RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-foreign-policy-doctrine-deterrence-without-intervention/

The president bets that a booming economy, a beefed-up military, and U.S. energy dominance will deter enemies without the need for preemptive invasions.

D onald Trump’s 2016 campaign sought to overturn 75 years of bipartisan foreign policy orthodoxy, especially as it applied to the Middle East.

From 1946 to 1989, the Cold War logic was to use both surrogates and U.S. expeditionary forces to stop the spread of Communist insurrections and coups — without confronting the nuclear-armed USSR directly unless it became a matter of perceived Western survival, as it did with the Berlin airlift and the Cuban missile crises.

That logic led to major conflicts like Vietnam and Korea, limited wars in the Middle East and Balkans, interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean, and occasional nation-building in conquered lands. Tens of thousands of Americans died, trillions of dollars were spent, and the Soviet Union and most of its satellites vanished. “We won the Cold War” was more or less true.

Such preemptory American interventions still continued over the next 30 years of the post–Cold War “new world order.” Now the threat was not Russian nukes but confronting new enemies such as radical Islam and a rogue’s gallery of petty but troublesome nuts, freaks, and dictators — Granada’s Hudson Austin, an unhinged Moammar Qaddafi of Libya, Hezbollah’s terrorists in Lebanon, Nicaraguan Communist Daniel Ortega, Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega, the gang leader Mohamed Aidid of Somalia, the former Serbian thug Slobodan Milosevic, Mullah Omar of the Taliban, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, arch terrorist Osama bin Laden, the macabre al-Qaeda and ISIS, and on and on.

These put-downs, some successful and some not so much, were apparently viewed by the post–Cold War establishment as our versions of the late Roman Republic and Empire policies of mowing the lawn, with an occasional weeding out of regional nationalists and insurrectionists like Jugurtha, Mithridates, Vercingetorix, Ariovistus, Boudicca, and the like. The theory was that occasionally knocking flat a charismatic brute discouraged all others like him from trying to emulate his revolt and upend the international order. Having one or two legions always on the move often meant that most others could stay in their barracks. And it kept the peace, or so the U.S., like Rome, more or less believed.

But the problem with American policy after the Cold War and the end of the Soviet nuclear threat was that the U.S. was not really comfortable as an imperial global watchdog, we no longer had a near monopoly on the world economy that subsidized these expensive interventions, and many of these thugs did not necessarily pose a direct threat to American interests — perhaps ISIS, an oil-rich Middle East dictator, and radical Islamists excepted. What started as a quick, successful take-out of a monster sometimes ended up as a long-drawn out “occupation” in which all U.S. assets of firepower, mobility, and air support were nullified in the dismal street fighting of a Fallujah or a Mogadishu.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/timmerman-vs-puder-us-presence-syria-frontpagemagcom/

The exchange below is a dialogue/debate Frontpage is hosting on Trump’s recent decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria. Joseph Puder argues that U.S. should remain in Syria — while Ken Timmerman counters with an anti-interventionist argument. Frontpage will be  continuing a discussion on this vital issue.

The U.S. Must Have an Active Presence in Syria.
By Joseph Puder

The physical elimination of the arch-terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS who sought to be the “Emir of the Believers,” has made the world a safer place. Al-Baghdadi’s cruelty and his campaign of murder, rape and enslavement of the Yazidis, made him the world’s number one criminal. The Trump administration deserves credit for his demise, and the special forces that hunted him merit the highest awards and rewards. The killing of Al-Baghdadi notwithstanding, the current U.S. policy of withdrawing from Syria and ultimately from throughout the Middle East is a fatal mistake. In today’s world, the oceans alone are no barriers from terror, or catastrophic attacks as the 9/11 terror attack has shown. 

Trump Puts the Interventionists on the Ropes.
By Kenneth R. Timmerman  

A U.S. withdrawal from Syria would be a “fatal mistake.” This is a refrain we have been hearing from interventionists across the political spectrum for some time.

It would be a mistake, the interventionists say, because the U.S. departure creates a vacuum that has already been filled by our adversaries, makes us appear an “unreliable” partner, and opens a “clear path” for Iran to reach the Mediterranean and directly threaten Israel.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/beijing-will-give-you-cold-war-nostalgia-11572909192

America’s 21st-century competition with China is likely to be more dangerous and more complex than its old Cold War with the Soviet Union. This is partly because China’s economic power makes it a much more formidable and resourceful opponent than the U.S.S.R., and partly because the technological environment has changed so dramatically in the past generation.

The development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles shaped the Cold War. The resulting nuclear “balance of terror” kept the Cold War cold; neither power was willing to risk total annihilation. Arms-control talks became a centerpiece of superpower relations as both sides sought to stabilize the nuclear balance.

The information revolution has brought new dangers to the fore. Cyberweapons can devastate their targets, crashing power grids and transportation networks, paralyzing financial systems, and destroying the functionality of anything from hospitals to government offices. The development of these weapons is much harder to control and their use much more difficult to deter.

It isn’t hard to know where a nuclear missile comes from. Cyberattacks are harder to trace and can easily be pinned on proxies. It is also harder to retaliate—one key to deterrence. U.S. companies and government agencies are daily subjected to cyberattacks from a variety of criminal groups and governments around the world. Should the U.S. launch retaliatory strikes against countries that commit cyberaggression against us? If so, what’s the proper magnitude of response? If the retaliation is too weak, it won’t deter future attacks. If it is too strong, it may trigger an escalation that could be very hard to control. Deterrence is difficult to establish in the murky, ever-evolving cyberworld.

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforeignpolicynews.org%2F&data=02%7C01

With expanding competitors and severe domestic challenges, the time has come for Saudi Arabia to publicly engage Israel in order to confront shared opponents and protect mutual interests.
Iran and Turkey

Given its ancient history, large population, and leadership amongst the Shiite community that accounts for roughly two-thirds of Gulf-bordering states (including over 10% in Saudi Arabia), Iran sees itself as the area’s rightful leader[i].  While it has pursued nuclear capability and can potentially cutoff the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s main regional power projection is through its support of fellow Shiites[ii].  After Saddam Hussein served as the principal Arab bulwark against it, Iran has since 2003 steadily consolidated its sway over Shiite-majority Iraq and is developing through it an uninterrupted gateway to the Mediterranean.  Iran’s Shiite ally Assad has emerged victorious in Syria and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah outmatches Lebanon’s army and has more political power than ever[iii].  Iranian support for Yemeni Shiites (who make up at least one-third of the population) exacerbates the impoverished country’s civil war and exposes the narrow shipping lanes through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait heading into the Suez Canal[iv].  The Saudis have the world’s third-largest defense budget but have failed to thwart these Iranian inroads made with far less means at their disposal[v].

Iran has strong ties with China, Russia, and India, and Saudi Arabia cannot depend on a concerted Sunni effort against its aggression.  Egypt pulled out of the so-called Arab NATO in April, its defense budget no longer ranks even within the global top fifty, and it is preoccupied with feeding, employing, and quenching the thirst of its one hundred million people – a daunting task perhaps obstructed more by domestic Sunni extremism and Ethiopia’s newly-constructed dam on the Nile than it is by Iran[vi].  Energy-starved Turkey relies on imports from Iran, the two conduct twice as much trade as Turkey does with Saudi Arabia, and they are united in subduing Kurdish ambitions[vii].  Though Jordanian King Abdullah is credited with coining the term “Shia Crescent” when warning of Iran as early as 2004, his country’s $40-billion GDP provides limited military capability[viii].

Pakistan is the second-largest Sunni state and a recipient of considerable Saudi aid but its major concern is India[ix].  With Saudi Arabia having seven-times their population and nineteen-times their landmass, the four smaller Gulf States are hesitant to coordinate militarily with it as they fear lurking Saudi domination under the guise of containing Iran[x].  The UAE stands firm against it politically but remains Iran’s second-largest trading partner, tiny Bahrain’s Sunni government supports the Saudis but has its Shiite majority to contend with, and both Oman and Kuwait maintain cordial relations with Iran[xi].  After years of dissension over Al Jazeera, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar lost its relations with Saudi Arabia in 2017 and renewed them with Iran[xii].

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/our_media_ignore_but_mullahs_dont_us_assembling_a_devastating_strike_force_in_the_middle_east.html

The American media are paying no attention to it, but you can be sure that the mullahs in Tehran have noticed: The United States is openly deploying the weapons necessary to launch a devastating attack on Iran, should the need arise. The Australian media are not so shy, as news.com.au shows:

The United States is quietly building up its forces in striking range of Iran.

B-1B bombers have arrived in the desert kingdom of Saudi Arabia, along with stealth fighters, missile batteries and specialist troops.

Exactly why they’re there depends on who you listen to.

Everything changed when, on September 14, wave after wave of cruise missiles and drones burst among Saudi Arabian oil facilities. Shockwaves rippled around the world.

According to international intelligence agencies, the brazen strikes came from Iranian soil. But few have openly come out and accused the Government in Tehran of being behind them.

Iran insists it has had nothing to do with raids on oil tankers or the bombing of Saudi Arabia. But claims that Yemeni Houthi rebels were responsible have been dismissed as implausible.

It’s a classic example of modern grey warfare, where even implausible deniability shields rogue nations from international consequences.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-recovered-valuable-intelligence-in-baghdadi-raid-11572301388?mod=cx_picks&cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=contextual&cx_artPos=6#cxrecs_s

The U.S. military raid resulting in the death of Islamic State founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi also yielded an array of valuable intelligence concerning the militant group and its top leaders, defense officials said, providing details that likely will lead to future operations.

The Defense officials and Pentagon leaders on Monday wouldn’t detail the intelligence recovered on Saturday, but said it consisted of data-storage devices and other files that will add to the understanding of Islamic State as the U.S. and allies continue pursuing its leaders and operatives.

In a sign of the continuing nature of the operations, a senior State Department official on Monday said a second U.S. raid closely following the operation against Baghdadi resulted in the death of Islamic State’s top spokesman.

The senior State Department official described the spokesman, Abu al-Hassan al-Muhajir, as “kind of No. 2” in Islamic State. The operation was first announced by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which worked with U.S. troops in fighting Islamic State before President Trump ordered a U.S. withdrawal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-battle-won-in-the-war-on-terror-11572302844

The Washington Post may have hastily changed its embarrassing headline for its obituary of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—“austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State”—but that won’t be the end of the West’s difficulties in understanding and responding to the multifaceted crisis in the Middle East.

Movements like ISIS don’t spring from nowhere. It took centuries of decline, serial humiliations at the hands of arrogant European imperial powers, and decades of failed postcolonial governance to produce the toxic mixture of bigotry and hate out of which Baghdadi and his adherents emerged. That toxic brew won’t quickly disappear. Angry, alienated and profoundly confused people—many young and at best half-educated—will continue to find the message of ISIS and similar groups seductive. Baghdadi’s death isn’t the end of ISIS, and the collapse of the U.S.-backed order in northern Syria could provide conditions for its re-emergence as a serious military force.

Yet Baghdadi’s death was more than a meaningless episode in an endless game of Middle Eastern Whac-A-Mole. The fall of his so-called caliphate brings the U.S. a little closer to the end of its longest war.

Baghdadi’s reign of terror began with prophecies, visions and dreams. He and his lieutenants promised their followers paradise. They crafted a god in their own image—a god of genocide, violence, rape, enslavement—and claimed that this god was powerful enough to give victory in battle. It turned out they were wrong.

Baghdadi’s fate makes the task of recruiting fresh jihadists a little harder. The next “austere religious scholar” seeking recruits will face a bit more skepticism in the marketplace of ideas.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/10/26/the-empty-absurdity-of-the-democrats-dangerous-foreign-policy-2/

Part 2 of 2

The next Democratic president is likely not only to neglect or ignore national security threats requiring military assertiveness; he or she will subordinate U.S. interests to the will of foreign political elites and use American military might to promote socialism abroad.

Foreign policy has not been a great focus of the Democrats running for president, but that doesn’t negate the party’s increasing radicalism on defense.

Despite continuing to post strong polling numbers, even as his edge begins to weaken, Joe Biden, as he shows his age and continues his gaffes, cannot be expected to take the nomination. But if he were to be elected, expectations that he would conduct foreign policy like Presidents Bill Clinton or Barack Obama are misguided.

While boasting in the CNN debate this month that he’s “spent thousands of hours in the Situation Room” in the White House, Biden as he pushes 80 would be dominated by a young crop of advisers, and considering the state of the Democratic Party’s base it would be a bad bet to imagine that the likes of relative moderates such as current Biden advisers Nicholas Burns and Tony Blinken would be able to hold sway.

But what does the most likely nominee right now, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have in mind? During July’s CNN debate, she sent the unsettling signal that the U.S. “is not going to use nuclear weapons preemptively, and we need to say so to the entire world.” According to Warren, uncertainty about U.S. first use of a nuke “puts the entire world at risk and puts us at risk.”

Quite the contrary.

Warren Collapsing Our Nuclear Umbrella

It may shock many Americans to hear it, but, as Fred Kaplan, author of the forthcoming “The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War,” writer for Slate, and no conservative, recently pointed out, “from the dawn of the atomic age until now, U.S. policy has explicitly stated that we would use nuclear weapons first, if some crisis called for it … The threat of nuclear first-use — the assurance that we would risk New York for Paris, or Washington for London — lay at the heart of the U.S. security guarantee for the NATO alliance. It was — and still is — called ‘extended deterrence’ and the ‘nuclear umbrella.’”

This U.S. policy prevented nuclear war over the course of decades and restrained the expansionist Soviet Union until its collapse. As Kaplan put it with the plainest clarity, “you have to make adversaries believe you’d actually push the button, in order to keep them from getting too aggressive.” And as Kaplan further noted, “the Russian military now has a doctrine of using nuclear weapons first if NATO troops make incursions on Russian territory — mainly as a way of countering America’s supremacy in conventional arms.”