RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14559/us-special-forces-abroad

What skeptics need to understand is that the Green Berets in Africa — as all U.S. troops are doing in other places and other contexts — are performing a crucial service to U.S. interests. They are helping America maintain a small footprint in states at peril of losing the battle against jihad and its totalitarian ideology, or other threats, while often assisting local militaries transform from corrupt, domestic bullies to national protectors of the people.

American Green Berets are currently gripped in helping dozens of African countries in a low-key but desperate struggle to prevent a vast swath of the world’s poorly governed spaces from falling to Islamist terrorists. The U.S. Special Operations Africa Command’s 3rd Special Forces Group (3rd SFG) has been operating in 33 such countries, training and equipping their local armies to enable them to combat threats to state sovereignty posed by al Qaeda and ISIS. The same goal was the impetus behind the establishment of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2007.

Since then, the number of American soldiers deployed in Africa has grown to approximately 6,000, a quarter of which belong to Special Forces units. About two-thirds are stationed at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. Their mission is to support the Organization of African Union’s mission to suppress the al Qaeda affiliate, al-Shabaab, in its effort to challenge state sovereignty in Somalia, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, and to combat piracy operations in international shipping lanes along the East African coast.

Since 2015, the 3rd SFG has borne the brunt of the burden, returning to an earlier “Area of Responsibility,” following a lengthy deployment in Afghanistan. These Green Beret troops serve as a force multiplier to African counter-terrorist units, by providing needed intelligence and supplying logistical resources.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/xi-changed-my-mind-about-trump-11564008053

At first I had no idea why President Trump talked so much about sovereignty. I’ve changed my mind. To be more precise, Xi Jinping changed it. Mr. Trump is the only thing that stands between us and a world dominated by China.

“We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government,” Mr. Trump told the United Nations General Assembly in September 2017. “But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.”

Mr. Trump mentioned sovereignty 21 times in that speech. Why? Everyone knew America was a sovereign state, one of nearly 200 in the world. The idea of sovereignty has been firmly established for more than three centuries. Mr. Trump’s defense of it seemed unnecessary.

Yet for more than a decade, President Xi has been dropping audacious hints that China is the world’s only sovereign state. As a result, I have come to believe that Mr. Trump’s defense of sovereignty is essential to maintaining international peace and stability.

The world is full of “experts” who will tell you China and the U.S. are locked in a contest for dominance. Technically, that’s true. The idea that the two nations are struggling for control, however, falsely implies that America is jealously guarding its position atop the international system. That’s Beijing’s narrative. Chinese leaders disparage the U.S. by implying it is in terminal decline and accusing it of attempting to prevent China’s legitimate rise.

In reality, America is preserving more than its role in the international system. It is trying to preserve the system itself—which Mr. Xi is working to overthrow by promoting imperial-era Chinese concepts.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-hesitant-embrace-of-human-rights-11563835208

The big news from Washington is that Woodrow Wilson is back. From Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Vice President Mike Pence and even, if somewhat hesitantly, President Trump, senior American officials are putting human-rights concerns front and center in American foreign policy.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has condemned Chinese repression of Muslims in Xinjiang, hosted a conference of 106 countries to discuss religious freedom around the world, and announced the formation of the International Religious Freedom Alliance. Mr. Pompeo called China’s mass repression of the largely Muslim Uighur people “the stain of the century.” On Wednesday Mr. Trump met at the White House with 27 people from around the world who have faced persecution for their religious beliefs.

At first glance, the embrace of human rights by the Trump White House seems odd. Mr. Trump has made no secret of his disdain for the idea that promoting human rights overseas should be a major theme of American foreign policy. Outreach to leaders such as Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Mohammed bin Salman is predicated on the president’s willingness to overlook their dismal records on human rights. And that an administration whose domestic supporters attack an opponent by chanting “Send her back!” should head a global drive for human rights strikes even many Republicans as improbable.

But the political logic behind the administration’s Wilsonian pivot is strong. Team Trump needs to unify its populist and conservative supporters in the U.S. even as it builds a coalition against Chinese overreach in Asia and beyond. Incorporating a vision of human rights focused on religious liberty helps on both fronts.

http://www.ilanberman.com/22924/trump-strategy-is-

It’s hardly a secret that European leaders dislike Donald Trump. Over the past two years, the U.S. President’s divisive personal style, and his confrontational rhetoric on everything from Europe’s deficient defense spending to bilateral trade, have severely strained trans-Atlantic relations. And yet, on at least one issue — Iran — European countries are slowly but surely drifting into alignment with the White House, even if they are doing so grudgingly.

On Sunday, the Iranian government announced plans to imminently breach the limits of its 2015 nuclear deal with the West. If it follows through on the threat, the Islamic Republic will begin enriching uranium this week beyond the 3.67 percent threshold outlined by the agreement — laying the groundwork for an eventual “sprint” to nuclear status, should the regime choose to do so. Moreover, according to Iranian officials, unless the U.S. and its allies scale down their pressure on the regime in the next two months, Iran will take further steps to fracture the atomic pact, and is “prepared to enrich uranium to any level and with any amount.”

The objective of Iran’s threats is clear. As Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute has eloquently outlined, Iran’s indications of nuclear breakout — and its increasingly bellicose behavior in the Persian Gulf — are intended to raise the specter of war with the United States, and prod increasingly nervous European nations to pressure the U.S. to back off its campaign of “maximum” economic and political pressure.

But Tehran’s maneuvers could actually have the opposite effect. European nations, already nervous over Iran’s recent recklessness in the Strait of Hormuz, are becoming more and more alarmed by what they view as an increasingly undependable partner in Tehran.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/british-ambassador-to-u-s-resigns-after-leak-of-cables-criticizing-trump-administration/

The British ambassador to the U.S. stepped down Wednesday amid controversy over leaked cables in which he harshly criticized the Trump administration.

Sir Kim Darroch became the object of heavy criticism from the president over the weekend after the leak of private messages to Parliament in which he calls the administration “unpredictable,” “inept,” and “uniquely dysfunctional,” and the president himself “insecure.” The messages also wondered whether the administration would fall in “disgrace” and mused on whether Trump may be indebted to “dodgy Russians.”

“We could be at the beginning of a downward spiral . . . that leads to disgrace and downfall,” the ambassador wrote.

Trump returned fire after the criticisms were leaked, calling the British ambassador a “pompous fool,” “wacky,” and “a very stupid guy.” The president added that his administration would refuse to work with Darroch, which may have forced the ambassador’s hand.

“I do not know the Ambassador, but he is not liked or well thought of within the U.S. We will no longer deal with him,” Trump wrote Monday on Twitter.” The good news for the wonderful United Kingdom is that they will soon have a new Prime Minister.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nationalism-is-necessary-but-insufficient-11562626113

As President Trump reveled in air-force flyovers and a tank display this Fourth of July, the idea that dominates his administration’s domestic and foreign policies was on full display. That idea is nationalism, and Mr. Trump hopes it will reshape both American politics and the international order.

At home, Mr. Trump relies on the power of nationalism to isolate and marginalize his opponents. At a time when some on the left believe it is more important to denounce America’s failings than to hail its accomplishments, Mr. Trump seeks to wrap himself in a flag that most Americans revere.

We’ll know in November 2020 if this strategy has paid off at the polls. The results of a frankly nationalist foreign policy may take longer to assess. The Trump administration’s hostility to such multilateral institutions as the European Union, the World Trade Organization and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—and its apparent cynicism toward international law and democracy itself—have astounded and embittered many longtime American allies. This is costly; the trans-Atlantic alliance that grounded American policy for 70 years is visibly and rapidly weakening.

For many of Mr. Trump’s critics, “America First” foreign policy reflects demagogic populism, incompetence or worse. The reality is more complicated. As America’s foreign-policy focus shifts to the Indo-Pacific to balance the rise of China, the globalist, cosmopolitan ideas that guided American foreign-policy makers through the post-Cold War era may create as many problems as they solve.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/07/real-way-do-american-diplomacy-leader-leader-thatcher-regan/

In leaked emails, the British Ambassador to the United States, Sir Kim Darroch, describes President Trump as “radiating insecurity”, and speaks of his White House as a “uniquely dysfunctional environment”. 

Sir Kim deserves a smidgeon of sympathy: it is no secret that dealing with the ever-changing Trump team can be tricky. But, overall, his memos raise a question: “What is the valued-added here?” We send diplomats abroad so that they can get closer insight into foreign powers. Sir Kim is effectively saying that he and his team cannot manage this. He blames Mr Trump’s shortcomings for their failures. The information contained in his missives is the sort of stuff you can read every day in posh newspapers and seems to contain nothing from the inside. 

It is not true that no one British can get close to Donald Trump. I can immediately think of at least four people who have managed this in recent years. Three of them – Nigel Farage, Conrad Black and Piers Morgan – are outside the normal systems with which diplomats are familiar; but one was Foreign Secretary when Sir Kim first started writing his plaintive emails. Now that same man, Boris Johnson, is almost certain to become our next Prime Minister.