RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/01/donald-trump-takes-out-the-trash/

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has just found another level of muddle and madness. I refer to the aftermath of the targeted assassination of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iran’s Quds Forces, the foreign legion division of Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on January 3. The problem with TDS is that it diminishes critical-thinking skills which means, paradoxically, groupthink is embraced without a skerrick of critical thinking. All we have are facts in the face of their fanaticism, and for that reason let us unemotionally consider the specifics of President Trump’s first televised explanation for terminating Soleimani. As Don McLean would say: “They would not listen/they do not know how/Perhaps they’ll listen now.”

The theme of President Trump’s rationale was this: “We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.” Whether or not this turns out to be true, let us at least recognise that Donald Trump’s thinking on foreign policy hardly fits the pattern of a warmonger, in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter.

The “AP Fact Check” brings up the furphy that Donald Trump, then a private citizen, was for the Second Iraq War before he was against it, and yet all there is to this is a throwaway line, spoken on September 11, 2002, in response to a question about whether he would support a prospective invasion of Iraq: “Yeah, I guess so.” He also made a comment, in the context of America’s initial victory over Saddam Hussein’s army, that it “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint”.

Only after March 2003, according to the AP Fact Checker, did Trump become an outspoken critic of the Iraq War. What was intended as a brutal takedown of President Trump’s public statements by journalist Hope Yen shows something different. Before entering the White House, Trump exhibited little appetite for war. Not exactly in the Bernie Sanders category, to be sure, but definitely subdued. Donald Trump’s shortage of warmongery could just have easily been the basis of Hope Yen’s article. My own Quadrant Online Fact Check reveals, not so surprisingly, that the widely syndicated Hope Yen herself suffers from TDS. Her monomaniacal mission to disparage President Trump at every turn, never allowing any positive aspect of the man to see the light of day, is thinly disguised as “fact checking”.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/03/obama-sent-them-cash-trump-turned-them-into-ash/

Instead of commending the commander-in-chief, the Left and its lackeys in the media are criticizing President Trump and sympathizing with the mullahs and the “revered Iranian military figure,” Qassem Suleimani.

The following is a simple reminder.

President Obama started his term in office traveling the world apologizing for America. He blamed a YouTuber when our ambassador and three other Americans were murdered by al-Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya. He sent Hillary Clinton to her Russian counterpart to give him a “reset” button. He also sent Putin a personal message to be patient because he would have “more flexibility” after his election.

Obama sent blankets and MREs to Ukraine after Putin invaded and took Crimea. He told us ISIS was just a JV team. Then after they established a caliphate, he told Americans ISIS was a “generational threat” we just had to get used to.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15265/is-nato-still-vital

Many additional countries who joined the alliance — such as Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States, which had been Soviet satellites — still consider post-Communist Russia an extremely disquieting potential threat. That is just one issue that has created friction among NATO nations….

The larger question [is] the degree to which enemy countries perceive NATO as a unified organization that would respond militarily to aggression against any member state — a crucial psychological factor in deterrence.

Its reason for being should not be written off quite yet…

The two-day summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) — held in London on December 3-4 to commemorate its 70th anniversary — may have been marked by controversy, but the gathering constituted an important reminder of why the international alliance was established in the first place.

Founded in April 1949 by the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom, NATO was a pact created to counter the world’s greatest threat at the time: the Soviet Union and its race for global domination.

At the time, it was clear that all NATO members were dependent on and deferred to American political and military leadership. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, some of the original NATO member states began to seek systems that would protect their particular individual interests.

Germany, for instance, has become Europe’s economic powerhouse, enjoying a favorable balance of trade with the US. France, no longer viewing Russia as an existential threat to the Free World, now seems more motivated to protect NATO’s southern flank from radical Islamic terrorist groups in West Africa, and from mass migration from former French colonies in North Africa.

Meanwhile, many additional countries who joined the alliance — such as Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States, which had been Soviet satellites — still consider post-Communist Russia an extremely disquieting potential threat. That is just one issue that has created friction among NATO nations, particularly with Turkey’s decision to purchase a Russian air defense system. Another internal bone of contention is the failure of some members to reach the minimum defense-spending level of 2% of GDP, a goal established by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/12/what-purpose-does-nato-serve-bruce-thornton/

While the political class obsessed over act two of the House impeachment hearings while normal people ignored them, NATO met in London for an international photo-op and a celebration of the treaty’s 70th anniversary. Nothing of substance happened, and no needed reforms were discussed. Thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union made NATO irrelevant, no one can say what strategic purpose this bloated bureaucracy serves, nor how––despite being financed mainly by the U.S––it advances U.S. interests and security.

Of course we were treated to the usual claims that “NATO kept the peace” in Europe during the Cold War, along with the other institutions of the “rules-based international order.” This globalist marketing slogan is hard to credit. The postwar Europeans were in no condition to fight each other, because most had neither the matériel nor the morale to fight with. Nor did NATO keep the Soviets out of Europe: that was accomplished by 70,000 American nuclear warheads and 400,000 American troops. The contributions of European pygmy-militaries to American military capability were in the end comparatively minimal.

Then there were the usual petty squabbles, snarking at President Trump, and bombastic rhetoric about the “world’s oldest military alliance.” The issue of European members’ continuing failure to increase their puny military spending was brought up again. Trump-haters, of course, have used his aggressive lobbying of the Europeans on this score to buttress their claims that he is a dangerous geopolitical ignoramus unschooled in the technical and diplomatic knowledge of the foreign policy establishment and the “interagency consensus” mentioned in act one of the House impeachment hearings––finally, a confession that we do indeed have an unaccountable “managerial elite” that thinks it should run foreign policy rather than their boss, the Chief Executive elected by the people, and the Commander in Chief to whom the Constitution has given this authority.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukrainegatetreason-or-common-sense-11575937739?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

EXCERPT

Among the administration’s most consistent features is a belief that the U.S. should change the priority it gives to the different theaters in world politics. From this perspective, the center of gravity of American policy must move from the Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific. Latin America deserves more attention as a growing social and political crisis creates larger threats in the hemisphere—of which the chaos on the Southern border may be only a foretaste.

After Latin America, the threats of jihadist violence and Iranian expansionism make the Middle East the next-highest priority for the Trump administration. Europe, America’s highest priority for much of the Cold War, has fallen to fourth place. For the Trump administration and many of its Republican allies, Russia, because it is weaker and poorer than China, comes after Beijing on America’s list of geopolitical concerns—an important disagreement with the liberal Atlanticist foreign-policy establishment and not the only one.

Beyond geopolitics there is ideology. The rules-based world order means much less to Mr. Trump and to many Republican senators than it does to liberal Atlanticists. The president isn’t a believer in the application of the broken-windows theory of foreign policy—that a violation of one rule in one place materially increases the chance of other rules being broken in other places. A “realist” in the jargon of international relations, Mr. Trump thinks that national power matters much more than international law.

U.S. President Donald Trump is to be praised for his withdrawal from an agreement that would pave the way for Iranian nuclear power within 15 years, and his imposition of sanctions, writes Howard Rotberg.

In 1943 to 1945, Hitler’s costly obsession with killing every last Jew in Europe took precedence over military and economic basic needs in wartime. There came a point in the course of the war, when the resources used in rounding up and murdering European Jewry could have been used to strengthen a failing military.

And now we see another evil empire, Iran, prioritizing aid to its terrorist proxies, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and others to kill civilians in Israel, when the economy is in such straits that protesters are hitting the streets. The Iranian people see huge sums of money leaving the country to assist these terrorist groups in genocide of the Jews when American sanctions over the Iranian nuclear program have caused shortages of gas and oil and even rationing.

People also must question the cost of Iran propping up Syrian leader and war-criminal Bashar al-Assad, and its mischief in Yemen.

This past week, many Iranians showed they have had enough. Gas rationing and price increases may have been the instigation of these protests, however, as we see in Hong Kong, once the people take the first steps to challenge authority, a revolution may start if the people have lost their loyalty to the state.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/473200-us-should-back-irans-protesters

More than half a century ago, President John F. Kennedy re-wrote U.S. policy for the developing world with one goal in mind: to put America on the side of revolutionary forces that were seeking progressive change.

His predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, had subjected U.S. policy in the developing world to the wishes of America’s European allies that maintained colonies across the world and often ruled harshly.

JFK, however, knew that change was coming in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where hundreds of millions of people were growing increasingly frustrated over political oppression and stunted living standards. He also knew that the next generation of leaders on those continents would remember whether or not Washington had lent its support to their efforts. That would determine whether, in the aftermath of change, the United States found itself with new allies or new adversaries.

Washington faces that same question today in Iran, which is now home to what could be the most sustained protests since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. When the regime falls, as it surely will (whether in a month, a year, or a decade), will its successors look kindly on the support they received from Washington?