other parties to organize and compete.
Too late. Mubarak stepped down and the Brotherhood dominated the ensuing 2012 elections. Predictably, the new president, Mohamed Morsi, imposed an Islamist agenda. Having thoroughly alienated the relatively urbane Cairenes within a year, Morsi was overthrown in a popularly-support military coup led by General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi was elected President earlier this year.
There remains a chance that Sisi will transition to democracy, perhaps on the pre-Erdogan Turkish model in which a strong military is the guarantor of secular democracy. Steady, confident U.S. leadership would be critical, though, and the U.S. has shown neither constancy not trustworthiness in Egypt. Obama and Clinton criticized Mubarak’s slow reform, then backed a tempered transition, then supported free elections when Mubarak resigned, then backed Morsi even after the population turned against his extremism, then condemned Sisi’s overthrow of Morsi even though the population supported it. Pew polling shows favorable views of the United States among Egyptians have fallen from 27% in 2009 to 10% today. The U.S. generally and Clinton personally have precious little credibility or goodwill in Egypt.
The instinct to support democracy abroad is a good one, but Clinton and Obama failed to distinguish between democracy in name and democracy in practice. There was good reason the Egyptian military and U.S. policy makers have long opposed the Muslim Brotherhood. Time after time Islamist organizations have taken power through elections and never left, repressing popular opposition and fomenting violence abroad. Egypt and the Obama Administration needed only look next door to the Gaza Strip, where Hamas (the Brotherhood’s Palestinian Branch) won an election in 2006 and has not allowed one since, choosing instead to militarize the territory and lob missiles at Israel. Clinton and Obama failed to recognize that the Brotherhood would abuse instead of embrace democracy.
In Libya, too, Clinton and Obama failed to foresee and prepare for the repercussions of decapitating the regime. Muammar Qaddafi was a cruel, evil man, an avowed enemy of the United State, and a terrorist. Nobody questions the decision to back his overthrow. But the United States never had a coherent plan in Libya, and leading from behind turned out to mean feckless spectating.
In the absence of a sustained Western influence, Libya has foundered. Once Qaddafi was gone -- tortured, sodomized and murdered by the rebels -- an Islamist insurrection began almost immediately. The U.S. Embassy in Libya, headed by Ambassador Christopher Stevens, requested additional security both at the Embassy in Tripoli and at the exposed consulate in Benghazi. Those requests were not honored.
On September 11, 2012, Stevens and three others Americans were killed when the Benghazi consulate and a nearby CIA annex came under coordinated attack. In the days following, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, claimed the attack was a spontaneous response to an obscure internet video. That claim was false. While the White House and State Department have not disclosed what they knew and when, the U.S. government knew in real time that Benghazi was a well-planned, coordinated attack and not merely a spontaneous demonstration gone terribly awry.
Benghazi itself was not a foreign policy failure, it was a terrorist attack. However, Clinton’s mistakes contributed both to the attack and subsequent government evasions. Clinton’s inability to foresee and prevent Libya’s dissent into a terrorist safe haven is certainly a foreign policy failure. Otherwise, Benghazi is more a leadership failure. Clinton’s State Department failed to provide the additional security Ambassador Stevens requested and he and three others were murdered. Clinton failed either to properly educate Rice or to rein her in, and she attempted the video ruse. That is a leadership failure. When Mrs. Clinton later railed, “what difference . . . does it make” whether the attack was premeditated or spontaneous, it was deplorable hubris.
Meanwhile, fighting has reached Tripoli and Libya’s neighbors are now actively involved in preventing yet another failed Islamist state from arising.
At the opposite end of the greater Middle-East, Clinton and Obama failed to capitalize on a once-in-a-generation opportunity in Iran. Since its inception, the self-styled Islamic Republic of Iran has opposed the U.S. in every way. The Iranian revolution was consciously anti-American and post-Shah Iran’s first great act was kidnapping US diplomats in 1979. Since then, Iran and its Hezb’allah terrorist arm have conducted terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its allies, and more recently armed and trained insurgents killing U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One reason for optimism on Iran has been the disconnect between the mullahs and the Iranian population. Before the revolution, Iran was quite Westernized, and it has long been gospel in Foggy Bottom that the Iranian population is among the most pro-American in the world.
At last, in 2009, the tension between the anti-U.S. Iranian leadership and pro-U.S. Iranian population tore open. Ultra-radical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner in his reelection bid, but all three of his opponents claimed the election had been rigged. Protesters took to the streets in unprecedented numbers and staying power.
Yet the US did nothing. There were no pronouncements about the universal right to free expression and representation, no admonitions that the Iran should abide the will of its people. There was no effort whatsoever to help the Iranian population improve their own lives and at the same time lessen the threat of terror and war in the Middle-East.
Isolated and unsupported, the protesters were crushed. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Basij militia beat, raped and murdered the protesters into submission. The Green Revolution died with the protesters.
Ahmadinejad proceeded to quite a successful second term at Clinton’s, Obama’s and the United States’ expense. He duped Obama and Clinton into deferring nuclear sanctions and meanwhile expanded Iran’s nuclear program. He consolidated Iran’s control and influence in Iraq and deployed troops and irregular assets to wage Assad’s war in Syria.
None of the various explanations for Obama and Clinton’s failure to support the Green Revolution is adequate. Some have opined they worried U.S. support for the protesters would inadvertently undercut the opposition by giving credence to regime accusations that they were Western stooges or CIA plants. Others have suggested more plausibly that Obama and Clinton simply prioritized “engagement” with Iran and believed that support for the protesters would undercut nuclear negotiations and the bizarre hope that Iran would help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whatever rationale they embraced at the time, Obama and Clinton squandered a unique opportunity to support democratic reform at the expense of an implacable theocratic enemy.
Clinton failed to understand and address myriad other international developments. On her watch, Boko Haram grew from a local disputant to a regional threat in West Africa, while al-Shabaab expanded in East Africa, and the Taliban resurged in Afghanistan. Venezuela remains benighted by incompetent socialist oligarchs and ruinous economic failure despite Hugo Chavez’s long illness and death. The U.S. angered England by abandoning longstanding policy (again) and seeming to back Argentina in the dispute over the Falkland Islands. Israel repeatedly found itself strong-armed into poor positions by the Administration’s headlong pursuit of an ephemeral deal at all costs.
While the vast majority of Clinton’s mistakes were criticized contemporaneously, some of them are admittedly made with the benefit of hindsight. However, Clinton wants to be President of the United States and appears intent on claiming her stint as Secretary of State as a qualification. And the U.S. deserves a successful president and foreign policy apparatus. That means understanding the cascading repercussions of seemingly isolated decisions; soberly assesses foreign counterparts’ good or bad intentions; quickly putting unfolding events into broader context and answering difficult questions correctly the first time even when the facts and circumstances are murky. Like any other assignment, good foreign policy must ultimately be judged by the results. As Clinton indulges hindsight revisionism at Obama’s expense, it is fair to ask why she didn’t live up to minimum expectations.
Yes, Clinton was merely a cabinet member, but all of the aforementioned mistakes fell squarely within her portfolio. If Clinton disagreed with Mr. Obama’s decisions, why did she fail to persuade him? Why didn’t she make the case more forcefully? More publicly? More successfully? Why didn’t she reach an agreement with Nouri al-Maliki? The Syrian rebels? Why did she pursue the reset debacle? Why did she back the failed pivot? Why were allies repeatedly left aghast as the U.S. took harmful decisions without consultation or forewarning? To the extent she was a dupe or merely the titular Secretary while somebody else wielded real power, why did she allow herself to be coopted? Why didn’t she do something?
No, Secretary Clinton is responsible for four years of U.S. backsliding on the world stage. It was her job to observe and interpret foreign events, advise the President, and formulate and execute policy to benefit the U.S. and its allies and confound U.S. enemies. It does not matter which component of her responsibilities she failed; the record is clear that U.S. foreign policy collapsed on Clinton’s watch and the world is a far more dangerous and far less free place as a result.
Jonathan Levin is an attorney and blogs at punditryandpontification.com
Clinton’s mistakes began early, with her contribution to the misconceived and poorly executed Russia Reset. President Obama campaigned on a sunshine foreign policy platform, and one of his first foreign policy priorities was to improve relations with Russia. Bilateral relations froze when Russia invaded Georgia in August, 2008, and President Bush deployed warships into the Black Sea and facilitated Georgia’s recall of its combat troops from Iraq. Secretary Clinton’s first major assignment was meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva in March, 2009. They drank, ate, talked, and posed for now-infamous photos in which the pair “pushed” a kitschy, red, plastic button mislabeled with the Russian word for “overcharge” instead of “reset.”
To give substance to the show, Clinton and Lavrov discussed the U.S.’s “flexibility” on plans made during the Bush administration to build installations housing missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia vehemently opposes locating interceptors in Eastern Europe, and Poland and the Czech Republic incurred Russia’s wrath for agreeing to host the systems anyway. Six months after the Geneva meeting, the U.S. cancelled deployment of the systems, leaving Poland and the Czech Republic bereft of the economic and security benefits of the installations but still saddled with Russian anger.In the first of what would become a pattern, the U.S. sacrificed allies’ interests to a rival in the fatuous hope that the rival would feel some sort of gratitude or obligation in return. The Wall Street Journal’s scathing editorial has proven prescient. TheJournal warned that bowing to Russian pressure would only encourage it to demand ever more concessions and that “[n]ext time, perhaps, the West can be seduced into trading away the pro-Western government of Georgia, or even Ukraine.” The Journal continued that “inclusion in NATO and EU was supposed to have [ended great power use of Eastern and Central Europe as bargaining chips], but Russia's new assertiveness, including its willingness to cut off energy supplies in winter and invade Georgia last year, is reviving powerful fears.” The Journal and a litany of foreign policy commentators rightly predicted that Putin would take such gestures only as an invitation to aggression.
Five years later, Russia’s annexation of Crimea is a fait accompli. Russian armored vehicles and tanks have moved across Ukraine’s border and it is unclear if East Ukraine will fall to rebels leavened with Russian Special Forces. Reports from late August indicate Russian paratroopers have been captured in Ukraine.
As was the case to a lesser degree in Georgia, the impetus for Russia’s invasion of Crimea and other aggressive behavior in Ukraine was Ukraine’s popular revolt against a Russian client government in favor of joining Europe. NATO’s failure to respond in any meaningful way not only raises doubts about the wisdom of nations from the former Soviet sphere orienting with the West, it has called into question the alliance’s very viability. If Russia moves on against the Baltic States, will NATO respond? In a game contest of perceptions, does Russia think the U.S. and its allies will rouse themselves to meet their treaty obligations for some frozen, little country so far from core Europe?
Since 2009, Russia has also violated missile and nuclear test ban treaties, cracked down on domestic dissent, de facto criminalized homosexuality and sent nuclear bombers on sorties off the U.S. mainland. In 2010 and 2011, Clinton was deeply involved in the negotiations that culminated in the New START treaty and rewarded Russia for armament cuts it was making already. There new treaty provided no recognizable benefit to the U.S. other than political cover for the Obama Administration to cut U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Clinton has called the Russia Reset “brilliant.” It is a debacle.
The 2011 “pivot” to Asia has proven as bad. In theory, it meant refocusing American foreign policy on the tandem issues of China’s emerging military challenge and the region’s robust economic growth and importance. China’s impression that the pivot entailed a robust containment strategy is not all wrong. But in practice it has meant further abandonment of European obligations and abdication of responsibilities in the Middle-East without discernible benefit.
Perversely, the pivot may have destabilized Asia and damaged security. The U.S. declared its intention to bolster military capacity in Asia, but increased deployments haven’t materialized and the Department of Defense has said they “can’t happen” due to plummeting Department of Defense budgets. Promising to strengthen the U.S.’s military position in Asia and then admitting the inability to carry through projects weakness and invites challenge.
Recognizing the military incapacity implied by Obama and Clinton’s Potemkin Pivot, China has aggressively asserted specious territorial claims. Under China’s “Nine-Dash” policy it claims exclusive economic rights in approximately all of the South China Sea. The precise coordinates of the nine dashes bounding China’s claims are not public, but they decidedly exceed China’s legal boundaries and encroach on Japan’s, Vietnam’s and the Philippines’s internationally recognized rights.
To substantiate its demand for exclusive rights in international and foreign waters, China has built and annexed new islands and claimed existing islands already belonging to its neighbors. These fabricated “Chinese” territories give a patina of legitimacy to China’s nine-dash claims because, if legitimate, China would have economic rights to a zone surrounding those territories.
Challenged by China’s ruse and bereft of a U.S. counterbalancing force, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam, the primary victims of China’s expansion, are acquiring arms to fight back. The badly-overmatched Philippines and Vietnam have already clashed with the Chinese Navy and its sea-going irregulars. The Philippines are now acquiring obsolete U.S. frigates explicitly to establish a minimum deterrent against China. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abo has generously reinterpreted Japan’s constitution to allow robust military acquisitions and actions for the first time since the end of World War II.
In both the Russia Reset and the Asia Pivot, Obama and Clinton naively believed that they were uniquely able to woo or cajole Russia and China, even where administrations before them had failed. Instead, responding to signals that the U.S. lacks either the ability or fortitude to stand against them, Russia and China are both literally expanding, acquiring new territory at the expense of Western-oriented U.S. allies. Those allies and others similarly situated no longer assume the U.S. is capable of – or even interested in - meeting its foreign obligations, and are understandably looking for other means of protecting their own interests.
But while shrinking from geopolitical rivals in Russia and China is a severe error, Clinton and Obama’s most lasting legacy may be the slaughter in the Middle-East. Clinton was Secretary of State when the U.S. pulled all troops out of Iraq, the first inexplicable and obvious mistake that opened the door for the Islamic State (“IS,” a/k/a the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a/k/a the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)). IS began as an insurgent group in Iraq, a former al-Qaeda affiliate supposedly ostracized for being too extreme. Once U.S. troops left Iraq in 2011, IS expanded rapidly.
Clinton now claims she opposed Obama’s decision to withdraw all troops from Iraq. Some insiders corroborate parts of her story, including James Jeffrey, who was Ambassador to Iraq at the time. However, Obama’s rationalization for the precipitate troop withdrawal was that there was no Status of Forces agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, and leaving troops on the ground without such an agreement created legalistic dangers to U.S. troops to go along with the kinetic ones. While Clinton has blamed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for failing to reach an SFA, it was her job as Secretary of State to negotiate an agreement and she failed to do so.
The premature U.S. withdrawal left other gaps filled by adverse forces. As violence ramped up after the U.S. departure, U.S. influence over the Maliki government evaporated and Iran stepped into the void. Absent U.S. pressure and guidance, Maliki’s sectarianism asserted itself and he denied Sunnis access to meaningful participation in government, whereas American presence and pressure would have pushed broad inclusion. The excluded Sunni leadership, in turn, was more receptive to IS.
Across the border in Syria, too, IS seized power because there was no substantive opposition force. Early in the Syrian Civil War a multitude of rebel groups jockeyed for men, arms and support, and the U.S. remained aloof of any of them. As Clinton told Jeffrey Goldberg, “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people . . . left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” The articulated reason the U.S. never provided substantial arms or materiel to help create a credible fighting force was that the U.S. did not have strong enough relationships with the rebel groups to feel confident that arms used against Assad would not someday be turned against the U.S. or its allies. As head of U.S. foreign missions, Clinton again bears responsibility for failing to create and foster those predicate relationships.
Allowing IS’s rise and the resultant carnage in Iraq and Northern Syria does not even touch on the horrors of the Syrian civil war itself. Hundreds of thousands have been killed. Millions displaced across borders to Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and even Iraq threaten to further destabilize those countries. Assad has targeted civilian populations, used chemical weapons, and systematically raped, tortured and murdered. Despite intermittent reports that the U.S. would arm rebels, the U.S. still has done nothing of substance to bring Assad down.
At root, Clinton simply miscomprehended the conflict itself. More than two years ago, Clinton said “[i]t should be abundantly clear to those who support [Syrian President Bashar al- Assad’s] regime [that] their days are numbered.” If she had been right, and the Assad regime had collapsed in late 2012 or early 2013, IS may never have expanded into Syria, never consolidated anti-Assad forces under its banner, never gained notoriety, fame and growing international Islamist support. Without a base in Syria, IS may never have returned to terrorize Iraq. Maybe if Clinton were correct in her stated assessment of the Syrian war, IS would never have grown into the force it is today.
But Clinton was flat wrong, with horrific consequences she cannot run away from. Due to the administration’s combined failures of abandoning Iraq and abstaining from any practical role in Syria, the IS’s self-declared Caliphate now stretches across great swaths of both countries and threatens Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. IS is systematically destroying kafir holy sites, recently eradicated the nearly 2000-year-old Christian community in Mosul, is trying to exterminate the Yazidis, and is pressing Kurdish forces hard. The situation today is so dire that U.S. troops have returned to Iraq -- without a Status of Forces agreement.
Clinton’s mishandling of the Arab Spring is another recurring theme, though nowhere so bloody as in Syria. In Egypt, decades of U.S. foreign policy reflected the calculation that the stability of an unpleasant but relatively benign strongman was better than the discord and disruption threatened by its near-certain Muslim Brotherhood replacement. In 2011, though, Obama and Clinton backed popular calls for political reform and then criticized President Hosni Mubarak’s first proposals.
Belatedly, Clinton backed off aggressive calls for Mubarak’s immediate departure. The Egyptian Constitution required elections within 60 days from the President’s resignation. The Muslim Brotherhood had been the only organized opposition party in the country for a generation and was bound to dominate any snap elections. Clinton therefore called for an orderly “transition” that would allow other parties to organize and compete.
Too late. Mubarak stepped down and the Brotherhood dominated the ensuing 2012 elections. Predictably, the new president, Mohamed Morsi, imposed an Islamist agenda. Having thoroughly alienated the relatively urbane Cairenes within a year, Morsi was overthrown in a popularly-support military coup led by General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi was elected President earlier this year.
There remains a chance that Sisi will transition to democracy, perhaps on the pre-Erdogan Turkish model in which a strong military is the guarantor of secular democracy. Steady, confident U.S. leadership would be critical, though, and the U.S. has shown neither constancy not trustworthiness in Egypt. Obama and Clinton criticized Mubarak’s slow reform, then backed a tempered transition, then supported free elections when Mubarak resigned, then backed Morsi even after the population turned against his extremism, then condemned Sisi’s overthrow of Morsi even though the population supported it. Pew polling shows favorable views of the United States among Egyptians have fallen from 27% in 2009 to 10% today. The U.S. generally and Clinton personally have precious little credibility or goodwill in Egypt.
The instinct to support democracy abroad is a good one, but Clinton and Obama failed to distinguish between democracy in name and democracy in practice. There was good reason the Egyptian military and U.S. policy makers have long opposed the Muslim Brotherhood. Time after time Islamist organizations have taken power through elections and never left, repressing popular opposition and fomenting violence abroad. Egypt and the Obama Administration needed only look next door to the Gaza Strip, where Hamas (the Brotherhood’s Palestinian Branch) won an election in 2006 and has not allowed one since, choosing instead to militarize the territory and lob missiles at Israel. Clinton and Obama failed to recognize that the Brotherhood would abuse instead of embrace democracy.
In Libya, too, Clinton and Obama failed to foresee and prepare for the repercussions of decapitating the regime. Muammar Qaddafi was a cruel, evil man, an avowed enemy of the United State, and a terrorist. Nobody questions the decision to back his overthrow. But the United States never had a coherent plan in Libya, and leading from behind turned out to mean feckless spectating.
In the absence of a sustained Western influence, Libya has foundered. Once Qaddafi was gone -- tortured, sodomized and murdered by the rebels -- an Islamist insurrection began almost immediately. The U.S. Embassy in Libya, headed by Ambassador Christopher Stevens, requested additional security both at the Embassy in Tripoli and at the exposed consulate in Benghazi. Those requests were not honored.
On September 11, 2012, Stevens and three others Americans were killed when the Benghazi consulate and a nearby CIA annex came under coordinated attack. In the days following, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, claimed the attack was a spontaneous response to an obscure internet video. That claim was false. While the White House and State Department have not disclosed what they knew and when, the U.S. government knew in real time that Benghazi was a well-planned, coordinated attack and not merely a spontaneous demonstration gone terribly awry.
Benghazi itself was not a foreign policy failure, it was a terrorist attack. However, Clinton’s mistakes contributed both to the attack and subsequent government evasions. Clinton’s inability to foresee and prevent Libya’s dissent into a terrorist safe haven is certainly a foreign policy failure. Otherwise, Benghazi is more a leadership failure. Clinton’s State Department failed to provide the additional security Ambassador Stevens requested and he and three others were murdered. Clinton failed either to properly educate Rice or to rein her in, and she attempted the video ruse. That is a leadership failure. When Mrs. Clinton later railed, “what difference . . . does it make” whether the attack was premeditated or spontaneous, it was deplorable hubris.
Meanwhile, fighting has reached Tripoli and Libya’s neighbors are now actively involved in preventing yet another failed Islamist state from arising.
At the opposite end of the greater Middle-East, Clinton and Obama failed to capitalize on a once-in-a-generation opportunity in Iran. Since its inception, the self-styled Islamic Republic of Iran has opposed the U.S. in every way. The Iranian revolution was consciously anti-American and post-Shah Iran’s first great act was kidnapping US diplomats in 1979. Since then, Iran and its Hezb’allah terrorist arm have conducted terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its allies, and more recently armed and trained insurgents killing U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One reason for optimism on Iran has been the disconnect between the mullahs and the Iranian population. Before the revolution, Iran was quite Westernized, and it has long been gospel in Foggy Bottom that the Iranian population is among the most pro-American in the world.
At last, in 2009, the tension between the anti-U.S. Iranian leadership and pro-U.S. Iranian population tore open. Ultra-radical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner in his reelection bid, but all three of his opponents claimed the election had been rigged. Protesters took to the streets in unprecedented numbers and staying power.
Yet the US did nothing. There were no pronouncements about the universal right to free expression and representation, no admonitions that the Iran should abide the will of its people. There was no effort whatsoever to help the Iranian population improve their own lives and at the same time lessen the threat of terror and war in the Middle-East.
Isolated and unsupported, the protesters were crushed. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Basij militia beat, raped and murdered the protesters into submission. The Green Revolution died with the protesters.
Ahmadinejad proceeded to quite a successful second term at Clinton’s, Obama’s and the United States’ expense. He duped Obama and Clinton into deferring nuclear sanctions and meanwhile expanded Iran’s nuclear program. He consolidated Iran’s control and influence in Iraq and deployed troops and irregular assets to wage Assad’s war in Syria.
None of the various explanations for Obama and Clinton’s failure to support the Green Revolution is adequate. Some have opined they worried U.S. support for the protesters would inadvertently undercut the opposition by giving credence to regime accusations that they were Western stooges or CIA plants. Others have suggested more plausibly that Obama and Clinton simply prioritized “engagement” with Iran and believed that support for the protesters would undercut nuclear negotiations and the bizarre hope that Iran would help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whatever rationale they embraced at the time, Obama and Clinton squandered a unique opportunity to support democratic reform at the expense of an implacable theocratic enemy.
Clinton failed to understand and address myriad other international developments. On her watch, Boko Haram grew from a local disputant to a regional threat in West Africa, while al-Shabaab expanded in East Africa, and the Taliban resurged in Afghanistan. Venezuela remains benighted by incompetent socialist oligarchs and ruinous economic failure despite Hugo Chavez’s long illness and death. The U.S. angered England by abandoning longstanding policy (again) and seeming to back Argentina in the dispute over the Falkland Islands. Israel repeatedly found itself strong-armed into poor positions by the Administration’s headlong pursuit of an ephemeral deal at all costs.
While the vast majority of Clinton’s mistakes were criticized contemporaneously, some of them are admittedly made with the benefit of hindsight. However, Clinton wants to be President of the United States and appears intent on claiming her stint as Secretary of State as a qualification. And the U.S. deserves a successful president and foreign policy apparatus. That means understanding the cascading repercussions of seemingly isolated decisions; soberly assesses foreign counterparts’ good or bad intentions; quickly putting unfolding events into broader context and answering difficult questions correctly the first time even when the facts and circumstances are murky. Like any other assignment, good foreign policy must ultimately be judged by the results. As Clinton indulges hindsight revisionism at Obama’s expense, it is fair to ask why she didn’t live up to minimum expectations.
Yes, Clinton was merely a cabinet member, but all of the aforementioned mistakes fell squarely within her portfolio. If Clinton disagreed with Mr. Obama’s decisions, why did she fail to persuade him? Why didn’t she make the case more forcefully? More publicly? More successfully? Why didn’t she reach an agreement with Nouri al-Maliki? The Syrian rebels? Why did she pursue the reset debacle? Why did she back the failed pivot? Why were allies repeatedly left aghast as the U.S. took harmful decisions without consultation or forewarning? To the extent she was a dupe or merely the titular Secretary while somebody else wielded real power, why did she allow herself to be coopted? Why didn’t she do something?
No, Secretary Clinton is responsible for four years of U.S. backsliding on the world stage. It was her job to observe and interpret foreign events, advise the President, and formulate and execute policy to benefit the U.S. and its allies and confound U.S. enemies. It does not matter which component of her responsibilities she failed; the record is clear that U.S. foreign policy collapsed on Clinton’s watch and the world is a far more dangerous and far less free place as a result.
Jonathan Levin is an attorney and blogs at punditryandpontification.com
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/hillary_clintons_foreign_policy_failures.html#ixzz3sNMDJ39O
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)