RUTHFULLY YOURS

An American warplane shot down a Syrian government jet on Sunday, the Pentagon said, marking the first time in Syria’s civil war that a U.S. pilot has struck a regime plane and signaling an increased willingness by the Trump administration to directly challenge President Bashar al-Assad and his allies.

On Sunday, the U.S. military said it had shot down the Syrian SU-22 after regime forces twice attacked members of American-backed Syrian fighters leading the assault on Raqqa, the self-declared capital of the Islamic State terror group.

With the strike, the U.S. military made it clear it is now willing to target Syrian regime jets to protect the coalition of Kurdish and Arab fighters working with U.S. special-operation forces to push Islamic State, also known as ISIS, from Raqqa.

The U.S. military said the confrontation began Sunday afternoon when Syrian forces attacked the Syrian Democratic Forces near Raqqa, forcing the U.S.-backed fighters to retreat as they evacuated their injured. Coalition aircraft flew low over the regime forces in a “show of force” that stopped them from advancing, the military said.

The U.S., which has no direct contact with the Syrian regime, then said it used an established deconfliction line with the Russians, who fly their own airstrikes in Syria in support of Mr. Assad, to try to bring the fight to a halt. About two hours after the initial Syrian attack, a regime SU-22 jet dropped bombs on U.S.-backed forces in the same area.

Citing “collective self-defense of coalition partnered forces,” the U.S. military said an American F/A-18E Super Hornet shot down the regime jet. Col. John Thomas, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said there were no U.S. forces in the “immediate vicinity” of the Syrian regime attack. CONTINUE AT SITE

When Rodman gave a copy of Trump’s ‘The Art of the Deal’ as a gift in Pyongyang, the implication was clear: it’s time for Trump and Kim to talk.

The man certainly knows how to feed a narrative. Erstwhile basketball great, sometime “Celebrity Apprentice,” and apparent Kim Jong Un buddy Dennis Rodman on Thursday gave North Korean Sports Minister Kim Il Guk a copy of President Trump’s The Art of the Deal—suggesting a negotiated settlement could be had. And in the process, Rodman fed speculation that he had traveled to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as an emissary of the world’s most powerful figure.

Sometimes diplomacy needs a cross-dressing, pierced, tattooed weirdo who has five NBA championship rings and a place in the league’s Hall of Fame.

Such as this moment, when there’s war talk on the Korean peninsula. Beijing, to avoid a calamity, wants to restart negotiations with Pyongyang as do Moscow, Seoul, and Washington. Although all the participants hope to talk, they have not found the means to do so.

Enter a catalyst, Dennis Rodman, whose nickname, The Worm, does not begin to describe how unusual he is.

Or how reprehensible he can be. His four previous trips to North Korea, during which he repeatedly praised despot Kim Jong Un and sang “Happy Birthday” to him, were notorious. If Americans could be jailed for partying with young dictators, Rodman would be serving consecutive life terms.

Rodman entered North Korea on Tuesday, and now the narrative, for good cause, is different. As The Washington Post asked in a headline that day, “Was He Sent by Trump?”

The suggestion is by no means outrageous. After all, The Worm is the only person in the world who can call both President Donald John Trump and Supreme Commander Kim Jong Un a friend. No American has had more contact with the Kimster, who is even more unavailable to world leaders than his reclusive father and predecessor, Kim Jong Il.

And Rodman on his way to Pyongyang talked like an envoy. At the Beijing Capital Airport on Tuesday, asked whether Trump knew about the trip, the Hall of Famer told reporters “I’m pretty sure he’s happy at the fact I’m over here trying to accomplish something we both need.”

“I will discuss my mission upon my return to the U.S.A.,” Rodman said. He also mentioned he was attempting to accomplish something “pretty positive.”

And what would that be? Rodman announced he was “just trying to open a door.” That was uncharacteristically modest, and he was in fact thinking of grander goals. As The Worm said in a video posted on the site of PotCoin, which sponsored his trip, “It’s all about peace.”

Trump administration officials have repeatedly stated Rodman’s trip had no official sanction, and the denials sounded genuine. Despite everything, Washington would never authorize anyone so unpredictable and unconventional.

When it comes to the Palestinians, the Trump administration goes the way its predecessors have. On June 13, 2017, State Secretary Rex Tillerson reassured the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Palestinian Authority “have changed that policy and their intent is to cease the payments to the families of those who have committed murder or violence against others.”

Tillerson apparently took Mahmoud Abbas at his word. He should know better.
The Palestinian leadership’s “intentions” have been declared in public by Palestinian Authority (PA) Yasser Arafat on June 6, 2001, on Radio Palestine. “War is a dream; peace is a nightmare,” he announced. Arafat is gone, but in the effort to avoid the “nightmare” of peace, Abbas and the rest of the Palestinian leadership adopted his motto and never stopped funding its jihadist propaganda for terrorism against Israel.

In 2003, Palestinian President Abbas, who then served as Arafat’s prime minister, justified PA’s Treasury payments to members of the terrorist designated al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades – who committed mass-murder attacks on Israelis and groomed children to become suicide bombers – was an effort to “de-radicalize” the terrorists. It was “an attempt to wean the terrorist from committing further homicide bombings,” Abbas said. But then, as today, the PA did not pay to stop terrorism; it has been paying the salaries of terrorists and rewarding their families. The Palestinian’s “de-radicalization” excuse, was later adopted by the Saudis and the other Gulf States to host al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters. The Palestinians should also be credited for “innovations” such as suicide bombing, stabbing, and car-ramming. And terrorism proved as a good industry for the Palestinians. The more terror, the more funds they were given supposedly to incentivize them for “peace.”

On July 17, 2003, after the European Union was criticized for funding Palestinian terrorism, then External Relations Commissioner, Christopher Patten, wrote in the Financial Times “[the EU has worked throughout the bloodstained months of the intifada to keep a Palestinian administration alive and to drive a process of reform within it.” Similar claims have become routine over the years, and the money kept flowing. Patten claimed, “At every step, the EU’s help was made conditional on reforms that would make a viable Palestinian state a reality one day and in the short term make the Palestinian territories a better, safer neighbor for Israel.” By the time Patten made this statement, he had received from the Israeli government volumes of captured Palestinian documents providing clear evidence that EU funds granted to the PA were being used to pay for the upkeep of terrorists, homicide bombers, weapons, bomb manufacturing plants, as well vacations, travel, scholarships and medical treatments to members the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and other Palestinian terror groups, and bonuses to the Palestinian leadership and their families, including Arafat and Abbas.

If for no other reason, the U.S. the EU, the UN, the World Bank, other international and even Christian charities should have stopped funding the PA for its ongoing human, civil and religious rights violations against their own people. Some of this abuse has been carried out through the introduction of the Islamic culture that encourages martyrdom in the name of Allah. To fool the West, the Palestinians have always said, in English, they are peace-loving people.
On June 14, a day after Tillerson assured the Senate the PA promised to change its spots, the head of the Palestinian Committee of Prisoners’ Affairs, Issa Qaraqe challenged the Secretary’s statement: “There is no end to the payments. We reject ending the subsidies to the prisoners and families of martyrs. We will not apologize for it,” he said and went on to denounce the American and Israelis

President Trump arrived in the Arabian desert hoping to realign the politics of the Middle East in the aftermath of a failed Obama policy. For eight years Obama tilted in the direction of Iran believing that the influence of the Shia could balance Sunni dominance. The so-called nuclear deal with Iran was a geopolitical manifestation of this policy perspective. To put it simply, the policy didn’t work. In fact, it led to the wide spread belief that the U.S. tacitly endorsed the Shia Crescent or the imperial Iranian design.

President Trump hinted that this has to be corrected. With his May 21, 2017 speech, there is no doubt the U.S. will push back on previous policy and offer Saudi Arabia and other regional Sunni partners a reliable counter-weight to Iranian ambitions.

In previous documents produced by the London Center for Policy Research a Gulf States Red Sea Treaty Organization was proposed. Mr. Trump has called it an Arab NATO. As the president noted in his speech the nations in the region have a primary responsibility to attack terrorism and the state sponsors of terrorism. He noted perspicaciously that the U.S. would not invest major troop deployments for this mission, but the U.S. will engage with its allies in logistical support, sophisticated arms, special forces when necessary and intelligence on enemy movements and strategy.

More than anything else, the president offered assurance that the U.S. stands behind its allies. When, during the Obama presidency, President al Sisi noted that “I love America, but America doesn’t love me,” he meant the U.S. was an unreliable ally that makes promises, but doesn’t follow through. Specifically, he made reference to the Apache helicopters promised to Egypt but undelivered.

While presidential visits of this kind are invariably accompanied by hyperbole, this mission was indeed historic since it has already instilled in Saudi Arabia and Egypt confidence building measures missing from erstwhile diplomatic conversations.

Some critics contend this Middle East gambit was designed to offset the political troubles dogging the Trump team in DC. However, the trip was arranged well before the press powder keg exploded. From the outset of his presidency, Mr. Trump vowed to reset the global war against terrorism. He also wanted to alter a perception he is intolerant of Islam.

Clearly there is a lot of work to be accomplished between announcements and an actual defense condominium. At this stage, inflated expectations have to face the bright light of regional realism. After all, there was a Middle East defense pact (CENTO) organized by President Eisenhower that lacked muscle and influence and, eventually, evanesced. There is also the Russian alliance with Iran and Hezbollah that could put a monkey wrench in Sunni planning.

A Sunni pact has as its target the Iranian influence in the Levant. But there are other goals as well. It is the Trump administration belief that Russia can be peeled from the alliance with Hezbollah and Iran. After all, why should Russian policy be determined, in large part, by Iranian imperial ambitions? Should this gambit be successful, Iran will be isolated and far more amenable to negotiation.

WASHINGTON — President Trump came out swinging against Qatar during a Rose Garden press conference today after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson earlier urged easing of the blockade against the Gulf nation and the Pentagon said the rift was negatively impacting U.S. military operations.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Maldives, Mauritius, Mauritania, and Senegal have cut diplomatic ties with Qatar, accusing the kingdom of being a haven for terror financiers, while Jordan and Djibouti have downgraded relations. In response, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has stepped up military cooperation with Qatar and may send more troops there.

“We do not, have not and will not support terrorist groups. The recent joint statement issued by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE regarding a ‘terror finance watchlist’ once again reinforces baseless allegations that hold no foundation in fact,” the Qatari government said in a statement today. “Our position on countering terrorism is stronger than many of the signatories of the joint statement – a fact that has been conveniently ignored by the authors.”

The U.S. stages operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan from Al-Udeid airbase, the base of U.S. Air Force Central Command and the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing. About 10,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed at the base about 20 miles outside Doha. Only Kuwait hosts a stronger U.S. military presence in the Middle East.

“While current operations from Al Udeid Air Base have not been interrupted or curtailed, the evolving situation is hindering our ability to plan for longer-term military operations,” Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said in a statement today. “Qatar remains critical for coalition air operations in the fight against ISIS and around the region.”

Earlier, at the State Department, Tillerson called for “calm and thoughtful dialogue with clear expectations and accountability among the parties in order to strengthen relationships.”

“We ask that there be no further escalation by the parties in the region. We call on Qatar to be responsive to the concerns of its neighbors. Qatar has a history of supporting groups that have spanned the spectrum of political expression, from activism to violence. The emir of Qatar has made progress in halting financial support and expelling terrorist elements from his country, but he must do more and he must do it more quickly,” he said.

Tillerson called on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt to “ease the blockade” against Qatar. “There are humanitarian consequences to this blockade. We are seeing shortages of food, families are being forcibly separated, and children pulled out of school. We believe these are unintended consequences, especially during this holy month of Ramadan, but they can be addressed immediately,” he said.

“The blockade is also impairing U.S. and other international business activities in the region and has created a hardship on the people of Qatar and the people whose livelihoods depend on commerce with Qatar. The blockade is hindering U.S. military actions in the region and the campaign against ISIS.”

At a press conference this afternoon with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, Trump jumped straight to Qatar in his opening remarks.

“The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level. And in the wake of that conference, nations came together and spoke to me about confronting Qatar over its behavior,” Trump said, referencing his recent trip to Riyadh. “So we had a decision to make: Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have to stop the funding of terrorism.”

“I decided, along with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, our great generals and military people, the time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding — they have to end that funding — and its extremist ideology in terms of funding,” he continued. “I want to call on all of the nations to stop immediately supporting terrorism, stop teaching people to kill other people, stop filling their minds with hate and intolerance. I won’t name other countries, but we are not done solving the problem.” CONTINUE AT SITE

The NeverTrump bitter-enders still can’t resist sniping at the president and his alleged éminence grise, Steve Bannon. Now it’s Trump’s “dangerous” refusal––despite advice from his national security advisors, and allegedly fomented by Bannon––to reassure fellow NATO members of his commitment to Article Five of the NATO treaty during the ceremonies in May celebrating NATO’s new headquarters in Brussels. According to Commentary’s Noah Rothman, for example, Trump’s snubbing of Article Five emboldens Russia, for it “undermines a credible American deterrence” and “invites Putin to test the parameters of Trump’s resolve, which could be disastrous.”

The inflation of Article Five into the West’s premier bulwark against aggression is one of the best examples of the magical thinking that ritualistic affirmations of toothless multinational treaties will keep the peace and deter enemies.

This belief, however, depends more on half-truths and political marketing than on facts. We often hear that NATO “avoided a major state conflict,” as one NeverTrumper wrote, in postwar Europe, and kept the Soviets at bay during the Cold War. But what kept the peace in Europe was the simple fact that the European nations did not have the means or the will to wage a war. They were too demoralized and too busy rebuilding their shattered economies, financed in part by the Marshall Plan’s $190 billion (in today’s money).

As for deterring the Soviets, it was the 300,000 American troops deployed in Germany between 1950 and 1990, and the 25,000 nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal threatening Mutually Assured Destruction that checked Soviet aggression, not the “military pygmies,” as NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson put it, of the European nations. NATO and Article Five were then and now a fig-leaf for allowing the European nations to hide the fact that their security was a benefit provided by American military power and funded by the U.S. taxpayer, freeing Europeans to concentrate on rebuilding their economies, and then creating their social-welfare, dolce vita EUtopia.

Indeed, the political purpose of Article Five is obvious from its actual language, which questions the common description of it as a mutual defense pact. Article Five states that “an armed attack against one or more of [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” In the event of such an attack, Article Five continues, “each” member will respond “by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [emphases added]. “Considering” an act of aggression to be an attack is inherently subjective, as are the “actions” any country might “deem” to be “necessary.” Such elastic language could make speechifying at the U.N., or imposing economic sanctions, or voting on a Security Council resolution to be a fulfillment of a member state’s treaty obligation. And no, there is no provision for enforcing Article Five, though there is one (Article 13) for leaving NATO.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. A German leader in a beer tent announces a new indifference to the United Kingdom and America and a new determination to lead Europe into a glorious future, possibly delighting the expansionist strongman leading Russia. The result, a little over seventy years ago, was a calamity for civilization, before Germany was brought to repent of its ambition. In 2017, the replay was far less threatening, and the German leader in question began issuing comedowns and take-backs in about 72 hours. The only casualties were the excited opinion columns about Europe stepping forward to lead the world Trump’s America had abandoned.

But it was a mysterious statement. “The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days,” Merkel lamented. “We Europeans must really take our destiny in our own hands. Of course we need to have friendly relations with the U.S. and with the U.K. and with other neighbors, including Russia. But we have to fight for our own future ourselves” Of course, she had electoral politics on mind. But something deeper is at work.

In poker, a player who has lost control of her emotions and the realistic assessment of the stakes at play is said to have gone on tilt. Donald Trump seems to put all of his opponents and some of his friends on tilt. The Democrats, the media, and foreign leaders often have good reasons to dislike Donald Trump’s leadership of the United States. Don’t we all? But what so often happens is that Trump’s opponents are goaded by the passions of their constituents, or their wounded sense of pride, or even deluded by their conviction that others must come to realize Trump’s presidency is some kind of cosmic mistake. And then they run out ahead of the evidence, or their own better judgment.

In global opinion-setting press clippings, German chancellor Angela Merkel and her new friend, French president Emmanuel Macron, outclass everyone on planet Earth. But in the real world, the thing that keeps cartographers sitting on their hands and reprinting the same European border maps year after year since the dissolution of the Soviet empire is the U.S. military, the one parked in Germany since 1945.

As one of her own party members said in an off-the-record comment to the Financial Times, “For Merkel, that was an unusually strong statement, Trump’s only been president for four months.” Perhaps a strategic partnership that has endured for the better part of a century isn’t so vulnerable to one tough speech by an American president, or so easy to change that the aspiration of a German chancellor remakes the world order.

Perhaps a strategic partnership that has endured for the better part of a century isn’t so vulnerable to one tough speech by an American president.

But that didn’t stop the gusher of enthusiasm for Merkel’s comments. The Europhilic Irish Times purred that Merkel was stating the obvious: “Faced with an erratic and unpredictable White House, with its purely transactional view of global alliances, and a United Kingdom rapidly turning inward, the EU can only achieve its goals by pulling closer together.” American opinion writers were not much more sober, declaring it the practical end of Atlantic alliance.