RUTHFULLY YOURS

The fifteen years following September 11, 2001, demonstrate that the free world is still struggling to understand the various jihadist threats that achieved such global notoriety in this day’s mother of all terrorist attacks. Yet slowly but surely citizens are comprehending centuries-old Islamic ideologies that are once again assaulting free societies, a sign of hope after years of policy mistakes and politically correct “Islamophobia” taboos..

Al Qaeda’s hijackings in this black September awoke wrenched America from a halcyon “holiday from history” derided by many like former CIA Director James Woolsey. While many who have come of age since 9/11 condemn an ensuing “endless war,” he complained that his commander-in-chief, President William Clinton, payed little attention to national security. Yet his notorious playboy manners inside and outside of the Oval Office seemed to befit the relative peace and prosperity of the long decade from the Berlin Wall’s fall on 11/9/1989 to 9/11/2001.

Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, was thankfully made of sterner stuff for what would soon be sterner times, but history would pass critical judgment upon his neo-Wilsonian strategies for dealing with the Islamic world’s various dangers. Perhaps giddy with American “hyperpower” in a historic “unipolor moment,” this evangelical Texan sought to replicate Republican icon Ronald Reagan, whose Cold War defeat of Communism liberated millions. Efforts to extend a Kantian zone of peace would attract supposedly huddling Muslim masses yearning to breathe free away from the poverty and perils of dictatorships and religious fanaticism.

Costly expenditures of blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq with little result dashed any hope of these countries celebrating Francis Fukuyama’s End of History. His often misunderstood and maligned thesis rightfully noted that free societies had proven their superiority in good governance over all ideological competitors like Communism. Yet as his own reservations about the Iraq war indicated, many Muslims presently eschew such empirical evidence in favor of faith-based adherence to various sharia-supremacist illiberal beliefs.

Although Bush’s experience seemed to influence little President Barack Obama’s disastrous Libyan humanitarian intervention that left behind a jihadist-dominated country, his disengagement policies often personified an anti-Bush. Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden incongruously declared Iraq an Obama Administration success before Obama’s troop withdrawal helped unravel a dearly-won tenuous peace there. Meanwhile his lesson from Bush’s Iraq war of “don’t do stupid s-t” hardly produced any discernibly better results as Iraq’s neighbor Syria broke apart in a bloody regional war between Shiites and Sunnis. Most importantly, Obama’s enablement of Iran’s power and nuclear ambitions is only strengthening the Middle East’s most dangerous jihadist state.

Israeli researchers: Notes from USSR archivist who defected indicate PA president was working for Soviets in Damascus in 1980s while Putin’s current Mideast envoy was stationed there

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was a Soviet spy in Damascus in the 1980s, Israel’s Channel 1 television reported Wednesday, citing information it said was included in an archive smuggled out of the USSR.

According to Channel 1’s foreign news editor Oren Nahari, the famed Mitrokhin archive, kept by KGB defector Vasily Mitrokhin, revealed that Abbas was a Soviet mole in Damascus in 1983.The documents — obtained by Israeli researchers Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez — purportedly show that Abbas, code-named Krotov (mole), was involved with the Soviets while Mikhail Bogdanov, today Vladimir Putin’s envoy to the Middle East. was stationed in Damascus.

Bogdanov was caught in a diplomatic tussle earlier this week after trying to broker a summit between Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Moscow, who both claimed a willingness to meet while decrying the other for allegedly refusing.

Mitrokhin was a senior KGB archivist who defected to the UK in 1992, and his edited notes on various KGB operations were released in 2014. His handwritten notes remain classified by MI5.

The archivist’s notes on the KGB are considered among the most complete information available on Soviet intelligence operations. He claimed that the KGB recruited the then head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Wadi Haddad, as an agent in the 1970s.

His writings also revealed that Haddad, operating under the code name NATSIONALIST, was given Soviet assistance in funding and arming the PFLP.

The canonical definition of the Yiddish word chutzpah involves a man who murders his parents and then asks for clemency because he is an orphan. An unprecedented degree of chutzpah informs the machinations of radical Muslims, who engineer humanitarian disasters and then demand that the West intervene to save them. In his recent book Mission Failure, Prof. Michael Mandelbaum of Johns Hopkins University points to the first instance of this tactic: the Kosovo Liberation Army persuaded Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright to make war on the Serbs by provoking them into killing a hundred or two civilians.

Most of Clinton’s cabinet didn’t want to support the KLA, which made its money in narcotics and human trafficking, and they didn’t want to divide the sovereign state of Serbia—a precedent that Russia later used to justify its seizure of the Crimea. Nonetheless the moral blackmail succeeded, and Muslim radicals learned how to push the guilt button of the West.

My review-essay on Mandelbaum’s book appears in the Summer 2016 issue of Claremont Review of Books. Although I find much to disagree with, his reading of the salient events is incisive. His argument intersects with my warning just after the 9/11 attacks that radical Islam intended to horrify the West—not only by committing atrocities against Western civilians, but by causing massive civilian casualties among Muslims.

To a great extent they have succeeded. The fragile conscience of the Germans could not bear the suffering of Syrian refugees streamed towards its border with the connivance of Turkey. As Giulio Meotti reported for the Gatestone Institute, the refugee invasion will radically alter Europe’s demographic balance.

Hamas fought the Gaza War in order to maximize civilian casualties among its own population, and thereby entice the West into forcing Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, where short-range rockets could devastate the national airport as well as Tel Aviv. This has not succeeded—yet—because Americans support Israel over the Palestinians by a 4:1 margin. But Palestinian leaders are patient; as the Palestinian journalist Mohammed Daraghmeh wrote (translate by the Times of Israel), the war with Israel “will end only when the world understands it has a duty to intervene and to draw borders and lines, as it did in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Kosovo.”

This macabre pantomime should be transparent, but such is the squeamishness of the West that enlightened opinion shudders at the prospect of more dead Palestinian civilians. The world forgets that the Allies killed 1 million German civilians and between a quarter and half a million Japanese, mostly through aerial bombardments. This sacrifice was justified by the need to destroy wicked governments that killed tens of millions of civilians in Europe and Asia. States have the right to defend themselves against artillery attacks. Israel’s right of self-defense is generally acknowledged, but with the caveat the self-defense should be “proportionate,” that is, ineffective.

Frequently the “proportionality” canard is linked to a demand for Israeli concessions that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Oxford University theologian Nigel Biggar for example writes in the Summer 2016 issue of the Christian strategy journal Providence: “It was within Israel’s power to take diplomatic, confidence-building initiatives. Uniterally, she could have stopped and reversed the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Since she didn’t do so, her military assaults on Gaza were inapt and therefore disproportionate.” Prof. Biggar forgets that Israel’s unilateral “confidence-building” withdrawal from Gaza put Hamas rockets on its borders. Logic is beside the point. The West is horrified and wants the horror to stop, and that is just what Hamas counts on.

Worse is yet to come. On Israel’s northern border, Hezbollah now has 150,000 rockets, by far the largest such inventory in the world, including many precision-guided missiles which can be programmed for evasive flight paths and are more difficult to shoot down with the Iron Dome air defense system, as I warned two years ago. Many of these are emplaced in civilian homes in the Shi’ite towns of southern Lebanon. To destroy them would entail civilian casualties one or two orders of magnitude greater than the collateral damage in Gaza.

President Obama has just committed his most flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution to date. He purported to commit the United States to a legally binding treaty without first obtaining consent by two thirds of the Senators present, as required under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Obama is using the United Nations to end run the Senate with regard to the Paris Agreement on climate change negotiated last December.

Last week, Obama submitted an instrument to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, for deposit with the UN, which he claims signifies official “acceptance” of the Paris Agreement by the United States. Obama said he and China’s President Xi Jinping together decided to “commit formally to joining the agreement ahead of schedule.”

Obama was constitutionally entitled to sign the Paris Agreement as an executive act, which he did in April of this year. However, signing the Paris Agreement was only the first step. In order for the Paris Agreement to actually take effect and enter into legal force, at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions need to formally join the Paris Agreement. This requires the further step of member states’ “ratification, acceptance or approval” of the Paris Agreement before their emissions can be counted towards fulfilling the 55 percent of global emissions threshold.

The United States is the second highest emitter of emissions, after China. Together the U.S. and China account for around 40 percent of global emissions. If the United States and China were to formally join the Paris Agreement via ratification, acceptance or approval, the 55 percent threshold target would be well within reach.

China presumably had no problem moving forward to formally join the Paris Agreement. However, in order to do his part so that the UN could declare the Paris Agreement to be in legal force sooner rather than later, Obama had to find a way to justify skipping over the constitutional requirement of U.S. Senate consent and still cause the U.S. to become bound to a treaty. The answer was to pretend that what the UN itself regards as a treaty, to which its parties would be legally bound once it came into force, was not really a treaty after all. It was only an executive agreement, the Obama administration argues, that is within the president’s power to enter into without any congressional involvement.

White House senior adviser Brian Deese offered up this sophistry at a White House press conference, held before Obama’s visit to China for the G-20 summit where he would act on the power he was usurping from the legislative branch. Deese claimed that Obama was using “his authority that has been used in dozens of executive agreements in the past to join and formally deposit our instrument of acceptance, and therefore put our country as a party to the Paris Agreement.” Deese tried to distinguish between “treaties that require advice and consent from the Senate” and “a broad category of executive agreements where the executive can enter into those agreements without that advice and consent.”

Stephen Harper’s career as a Canadian politician spanned three decades, in which he belonged to three right-leaning parties, won three election victories, and served three terms as prime minister. After resigning his federal seat on August 26, he is highly unlikely to return for another stint in politics.

After losing last October’s federal election to Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, Harper stepped down as Conservative party leader that night. He remained a backbench MP for ten more months — which surprised some people, but enabled him to exit the stage in a quiet, dignified manner. He participated in 99 votes (coincidentally enough, 99 is the total number of Conservatives currently in Parliament), didn’t interfere with interim Conservative party leader Rona Ambrose’s agenda, and never rose to speak in the House of Commons again.

Naturally, the discussion has now shifted to an analysis of his political legacy.

I’ve known Harper for more than 20 years, long before I worked for him as one of his speechwriters. He’s intelligent, well-read, determined, and an astute political thinker. He’s a great admirer of Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher, among other notable conservative leaders. He holds a master’s degree in economics from the University of Calgary, and always worked to secure Canada’s financial health and future economic success.

Alas, his political ambitions came at a time when Canadian conservatives were heading into the political wilderness. The split between the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party of Canada (later the Canadian Alliance) between 1987 and 2003 tore apart the conservative political movement, and gave the Liberals a much easier road to power.

Harper was an influential Reform MP from 1993–1997, but left after his relations with then–Reform leader Preston Manning became strained. While serving as the National Citizens Coalition’s president, Harper watched his old party morph into the Canadian Alliance in 2000.

When the Alliance struggled mightily under the leadership of Stockwell Day, he saw his moment to become a white knight for Canadian conservatism. Harper triumphantly returned to politics, and was elected party leader in 2002. He pushed hard to unite the political Right, and merged the Alliance with Peter MacKay’s Progressive Conservatives in December 2003 to form the Conservative Party of Canada.

Harper was elected the new party’s first leader. Although he lost the 2004 federal election to Paul Martin and the Liberals, it was reduced to a minority government. He would beat them in 2006 to become Canada’s first right-leaning prime minister in 13 years.