FP: A note on Khadafy's death: the West has taught its enemies the lesson that if you don't have nukes or even if you renounce acquiring them, you're dead. What do you think will be the reaction of the West's enemies, imitate Khadafy or Iran?
Barry Rubin: SCOOP: Obama Administration Does it Again!: Empowers Largely Islamist Leadership for Syrian Revolution
The leadership of the Syrian revolution, or at least those who are recognized as such by the United States and the European Union, has released the names of 19 of the 29 members of the General Secretariat and five members of the Presidential Council. A lot of research should be one done on the individuals but let’s do a quick ethnic and political analysis based on this information.
But first let me give you my analysis: I believe that the Turkish Islamist regime deliberately helped produce a Syrian leadership that is more Islamist and more Muslim Brotherhood controlled than was necessary. Since Turkey's government was empowered to do this by the Obama Administration, the White House is responsible for this extremely dangerous situation. It is a blunder or a betrayal--in effect, the motive and cause don't matter--of the greatest dimensions. The Obama Administration may "only" have paved the way for the triumph of Islamist regimes in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia--we don't yet know the final result--but it has been actively involved in helping promote an (avoidable) Islamist revolution in Syria.
Of the 19 members of the committee whose names have been published, 4 are identified as Muslim Brotherhood and 6 more as independent Islamists. That means 10 of the 19—a majority—and hence 10 of the 15 Sunni Muslim Arabs (two-thirds) are Islamists!
Of the non-Islamist Sunni Arabs, two are leftists, two are liberals, and one represents the tribes. Thanks, Obama Administration, for putting Islamist Turkey in charge of the negotiations! It could have very easily done otherwise.
FP: Readers of this blog should not be surprised and should not have expected anything else. This is yet another logical conclusion of Western decline and Obama policy (see next). As I argued so many times, the policy is to realign the US with Islamist regimes which coming to power with its help and the hope that they will reciprocate and ally with the US and be kinder to it on its way down. Good luck with that.But first let me give you my analysis: I believe that the Turkish Islamist regime deliberately helped produce a Syrian leadership that is more Islamist and more Muslim Brotherhood controlled than was necessary. Since Turkey's government was empowered to do this by the Obama Administration, the White House is responsible for this extremely dangerous situation. It is a blunder or a betrayal--in effect, the motive and cause don't matter--of the greatest dimensions. The Obama Administration may "only" have paved the way for the triumph of Islamist regimes in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia--we don't yet know the final result--but it has been actively involved in helping promote an (avoidable) Islamist revolution in Syria.
Of the 19 members of the committee whose names have been published, 4 are identified as Muslim Brotherhood and 6 more as independent Islamists. That means 10 of the 19—a majority—and hence 10 of the 15 Sunni Muslim Arabs (two-thirds) are Islamists!
Of the non-Islamist Sunni Arabs, two are leftists, two are liberals, and one represents the tribes. Thanks, Obama Administration, for putting Islamist Turkey in charge of the negotiations! It could have very easily done otherwise.
JoshuaPundit: Out Of Iraq - The Lesson Learned?
Contrary to the spin given to this by the WashingtonPost and the other establishment media, this was not President Obama's choice, but the demand of Iraqi government, who insisted that all U.S. troops be out of Iraq by year's end.
…
Moqtada al-Sadr's Iran-trained, armed and funded Mahdi Army militia has been maintaining a publicly declared quiet period with the provision that all U.S. forces leave the country. They're doing so on Iran's orders.
The Iranian strategy is to allow U.S. forces and then begin a political de facto takeover of the new Iraq, aided by Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki, who depends on the support of the Shi'ite Bloc controlled by Iranian proxy al-Sadr to stay in power. Maliki actually lost the last elections back in March to the secular, pro-American bloc led by Ayad Allawi, but Maliki was able to overcome that by making a deal with al-Sadr to form a government and 'disqualifying' a few of Allawi 's winning parliamentary candidates on grounds that would have done credit to a Chicago ward heeler.
…
Iran owns Maliki now, and the Mahdi Army will prove just as useful as Hezbollah was in Lebanon at persuading anyone who objects to the new order to see things differently by removing any particularly stubborn opponents as an example.
Maliki is simply acting like the creature of the region he is and gravitating towards what he perceives as the strong horse. As soon as President Obama got in, Maliki took his measure, saw his weakness and understood that we were leaving, Iran isn't and that working with the mullahs was not only a way to stay in power but to stay healthy.
Besides, he doesn't need us around any more. We've already built him a shiny new army and repaired the country's infrastructure at our expense.
…
In the end, we didn't even wind up with the oil. The leases on the oil fields Halliburton was miraculously able to save after Saddam set them on fire went to China.
What we've established in Iraq is a Shiite Islamic Republic based on Sharia that will have much of its government friendly or beholden to our enemies in Iran. Iraq has continued to adhere religiously to a boycott of Israel that is against US law, and there has been open season under our watch on Iraq's Christians, a story that rarely merits a mention in the dinosaur media. Iraq will no more be a 'ally ' of ours against our enemies than say, Pakistan, and will limit their 'war on terror' activities to simply suppressing any dissident elements in their own society.
FP: The US spent trillions bankrupting itself and lots of blood for what I predicted from the start would be its worst strategic blunder, which may well finalize its decline. It has wasted those resources not just for nothing in Iraq, but has actually brought its major enemy to power there, an enemy that has been at war with the US, which the US pretends is not there. And now Americans will also pay the price of an Islamist Middle East, hostile to the West. If they believe, like Obama, that the Islamists he brought to power will be kinder to America, they’re in for the shocks of their life.…
Moqtada al-Sadr's Iran-trained, armed and funded Mahdi Army militia has been maintaining a publicly declared quiet period with the provision that all U.S. forces leave the country. They're doing so on Iran's orders.
The Iranian strategy is to allow U.S. forces and then begin a political de facto takeover of the new Iraq, aided by Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki, who depends on the support of the Shi'ite Bloc controlled by Iranian proxy al-Sadr to stay in power. Maliki actually lost the last elections back in March to the secular, pro-American bloc led by Ayad Allawi, but Maliki was able to overcome that by making a deal with al-Sadr to form a government and 'disqualifying' a few of Allawi 's winning parliamentary candidates on grounds that would have done credit to a Chicago ward heeler.
…
Iran owns Maliki now, and the Mahdi Army will prove just as useful as Hezbollah was in Lebanon at persuading anyone who objects to the new order to see things differently by removing any particularly stubborn opponents as an example.
Maliki is simply acting like the creature of the region he is and gravitating towards what he perceives as the strong horse. As soon as President Obama got in, Maliki took his measure, saw his weakness and understood that we were leaving, Iran isn't and that working with the mullahs was not only a way to stay in power but to stay healthy.
Besides, he doesn't need us around any more. We've already built him a shiny new army and repaired the country's infrastructure at our expense.
…
In the end, we didn't even wind up with the oil. The leases on the oil fields Halliburton was miraculously able to save after Saddam set them on fire went to China.
What we've established in Iraq is a Shiite Islamic Republic based on Sharia that will have much of its government friendly or beholden to our enemies in Iran. Iraq has continued to adhere religiously to a boycott of Israel that is against US law, and there has been open season under our watch on Iraq's Christians, a story that rarely merits a mention in the dinosaur media. Iraq will no more be a 'ally ' of ours against our enemies than say, Pakistan, and will limit their 'war on terror' activities to simply suppressing any dissident elements in their own society.
MARTIN SHERMAN: Into the Fray: Submission
The Schalit debacle is yet another example of the ongoing erosion of national sovereignty.
In Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza in 2008/9, Israel demonstrated it did not have the resolve to impose its will on small lightly-armed militias. In 2011, it demonstrated that it did not have the resolve to prevent lightly-armed militias imposing their will on it.
In its ignominious submission, it is clearly failing to demonstrate that it can operate as a sovereign entity. As such it is beginning to lose the very point of its existence: The expression of Jewish political independence.
This is a process that must be reversed with out delay–with uncompromising resolve. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.
The Israeli leadership must resign itself to the unpalatable fact that Israel is unlikely to win international affection. The most it can realistically hope for is to be grudgingly respected, the least it must unequivocally ensure is to be greatly feared.
Those who cannot grasp this are unsuited to lead.
FP: Problem is I don’t know anybody in Israel who is suited to lead. That’s called a leadership crisis. And it characterizes the entire West.In Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza in 2008/9, Israel demonstrated it did not have the resolve to impose its will on small lightly-armed militias. In 2011, it demonstrated that it did not have the resolve to prevent lightly-armed militias imposing their will on it.
In its ignominious submission, it is clearly failing to demonstrate that it can operate as a sovereign entity. As such it is beginning to lose the very point of its existence: The expression of Jewish political independence.
This is a process that must be reversed with out delay–with uncompromising resolve. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.
The Israeli leadership must resign itself to the unpalatable fact that Israel is unlikely to win international affection. The most it can realistically hope for is to be grudgingly respected, the least it must unequivocally ensure is to be greatly feared.
Those who cannot grasp this are unsuited to lead.
JONATHAN SCHANZER & CLAUDIA ROSETT: At the U.N., a French Twist
The Palestinian drive for United Nations membership is backfiring on one of its most vocal early supporters, French President Nicolas Sarkozy. What began as a French bid to one-up a weak U.S. foreign policy is now devolving into a struggle over continued U.S. funding for the only significant U.N. organization headquartered in Paris: the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco).
In recent weeks, while the Palestinians have pressed forward with a bid for full membership in Unesco, both French diplomats and U.N. officials have been quietly back-pedaling on the issue. Like so many maneuvers at the U.N., this reversal appears to be less about grand matters of principle than about money.
According to American law since the 1990s, the U.S. is prohibited from giving funds to any part of the U.N. system that grants the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) the same standing as member states. This could amount to a shortfall of more than $70 million per year to Unesco.
Currently, Unesco operates with an annual budget of more than $325 million, to which the U.S. is by far the largest contributor, giving 22%. France, while prizing Unesco as its showpiece U.N. tenant, chips in just 6.1%.
In years past, France has already tasted what it means for Unesco to forgo U.S. funding. In the 1980s, the U.S. withdrew from Unesco, returning only in 2003 under President George W. Bush. Apparently, the Quai d'Orsay has no wish to repeat that experience. French diplomats are now saying that, despite their earlier backing of the Palestinian unilateral bid, Unesco is "not the right time, nor the right place" to wrestle with the question of Palestine.
FP: Typical French behavior: delusions of grandeur --> messing things up --> quiet and cowardly sell out with tail between the legs. What Hichens said about Chirac fits Sarkozy too: a mouse that roared.
In recent weeks, while the Palestinians have pressed forward with a bid for full membership in Unesco, both French diplomats and U.N. officials have been quietly back-pedaling on the issue. Like so many maneuvers at the U.N., this reversal appears to be less about grand matters of principle than about money.
According to American law since the 1990s, the U.S. is prohibited from giving funds to any part of the U.N. system that grants the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) the same standing as member states. This could amount to a shortfall of more than $70 million per year to Unesco.
Currently, Unesco operates with an annual budget of more than $325 million, to which the U.S. is by far the largest contributor, giving 22%. France, while prizing Unesco as its showpiece U.N. tenant, chips in just 6.1%.
In years past, France has already tasted what it means for Unesco to forgo U.S. funding. In the 1980s, the U.S. withdrew from Unesco, returning only in 2003 under President George W. Bush. Apparently, the Quai d'Orsay has no wish to repeat that experience. French diplomats are now saying that, despite their earlier backing of the Palestinian unilateral bid, Unesco is "not the right time, nor the right place" to wrestle with the question of Palestine.
No comments:
Post a Comment