RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/trending/remember-when-three-of-obamas-former-secretaries-of-defense-blasted-him/

Did you enjoy all that time between the announcement of Secretary of Defense James Mattis’s resignation and the Democrats’ politicization of it? I believe it was about five seconds. The news is certainly disappointing. Thanks to the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Mattis, tremendous progress has been made in cleaning up the mess left behind by Barack Obama—most notably against ISIS. In fact, the success in “defeating” ISIS was cited as Trump’s reason for announcing the United States’ withdrawal from Syria. Given Obama’s fumble with Iraq—his premature departure creating a leadership vacuum that ultimately caused the rise of ISIS—I’m not yet convinced that leaving Syria is the best move. Unlike his predecessor, Trump has deferred much of his military strategy to the advice of his generals, but Mattis’s disagreement over this withdrawal and the reduction of troops in Afghanistan was a major reason for his decision to resign.

This latest high-profile departure quickly had Democrats running to the cameras to attack Trump. They’re not alone though. Several Republicans have already expressed concern over the resignation—citing Trump’s disagreements with Mattis in particular.

Let’s be honest here: The departure of a secretary of defense over foreign policy and military strategy differences is hardly a new thing. Obama’s first secretary of defense, Robert Gates, resigned without incident in 2011, but would later criticize Obama’s role as commander in chief in his memoir published a few years later. It revealed a troubled relationship between Obama and the Pentagon:

… Gates – who was first appointed to his post by former President George W Bush – reveals, in a series of swipes that are surprisingly combative coming from such a senior former official, problems between the White House and the Pentagon that have made for troubling relations at the very highest levels.

“All too early in the administration,” adds Gates, “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials – including the president and vice-president – became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military leaders.”

Perhaps most damagingly, he also alleges that Obama did not believe in his own strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan, which he was “skeptical if not outright convinced … would fail,” and that he was skeptical at best about the leadership of the country’s president, Hamid Karzai.

“The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out,” writes Gates.

In 2013, Obama’s second secretary of defense, Leon Panetta, resigned after less than two years on the job over frustrations with Obama. Panetta also wrote a memoir revealing disturbing details about his time in the Obama administration, and told of Obama’s repeated decisions to ignore his advice, citing specifically “the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq in 2011, the failure to intervene in Syria’s civil war by arming rebels and the abrupt reversal of Mr. Obama’s decision to strike Syria in retaliation for using chemical weapons on civilians.”

In 2014, shortly after the midterm elections that saw Republicans take control of the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama fired Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel over, you guessed it, policy and strategy disagreements. Hagel said in an interview a year later that the Obama White House tried to “destroy” him and that they had no strategy for fixing Syria. CONTINUE AT SITE

While the following analysis was written several months ago, with President Trump’s recent decision regarding a premature Syrian withdrawal, and a 21st century, would-be Islamist Turkish sultan’s (Erdogan) aim to at least partially re-create the Asian part of the Ottoman Empire, this widely-published article is even more timely now than before rsk.

“….Seth Frantzman reported for the Jerusalem Post on September 9, 2018 about a precision Iranian ballistic missile attack on Kurds deep inside of Iraq which hit the exact building–some accounts say exact room–where Kurdish opposition leaders were meeting. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps was sending a message to others besides Kurds with this strike.

Like their otherwise centuries’ old rivals for regional hegemony–Turks and (mostly Sunni) Arabs as well–the one thing all three are in agreement about is the denial of political and even basic human rights to some forty million native people who pre-date at least the Turks and Arabs in their region by millennia. Both of the latter have outlawed Kurdish language and culture. The twenty two million Kurds in Turkey–about a fourth of the latter’s total population–have been renamed “Mountain Turks” by Ankara; and besides Saddam Hussein’s Anfal Campaign in “Arab” Iraq in the 1980s, which took some 200,000 Kurdish lives, the title of the Kurdish scholar, Ismet Cherif Vanly’s book, The Syrian ‘Mein Kampf ‘Against The Kurds (Amsterdam, 1968), says all you need to know about how Syrian Arabs have dealt with them as well.

The Iranians have continued hanging Kurdish dissidents again this week. All three nations have slaughtered either tens or hundreds of thousands of Kurds during the past century.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/mattis_was_no_good.html

American Thinker readers were warned about General Mattis over a year ago in this article. Briefly, Mattis was and remains a supporter of global warming.

The issue of global warming continues to be a reliable and simple litmus test. If someone believes in global warming, then you can be sure he is a globalist who loathes Western civilization.

Then there was his support for the Islamist Anne Patterson, loathed by the Egyptian people for her support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Then there was the matter of allowing one of his underlings to throw Fox Company, of Task Force Spartan in Afghanistan in 2007, under bus so he could advance his own career.

Since that article, Mattis’s charge sheet has expanded somewhat. Trump wanted to get trannies out of the military simply because of the costs involved in having them. Mattis pushed back and slow-walked the order. Gender dysphoria is one of the worst mental illnesses, with a 50 percent suicide rate. Who in his right mind would leave people suffering from this condition near weapons or machinery? Someone who ranks ideology above effectiveness and unit cohesion would.

Mattis argued the case for staying in Afghanistan, overriding Trump’s gut instinct. There is no point in staying in Afghanistan. When someone stops paying for the imported grain that allows Afghanistan’s population to double every 25 years, then Afghanistan will collapse. Mattis’s reasoning for staying in Afghanistan is that we either fight them there or fight them here. The opposite is true. By continuing to feed them, we are creating more future terrorists. The way to keep this country safe is to forbid them to enter.

Mattis entered into a “suicide pact” with Steve Mnuchin and Rex Tillerson with the effect that if any one of them was fired, the other two would resign. Normally an employer, upon hearing that his employees have entered into such an undertaking, would fire all three straight away. The president didn’t do that, and Tillerson showed how ineffectual he was. Tillerson won’t be taking much of his time leading the Boy Scouts of America from now on; he allowed gay troop leaders, and now the venerable institution is considering bankruptcy in response to gay rape claims. Like Mattis, Tillerson rose through projecting an image. The reality fell far short of that.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/president_trump_is_right_about_syria.html

On the campaign trail in 2012, President Obama took credit for ending the war in Iraq and bringing all U.S. troops home from that country. Military leaders quietly decried the evacuation of troops from Iraq. To do so created a vacuum for hostiles, such as the displaced Baath Party members loyal to Saddam Hussein. In early 2014, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria appeared, rolling through the upper third of a largely unarmed and unprotected Iraq, setting the country ablaze.

Although removing U.S. forces from an unarmed Iraq was an obvious blunder, by September 2014, President Obama was dismissing complaints of his handling of the outbreak of hostilities. He declared that ISIS was the equivalent of “a jayvee team” and was nothing to worry about. In 2016, we learned from Secretary John Kerry that regime change in Syria, the removal of Bashar Assad, was the Obama administration’s goal. Focused on this agenda, the White House intentionally gave arms to ISIS, betting that ISIS’s success would force the Syrian president to acquiesce toward Obama’s terms and step down.

U.S. political and military leaders knew that Iraq was working to build up its military, but it had not been able to reconstitute its armed forces in effective numbers. They knew that Iraqi recruits and pilots were in schools run by Americans and taught by Americans. The timing was right for war, as Iraq was utterly defenseless if ISIS came to town.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/trump_declares_victory_in_syria_too_soon.html

In the midst of the Vietnam War, Sen. George Aiken is reported to have said, “Let’s just declare victory and get out.” In October, President Donald Trump did “declare victory” over ISIS. “I want to get out,” the president said. “I want to bring our troops back home. I want to start rebuilding our nation.”

This week, it was announced that our 2,000 or so troops would be pulled out. Job done, go home, right?

There was a bit of a hedge by the Pentagon. Chief spokesperson Dana White said the campaign against ISIS is “not over,” but “we have started the process of returning U.S. troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign. We will continue working with our partners and allies to defeat ISIS wherever it operates.”

OK, still, we’re pretty much done, right? In the narrowest sense, perhaps, although ISIS remains a regional scourge. But it raises the question of what to do when your war aims change in the middle of the war. The defeat of ISIS was, clearly, the first American goal. We were not involved in the Syrian civil war and not planning to be. So American forces took on what appeared to be a limited job. But nothing is limited in the Middle East.

By design or default, United States forces were serving two other functions. In September, secretary of state Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton made the case for Iran’s continued presence in Syria creating instability that presented a strategic threat to American interests in the region – and would allow Iran to control the “Shiite Crescent” from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/mattis-resigning-tells-trump-to-pick-a-secdef-whose-views-are-better-aligned-with-yours/

With a letter offering a foreign policy critique and remaining mum on his thoughts about the commander in chief, Defense Secretary James Mattis announced that he will resign at the end of February after representing the U.S. at a NATO defense ministerial.

Mattis, 68, was commander of U.S. Central Command before retiring from the Marine Corps in 2013. He is currently the longest-serving secretary in President Trump’s cabinet.

Mattis wrote that he is “proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department’s business practices for greater performance.”

He emphasized his “core belief” that America’s “strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships.”

“While the U.S. remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies,” Mattis wrote, adding that doesn’t mean being “policemen of the world” but using “all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances.” He praised NATO’s commitment to fighting alongside the U.S. after 9/11.

“Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours,” he continued. “It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model — gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions — to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.”

https://www.jns.org/opinion/hail-to-haley/

When Nikki Haley was appointed in November 2016 by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to serve as America’s ambassador to the United Nations, I wrote that there was reason to hope she would live up to the legacies of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and John Bolton as “shining beacons in the Midtown Manhattan snake pit.”

Although Haley, the governor of South Carolina at the time, was not well-known beyond the confines of her state, her personal and political history appeared to indicate that she possessed what I called the “kind of clarity on controversial issues that is required in an arena filled with people whose key purpose is to cloud the distinction between good and evil.”

Four months later, when Haley emerged from her first encounter with the U.N. Security Council and blasted its anti-Israel bias, I was even more optimistic that she had what it took “to navigate the Orwellian universe in which the U.N. operates, where Western values are on a lower hierarchical rung than Third World culture, and where a mockery is made of the concept of human rights.”

From that moment on, Haley continued to exceed expectations. She not only served as a proud and fierce defender of American interests in the world, but did so in her own dignified and powerful voice. Indeed, she made the office her own. It is an accomplishment whose significance cannot be overstated.

Her announcement on Oct. 9 that she would be leaving her post at the end of the year was thus a shock and a disappointment, particularly for Israelis. Her popularity in the Jewish state was on full display at this year’s Fourth of July celebration in Tel Aviv, where the mere mention of her name during U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman’s speech elicited such screeching cheers that one might have mistaken the event for a rock concert.

The ovation was well-deserved. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted upon learning of her resignation, Haley “‎led the uncompromising struggle against hypocrisy at ‎the U.N., and on behalf of the truth and justice of ‎our country.”

Indeed. But that’s not the only extraordinary thing about her. Unlike most people on their way out of a job, she did not slack off for a second. If anything, she upped her game. Her farewell speech at the monthly meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Dec. 18 was just as memorable, if not more, than her previous addresses. The gist of her words—a preview of Trump’s yet-to-be-revealed Mideast peace plan—was that the Palestinians have been abused by their leaders and misled by members of the international community.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-twilight-of-human-rights-diplomacy-11545090825

Pesident Trump’s abandonment of democracy promotion and human rights is among the most striking of his departures from the post-Cold War American foreign-policy consensus. To the despair and fury of liberal internationalists and neoconservatives alike, Mr. Trump often appears determined to conduct American diplomacy as if human rights abroad were not a concern.

But the human-rights recession in U.S. foreign policy was already under way when the president took office. It isn’t hard to see why: Efforts to base America’s foreign policy on human rights and democracy hadn’t been yielding their desired results for some time.

Think back to 2011, when President Obama knew where the arc of history was headed and planned to steer American policy accordingly. As the Arab Spring toppled Hosni Mubarak, Ben Rhodes told reporters the administration believed “there is not going to be a return to the way things were in Egypt.” The people had spoken, tyranny was broken, and Egyptian democracy was here to stay.

Those were heady times. Recep Tayyip Erdogan was creating an “Islamist democracy” in Turkey. Aung San Suu Kyi was being compared to Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela for her reformist advocacy in Burma.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272206/obamas-war-upon-us-kenneth-r-timmerman

Donald Trump has a name for everything and everyone, from Crooked Hillary to Little Rocket Man, who for a time became his best friend. Will he call the next region-wide conflagration in the Middle East, when it breaks out, Obama’s War?

If he hasn’t thought of that already, he should start considering it now. Because the catastrophic policies of our former president have emboldened the Islamic state of Iran and enabled it to threaten the United States and our allies militarily in ways never before possible.

When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a strong U.S. military and diplomatic posture across the Middle East.

The U.S.-Israel strategic relationship was at its peak, with the Bush White House openly supporting Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s latest attempt to stop Hamas terror in Gaza.

The U.S. enjoyed a close relationship with a secular Turkey, that itself had strong ties to Israel.

Egypt was at peace, Qaddafi had come into the Western camp and abandoned terrorism and its nuclear weapons program, and the insurgency in Iraq had been crushed.

Al Qaeda truly was “on the run,” while Iran was beginning to feel the crunch of international sanctions over its previously covert nuclear weapons program.

Obama succeeded in reversing every one of these strong U.S. positions, treating Islamic Iran as a friend and Israel as an enemy while promoting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist spawn.

And while President Trump has taken great strides to reverse the enormous damage to our strategic posture Obama caused, fighting his way out of the spider’s web of Iran deal restrictions Obama enacted against the United States has taken nearly two years, time the Iranian regime has put to good use.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsavory-allies-from-stalin-to-the-saudis-1543966304

More recently, the Clinton administration’s most frequent foreign visitor was Yasser Arafat, a mass murderer and terrorist, and both Presidents Bush were obsequious to the tyrants of Saudi Arabia…and no one in Congress or the media got too exercised….rsk

The media, Democrats and even some Republicans have been full of moral indignation over the Trump administration’s failure to punish Saudi Arabia for killing writer Jamal Khashoggi.Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia says “the president’s failure to hold Saudi Arabia responsible in any meaningful way” is an “example of this White House’s retreat from America’s leadership on human rights and protecting the free press.”

President Trump has balked at all of this, noting that the Saudis are valuable allies against Iran. The “Death to America”-chanting fanatics who make up the Iranian regime are the world’s foremost sponsors of terrorism, and they are committed to building nuclear weapons that could reach not only Israel but also Europe and the U.S.

The president’s critics must be a bit short on American history. During World War II, the U.S. and President Franklin D. Roosevelt were in bed comfortably with one of the most murderous dictators in history. Joseph Stalin didn’t kill one citizen of the Soviet Union. He killed millions, before and during the war. He was quoted saying: “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic.” Maybe, frighteningly, he was right.

Stalin played a double game with the Nazis until Hitler stabbed him in a the back by attacking the Soviet Union in June 1941. When the U.S. entered the war six months later, FDR sought out Stalin as an ally and provided the Soviets with an endless supply of military equipment—all interest-free under the Lend-Lease Act.

Hollywood papered over Soviet crimes. “Mission to Moscow,” a 1943 Warner Bros. movie, portrayed the Soviet people as happy and prosperous under Stalin’s benevolent rule. The purges and show trials were depicted as efforts to rid the country of German agents. The film’s producer called it “an expedient lie.”