Beyond the Cusp

November 23, 2014

How Obama has Forced the World to Change for the Better

Filed under: 1949 Armistice Line,Absolutism,Administration,Afordable Healthcare Act,al-Aqsa Mosque,Al-Quds Force,Amalekites,American People Voice Opinion,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Arab Appeasement,Arab League,Arab Spring,Arab Winter,Arab World,Arabs,Armed Services,Army Chief Abdel Fattah al-Sisi,Asia,Ayatollah Khamenei,Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini,Blood Libel,Blue Water Navy,Border Patrol,Borders,Boycott,Breakout Point,Building Freeze,Cabinet,Calaphate,Canada,Catherine Ashton,Chemical Weapons,China,Chinese Pressure,Civil War,Civilization,Commander in Cheif,Condemning Israel,Conflict Avoidnce,Congress,Constitutional Government,Defend Israel,Demolitions,Deportation,Dhimmi,Disengagement,Ditherer in Chief,Divestment,Divided Jerusalem,Domestic NGOs,Ease Sanctions,Ecology Lobby,Economy,Egypt,Egyptian Military,EMP Device,Enforcement,Equal Responsibility,Equal Rights,Equal Treatment,Equality,Europe,European Council,European Governments,European Pressure,European Union,Executive Order,Fatah,Fatah Charter,Federica Mogherini,Forced Solution,Foreign Funding,Foreign NGOs,Galilee,Gaza,Gaza Blockade,Gender Issues Lobby,German Pressure,Golan Heights,Government,Government Health Care,Green Line,Guard Border,Hamas,Hamas Charter,Hassan Rowhani,Hate,Health Care,Hispanic Appeasement,History,Holy Sites,House of Representatives,IDF,Illegal Immigration,Internal Pressures,International Politics,Iran,Iranian Pressure,Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps,Iraq,IRGC,Iron Dome,Islam,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Islamic State,Islamist,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Israeli Interests,Jerusalem,Jewish Heritage,Jewish Home,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,Jihad,Jihad,John Kerry,Jordan,Jordan River,Jordanian Pressure,Judea,Kim Jong Un,Kurdish Militias,Leftist Pressures,Mahmoud Abbas,Mainland China,Mainstream Media,Media,Mediterranean Sea,Middle East,Military Council,Missile Test Launch,Mohammed,Mubarak,Muslim Brotherhood,Muslim World,Muslims,NATO,Netanyahu,North Korea,Nuclear Option,Nuclear Program,Nuclear Scientist,Nuclear Sites,Nuclear Weapons,Nuclear Weapons,Nuclear Weapons Test,Obama Care,Old City,One State Solution,Oslo Accords,P5+1,Palestinian,Palestinian Authority,Palestinian Pressures,Peace Partner,Peace Process,Peacekeepers,Pentagon,Peshmerga Militias,Plutonium Production,Poland,Polish Military,Politicized Findings,Politics,President Morsi,President Obama,President Sisi,Pressure by Egyptian People,Prime Minister,Promised Land,Protective Edge,Quantitative Easing,Quran,R2P Right to Protect,Rebel Forces,Recognize Israel,Red Lines,Refugee Camp,Refugees,Regulations,Repatriation,Response to Muslim Takeover,Russian Military,Russian Pressure,Salafists,Samaria,Sanctions,Saudi Arabian Pressure,Secretary of State,Secular Interests,Security,Senate,Separation Barrier,Settlements,Sharia,Sharia Law,Shiite,Sinai,Sinai Peninsula,Soldiers,Statehood,Sunni,Supreme Leader,Syria,Syrian Military,Taqiyya,Temple Mount,Terror,Third Intifada,Threat of War,Troop Withdrawal,Ukrainian Military,Union Interests,United Nations,United Nations Presures,United States,United States Pressure,Uranium Enrichment,Waqf,War Threat,Weapons of Mass Destruction,Western Wall,WMD,World Opinion,World Pressures,World Without Zionism or America,Yusuf al-Qaradawi,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 3:21 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

There are those who claim that President Obama has been a disaster both at home and in foreign policy. Let us look at domestic policy and accomplishments and resolve those first. The largest area of agreements are President Obama’s signature policy accomplishment according to most, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obama Care, and the Presidents most recent controversy with his announced intended amnesty of illegal immigrants should they be able to prove they meet requirements generally described criteria which will be defined through not Presidential Executive Actions but through merely ‘memos’ sent to Cabinet Secretaries to implement these changed definitions of policies and not changes of actual policies. The much maligned ACA may be established law as its defenders claim makes it sacrosanct and thus untouchable. Actually, it is as touchable as was the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution which was later repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment to that very same Constitution. So, there is precedent of the highest order that laws can be overturned, amended, redefined or altered in ways approaching uncountable and the ACA is not an exception. If the American people express an overwhelming and honest majority demanding the ACA be repealed, it will eventually be repealed, but only by such pressures being maintained until the repeal or redefinition of the changes within meet the people’s expectations. The immigration amnesty can be altered simply by finding a middle ground with legislation and holding President Obama to his promise to revoke his immigration ‘memos’ and sign the Congressional immigration reform legislation once it reaches his office. Further, if the President refuses to sign a truly compromise and rational approach which the American people have heard explained and support, then that veto can be overruled through constitutionally defined votes of both houses of Congress. Finally, the Congress can also prevent the implementation of President Obama’s immigration ‘memos’ by simply interceding and cutting off any federal funding of those changes and allowing them to die on the vine. So, anything that President Obama has done in domestic policies can be altered, repealed, amended, defunded or otherwise neutered by the Congress or potentially by the courts even if it needs to be taken to the Supreme Court making those alterations to the American legal fabric more compatible with the desires of the American people.

 

This leaves us with the effects and affects President Obama and his policies and actions have had on our world. The biggest problem caused by President Obama on the world’s stage was the damages he caused to the trust that both America’s allies and enemies could have in the promises made by any individual President because of the many standing policies which President Obama either ignored or worked with a great animosity and actually reversing previous American constants in foreign policy. Because many NATO countries came to fear that the United States no longer was there to protect them, they began to arm themselves and take on defense for themselves and many met the demanded minimal investments as required as a percentage of their budgets and national wealth on those defenses. Other nations such as Japan, Philippines, Israel, Taiwan and South Korea also realized that the promises made by previous administrations and even treaties may not be fulfilled to the extents they had always been guaranteed in word and actions including cancellation of joint exercises, the withholding of arms, changing promised arms sales replacing the weapons systems like aircraft and submarines with similar but lesser capable systems as well as actually cancelling some already planned and promised radar systems which were replaced with promises to have similar capabilities in place using naval systems or orbital surveillance satellites. No matter what good may come as nations react to a new reality where the United States can no longer be relied upon to keep its word and live up to promises to protect them from deadly threats or simply meet promised sales or stationing of resources, but they now know that promises from any President of the United States becomes null and void as soon as he leaves office and it depends upon the whims and fancies of his successors on into perpetuity. This alone will damage the United States and its foreign policy for decades, even centuries and potentially forever if the Obama perfidy is recalled into the distant future.

 

Now perhaps a closer look at the individual crises which have resulted to date and will likely play a large part of the historical legacy of President Obama’s two terms and its foreign policy and the ripples they have caused. First to examine Japan, Philippines and South Korea and their similar reactions and new realities they face due to President Obama’s foreign policy changes. The primary adversaries these three nations face is obviously China who has been developing advanced weapons systems, upgrading their military capabilities on the land, the sea and in the skies. Their other main adversary who is extremely unpredictable and potentially dangerous is North Korea with its new leader, Kim Jung Un who murdered his own Uncle for reasons which are unknown. With both of these adversaries possessing nuclear weapons, and with China developing a deep sea capable navy, what is often referred to as a blue water navy, these nations used to depend upon the United States and her nuclear threat to balance the nuclear potential threat from China and North Korea. With their faith and assurances broken, at the very least both South Korea and Japan have started to consider whether developing their own nuclear arsenals might be an idea whose time has come. Furthermore, both the Philippines and Japanese have conflicting claims for Islands located between them and China that China also makes claims to. This has caused a great potential for conflict to break out should the Chinese decide to exercise her ownership while the Philippines or Japan also have troops on exercises on the disputed Islands. The conflict potentially brewing for Japan is over the Senkaku Islands which the Chinese claim calling them the Diaoyu Islands. The Philippines dispute is over the Spratly Islands which the questions of ownership is also contested with Brunei, China, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam. And finally there is the problem caused by China claiming the entirety of the South China Sea which is heavily navigated water as it is the central leg of almost every trade route from Southern Asia to Western Asia, Hawaii, the Americas and the Panama Canal. Should either South Korea or Japan decide to go nuclear and develop nuclear arsenals, then the world will then contain two more nuclear armed nations and might spawn North Korea to expand their nuclear capabilities which would make the unpredictability of North Korean young, homicidal, vicious dictator Kim Jung Un even more threatening and of much greater concern for both Japan and the Philippines.

 

Taiwan has all of the same concerns as do Japan and the Philippines. The difference is that unlike the Philippines and Japan, Taiwan ranks mainland China as their greatest concern and threat. This is most likely due to the fact that China has already declared that Taiwan is simply another province of China which they intend to restore and place under Beijing’s control. One of the items which Taiwan was depending on was for the United States selling them a number of highly advanced submarines. Former President George W. Bush April 2001 offered Taiwan a substantial arms package which included eight diesel-electric submarines. Facing the problem that the United States has not designed or built diesel-electric submarines they faced a design problem which they were unable to solve simply by purchasing the plans and schematics of a European ally’s submarine but were turned down. After an exhaustive and determined search, come late 2004 the United States presented plans which included consideration for building the diesel-electric submarines for Taiwan from scratch. In early January of 2010, President Obama had his Defense Department announced a new offer of an arms package for Taiwan which did not include any submarines of any sort. This about-face greatly shocked and distressed the Taiwan defense officials. Taiwan’s reaction was to begin their own ability for building the most modern and advanced diesel-electric submarines on their own and have set out in that direction. The difficulty most nations reported in providing any military aid to Taiwan was their fear of provoking Chinese ire which has been growing in its potential recently.

 

Then there was the ready to be installed and promised placement of a radar and anti-missile battery system already agreed upon and the places were set aside in both Czech Republic and Poland. The reasons explained and guarantees given to Russia and the other nations in the area, that they were not the targeted areas, which would have been their primary concerns, but that the system was being placed in these two countries was for defense of any missiles launched from Iran towards Europe or even the United States and Canada. Russia was nervous but ready to accept the missile interceptors as the mere ten interceptors would be next to useless if they were to attempt to prevent an all-out Russian missile launch. By the end of President George W. Bush leaving office the only step left was to pack up the systems and ship them to be set up by American troops with aid from the two nations of Poland and the Czech Republic. President Obama took office and initially did not act or even press any steps to transit the systems to Europe. President Obama along with then Secretary of State Clinton were busy initially with the reset they were planning to reach with Russia. Finally, in September 2009, newly elected and still within his first year as President, Obama cancelled the entire system and promised to leave an AEGIS Destroyer in the eastern half of the Mediterranean Sea. This cancellation of the radar and anti-missile system was not taken well and considered to be a huge betrayal of their trust and as accepted allies. The promise of keeping a naval vessel to replace an entire system was seen an inadequate and less reliable as the ship, even one of the advanced and new AEGIS Destroyers, would not be capable of having its rockets placed in central Europe as there was no accessible body of water. This was also a broken trust and further proof that the United States has been basically changed and could no long trust the promises from one administration to the next administration as they could only take the promises of the President of the United States to have their weight and veracity disappear with the swearing-in ceremony of the next President.

 

And finally there is Israel where the changes signal an alignment change which they had best internalize if Israel has any plans for permanence. The changes in the United States relations with Israel were startling and shocked many an Israeli. The withholding of critical resupply of weapons and ammunition during the Gaza operation Defensive Shield was reminiscent of the delay in permitting resupply during the Yom Kippur War in October 1976 by President Nixon under the advice of Secretary of State Kissinger. The difference this time was the fact that President Obama added an additional review stage where it must be approved by the State Department after the Pentagon had cleared any supplies, provisions, replacement parts, weapon systems and even aircraft. Forcing any provisions of a military nature to also be granted the approval of the State Department places all military to military agreements and assurances given Israel all voided and allows for the Arabists who have infiltrated deeply into the State Department to interdict any resupply or even initial supply of armaments being shipped to Israel. Add into the mix the open hostility and animus shown to the Prime Minister of Israel as well as many Israeli politicians was another sign that all was not well between Jerusalem and Washington. Then there have been the silent demands on the leadership of Israel which has forced a silent building freeze, refraining security police and the IDF by insisting on Israeli rules of engagement, demanded that the Israeli government back away from any restrictions to Muslim access to the Temple Mount or in resolving the continuous rioting by Muslims while all the time refusing Jewish prayer and even access to the Temple Mount which is the most sacred place for Jews in the world and further demanded that Israel make concession in order to meet all of the demands of Mahmoud Abbas. These overt and far reaching plans by the United States to hamstring Israel and force them to all but surrender completely to the Palestinians demands and allow Muslims to act and enjoy every conceivable freedom even from the law while the Jews are to be treated as if they were Dhimmis within an Islamic state have even turned much of the Israeli public to question whether America is still an ally or has the good and solid relations become a memory from the distant past. There are those in Israel who now believe that the United States has turned on their homeland accusing them of taking the side of Israel’s enemies and joined their efforts to destroy Israel. The one place that thus far the United States has not betrayed the trust of Israel is the United Nations Security Council where the veto of the United States has very often been the savior required while much of the rest of the nations represented on the Security Council vote almost religiously to condemn Israel no matter what the charges or evidence. Should the United States ever break this trust, then the Israelis will know that there has been such a change that they can no longer count on anybody in the United Nations Security Council to mount sufficient, if any, opposition to the assaults upon Israel within that body just as nobody can save Israel from endless condemnations from every element of the United Nations. Potentially the worst entity when it comes to Israel would have to be the United Nations Human Rights Council which has as part of its operations a stipulation for them to issue a condemnation of Israel at the beginning of every session before they even conduct the reading of the minutes from the previous meeting. The one truth which is easily witnessed from as far as Jerusalem is the support and warmth of the feelings of the American people for Israel. This devotion and support for Israel is one of the things which has appeared to only grow as the Administration has slid further and further from Israel. Their support and devotion are highly treasured across all the lands and peoples of Israel.

 

The question in all of these nations’ minds is will the United States they knew return once it comes into new management with the next President. Then what jumps to the front of their minds is what are the possibilities that there may be President after President where the United States runs hot and cold in their treatment of each nation. Their greatest fear would be the United States not bouncing back to the familiar relations and traditional allies. The one probably permanent change caused to be implemented by the drastic changes experienced over the past six years has been the realization that even the most powerful nation which had been the greatest protector of freedoms, democracy, human rights and progress can falter and vanish for all intents and purposes leaving the world scrambling to cope with the collapse of what had appeared to be the natural order in the world. Now we do not have to imagine a world without the United States as we have been living in such a world where the United States was leading from behind rather than boldly going forth to support truth and justice, or at least profits, commerce and unfettered trade routes.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

August 31, 2014

The Conflicting Duality that is American Foreign Policy

Filed under: 2016 Elections,Administration,Afghanistan,al-Qaeda,American People,American People Voice Opinion,Amnesty,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Appointment,Arab Appeasement,Armed Services,Cabinet,Campaign Contributions,Chinese Pressure,CIA,Conflict Avoidnce,Congress,Covert Actions,Department of Defense,Disaster Response Teams,Domestic NGOs,Earthquake,Ecology Lobby,Elections,Emergency Aid,Eminent Domain,Equal Responsibility,Equal Rights,Equal Treatment,Equality,Europe,European Council,European Governments,European Pressure,European Union,Executive Order,Federal Government,Foreign Aid,Foreign Funding,Foreign NGOs,Gender Issues Lobby,George W. Bush,German Pressure,Government,Hispanic Appeasement,History,House of Representatives,Humanitarian Aid,Illegal Immigration,Inteligence Report,Internal Pressures,International Politics,Iran,Iranian Pressure,Iraq,ISIS,Islamic Pressure,Israel,Israeli Interests,Military,Military Advisors,National Security Agency,Palestinian Pressures,Peace Process,Pentagon,Politics,Power,President Obama,Pressure by Egyptian People,Regulations,Republic,Russian Pressure,Saudi Arabian Pressure,Secretary of State,Senate,Terror,Union Interests,United Nations Presures,United States,United States Pressure,US Marines,WMD,World Opinion,World Pressures — qwertster @ 2:33 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

American foreign policy is often a result of the struggle to assist people in need or under duress and the American people’s desire to mind their own business. America is often the reluctant warrior when using her vast military might abroad and even when using that might there is a definitive reluctance to unleash her entire might and fury. The problem is that even the measured and restrained use of American military might does not appear to be such as even that is well beyond the capability of any other nation on the planet and often more destructive than the entire forces from the combined forces of an entire region in which it is used. A typical example was the American use of force to take Panamanian strongman and international drug dealer and facilitator General Manuel Antonio Noriega into custody and to stand trial on charges in the United States. The force utilized to bring him to face charges in America were very limited by American standards yet were likely capable of not only overwhelming the Panamanian military but also that of the several surrounding nations if that had become necessary. The troops and forces represented by a single United States battle group attached to a single aircraft carrier and supporting ships which includes a contingent of United States Marines would be capable of conquering most nations on the face of the earth without needing to call for reserves or other reinforcements. The United States was probably the sole power in the history of the human race since the first city states brought civilization into existence and led to the formation of nations which had the capability and the opportunity to literally conquer the entire globe. Had the United States been a colonizing power in the ideals of the great European colonizers such as Spain, England, France, Portugal, and the Dutch; then perhaps the President and Congress would have acted on the suggestions of two of the greatest American Generals from World War II and as General George Patton suggested taken Russia and as General Douglas MacArthur suggested have taken China and as there were more American troops in Germany, Italy, France and England at the end of World War II, the world today might look vastly different with everybody throughout the globe voting for the President of the United States and for their own members to its Congress and there would be no United Nations other than the United Nations of America. That is the upper limit of American power at its zenith at the end of World War II. Every use of American military might since World War II had been but a small contingent of the potential strength America is capable of fielding and since she has done so on only the most dire of occasions, we can only hope we do not need her maximum efforts ever again.

 

On the other hand, and as was witnessed in both World Wars, America is the reluctant warrior and only enters into the fray as a final resort or in response to an actual attack on her people or threat thereof. More often we witness American military might bringing aid to areas struck by the most horrific catastrophes, be they the result of natural catastrophe or the result of human indifference. The American people are mostly of a mind to allow the world to decide on their own policies and to fight their own battles as long as they have no direct effect or bring harm to the Americans themselves. The Americans have often been called isolationists who more often than not withdraw from the rest of the world’s problems only acting by invitation or as a last resort to restore a balance they perceive has been lost. There was a period after World War II where the United States would respond and act to prevent the spread of Communist influence which was being spread by military means and most often against nations which had limited military ability to resist the forces backed by the Soviet Union on their own and without assistance. After the fall of the Soviet Union the United States also retreated from its use of military might throughout the world. This calm was broken by the attacks of September 11, 2001 when terrorists from al-Qaeda struck the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and were prevented from striking a fourth target when the passengers brought United Airlines Flight 93 to the ground in western Pennsylvania. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq followed these events and America once again used a portion of her military might to avenge herself and strike at those they perceived had struck them. Before this vengeance was completed by many American’s ideas of what should have been accomplished and who held the strongest of angers the American military was brought home and once again the United States began to withdraw into her solitude until being required again to answer the call. We saw the other side of American military might in Haiti after the horrendous earthquake and again in Japan after the disastrous trio of an earthquake, followed by a tsunami and then the explosive failures of nuclear power reactors as a result of the flooding and force of the tidal waves. These are the more common examples of American use of her military might, that of bringing relief to those in dire need resulting from natural disasters. The United States is unmatched in her ability to provide such aid though a few other nations also spring to mind who are amongst the first to respond when the calamity of natural forces strike and wreak their havoc. The majority of Americans, that so-called silent majority, would be pleased if the world would never require the deployment of American military might except for the hopefully rare natural disaster where such military force is used to relieve the pain and suffering of the victims of the whims of Mother Nature and her forces often unleashed from within the planet herself.

 

The dichotomy the American military is often accused of suffering from is actually a dichotomy found in the American public. Trying to classify the American public is a fool’s effort as it is comprised of individuals as diverse as any population anywhere, partially because they come from almost everywhere originally. The secret of America has been that they take the best from each culture and merge it into the whole of American culture just as they would merge the people from every culture into the American body public. While the customs from the old world, as it is often referred to, would remain within the family at gatherings and at home while each generation would slowly meld into the American ethos while still remembering their roots and knowing that a small part of what they brought was now part of the greater whole and this allowed them to feel at home and a part of a greater whole. This is how the multiethnic American people can unite and believe they are one. It is also why it is near impossible to read the American people as simply being from a single culture and background. Where the British are known for their stiff upper lip, the French for l’amour, and all the other stereotypes can be found among the American peoples because they are not a single, harmonious identity. Instead of their familiar background, the American slowly fits into their new identity such as the western cowboy ethos, the cosmopolitan New Yorker, the proper Bostonian, the unrestrained and experimental Californian, the middle America farmer and almost countless others all of which might describe a few but nothing is that straight forward. The same comes to bear when attempting to figure the American foreign policies. First off is that with every new President the person who shapes foreign policy the most is replaced often with somebody with a completely different point of view. This could not have been more evident than when President Obama followed President Bush and the interventional policies of President Bush were replaced by the regressive retreat which was enacted by President Obama. The other side of the equation is that even though President Obama and President Bush could not have had any more disparate foreign policy goals, one trying to right the grievance from the September 11 attacks and the other trying to reverse everything and retreat from the world and give the United States a smaller and more passive world presence, President Obama had been unable to completely reverse every last iota of the policies of President Bush most evidenced by the inability to close the Guantanamo prison as President Obama likely realized that not everything is controllable, even for the President of the United States.

 

The one sure and unalterable truth about the American foreign policy will change direction, not completely though possibly more radically than can be predicted, every change of the family occupying the White House. Still, there are certain core principles which even a President is obliged to follow; the will of the American people should they ever unite behind a cause or as a reaction to events, especially a perceived assault on the United States or her interests or allies. That is the one power which is capable of taking American foreign policy to its furthest extremes. The other truth is that it is near impossible to predict when or where the American people might demand a President respond. Where a President can resist or even deny the desires and demands of the American public, if their positions are strongly felt the next President will be elected to carry out their exact desires. It is this strange mixture of the whims of the people, the regular changes in the leader of the United States, and most of all, the fact that for the large part the American people have very little if any interest in most foreign policy and could not care or find a reason to follow foreign affairs and largely only care about domestic policies and their own expectations of the government. That means that when it comes to foreign policy decisions and setting the priorities the American people, probably the best regulating control over government ever invented, have little desire to use their regulatory control over the foreign policy of the United States. That means that the only real controlling and limiting influence on American foreign policy is the five hundred and thirty-five members of Congress, the one-hundred Senators and the four-hundred-thirty-five members of the House of Representatives who are mostly concerned with assuring their reelection as many are not capable of honest work. Many of these representatives of the American public are simply walking through their assigned paces, repeating lines fed them by their advisors, and attempting to satisfy those who finance their next campaign as well as attempting to meet any needs any of their constituents may request their assistance with right down to tracking down their errant Social Security check as each voter satisfied could mean another hundred votes the next election and an unsatisfied voter definitely means a few thousand lost voters support simply from viral word of mouth and social media. Mostly though they just read their teleprompters or recite memorized positions which often they have no knowledge or concept of their position beyond what they have been instructed. Yet these are the main and often only people with any power to affect the American foreign policy from simply being the result of some ulterior motives and schemes of the President or that of his handlers and advisors. The people and functionaries who hold the uppermost positions in the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, Homeland Security, the National Security Administration and the military, especially in the Pentagon, have the most direct influence on the President as they also control much of the research ordered by the President’s closest advisors and those who the government assigns the responsibility for crafting and influencing American foreign policy. Is it any wonder that it often appears as those controlling the American foreign policy are clueless or many on opposing pages all talking at once and the resultant output is pure gibberish, gibberish, a decent definition for American foreign policy if ever I heard one.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

August 9, 2013

Will Americans Wake in Time?

Filed under: 1967 Borders,Absolutism,Act of War,Adly el-Mansour,Administration,Air Support,Amalekites,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Appeasement,Appointment,Arab Spring,Arab Winter,Arab World,Arabist,Armed Services,Army,Attack,Bashir al-Assad,Biological Weapons,Border Patrol,Borders,Building Freeze,Cabinet,Chemical Weapons,Civil War,Civil War,Civilization,Condemning Israel,Congress,Consequences,Constitutional Government,Covert Actions,Demonstrations,Disengagement,Drone Strikes,Egypt,Egyptian Border Guards,Egyptian Military,Elections,Europe,Executive Order,Freedom and Justice Party,Gamal Abdel Nasser,Government,History,Inteligence Report,International Politics,Iranian Pressure,Islam,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Jerusalem,Jewish Heritage,Jewish Home,Jewish State,Jihad,John Kerry,Judea,Judean Hills,Mahmoud Abbas,Military,Military Advisors,Military Aid,Military Council,Military Coup,Military Intervention,Military Option,Mubarak,Muslim Brotherhood,Muslim World,No Fly Zone,Nuclear Weapons,Old City,Palestinian,Palestinian Authority,Partition Plan,Peace Process,Politics,Pre-Conditions,President Morsi,Prime Minister,Promised Land,Protect Citizenry,Protests,Rebel Forces,Rebel Forces,Refugees,Right of Return,Russian Pressure,Samaria,Sanctions,Secretary of State,Settlements,Sharia Law,Soviet Union,Statehood,Syria,Syrian Military,Temple Mount,Terror,Threat of War,Two State Solution,United States,War,Weapons of Mass Destruction,West Bank,White House,WMD,World Opinion,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 4:28 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the last six months leading up to the last elections in the United States we here at Beyond the Cusp begged, pleaded and argued that the most crucial principles and concerns which should have driven the vote was world events and foreign policies. We cajoled the American electorate to please ask questions and demand explanations on where the candidates stood on international problems and situations, what their outlook was concerning foreign policies, what they thought were the most pressing and important challenges in the near and far terms around the globe and finally what would be their guiding principles in addressing the standing of the United States on the world stage. Current events are now placing under the light of witness of unfolding events the repercussions to electing leaders in both the White House and Congress who choose to, for the most part, ignore world events and the ramifications when the world realizes the United States has taken a vacation from being the leader of events on the world’s stage. We are reaping the rewards of the policy of leading from behind, only acting reactively, and choosing flight over fight in virtually every theater. Our foreign policy and interactions have reinforced the realization that the United States values nobody’s friendship or any ally if continuing to have such a position requires any action on the United States behalf.

 

Look at the turmoil in Egypt over the last couple of years and you have an encapsulated summary of American foreign policy. President Mubarak was cruising along as President of Egypt and took the fateful position of naming one of his sons as his heir apparent. This cost Mubarak the necessary backing of the Egyptian Military as they had plans which called for them to choose the next President of Egypt when Mubarak left office as they have been privileged to do since the coup that placed Gamal Abdel Nasser into the Presidency in 1956. When the Arab Spring came to Egypt and challenged President Mubarak continuing as President, President Obama once again began a circuitous route of support followed by betrayal. Without the backing of the Egyptian Military, President Mubarak had the merest of holds on power and turned to the one ally he believed would protect him, the United States and President Obama. Initially, President Obama gave Egyptian President Mubarak complete support and continued to support him for as long as all it required was words. When it became evident that if Mubarak, an American ally of over a decade, was to retain his grasp on power he would need the active support from President Obama and the United States. At that critical point President Obama dropped the ball and turned on President Mubarak rather than actually commit to any actions which had become necessary to continue to support Mubarak as President of Egypt and American friend.

 

Mubarak fall was made inevitable after President Obama yanked his support from him just as quickly and without any more thought than when Lucy pulls the ball away as Charlie Brown goes to kick it. In the ensuing confusion it became evident very quickly that the next power in Egypt would be chosen by the Muslim Brotherhood. Following the path of least effort, President Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood’s political representative in the election which was the Peace and Justice Party candidate Morsi. The elections were held and presto, President Morsi took office in Egypt. President Morsi may have miscalculated and attempted to impose Islamic Sharia aligned laws at too rapid a pace and coming up on the first year anniversary of his election the demonstrations began. With the demonstrations returning and a conflict brewing between the Egyptian Military and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood supporters the Arab Spring appeared to have changed seasons becoming an Arab Winter. Once again President Obama was faced with the choice of whether or not to support the Egyptian President who was facing a popular revolt against his rule. Events proceeded rapidly and President Morsi was removed from the President by the Egyptian Military and has been placed in custody at some undisclosed locations. The Egyptian Military has taken strong steps to drive the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood from the public and political fields and into the shadows removed from any of the levers of power. While all these events have been passing, President Obama has done absolutely nothing of consequence.

 

Egypt now once again has a President placed into power by the Egyptian Military placing the nation right back where it was just over a year ago when they protested to remove Mubarak; the former Military backed President of Egypt. The new Egyptian Military crowned President of Egypt is Adly Mansour. Granted, President Mansour is technically just the interim President and the Egyptian Military has promised to seek to hold new elections within six months of the establishment through referendum of a new Egyptian Constitution. Whether Egypt will devolve into civil war with the same devastating results to the country as has befallen Syria or will Egypt be able to restore order, get a constitution approved through referendum of the people and hold new elections, whichever path Egypt’s future will travel, that decision will be made completely without any supportive actions from the United States as President Obama is not likely to take any initiative and commit to actively supporting one choice over another. President Obama will continue to be a passive observer who sits in the stands safely away from the action avoiding making any mistake simply by not taking any actions. The United States will sit on the sidelines of the future in Egypt and will not prevent any harm nor assist in preventing collapse with President Obama taking the exact same position as he did while Syria spiraled out of control devolving into factional violence which had torn apart the society destroying much of the national infrastructure while President Obama dithers over whether or not to actively support a side. Should Egypt also devolve into a similar destructive civil war as continues to plague Syria, it will be largely due to the lack of any outside force intervening to enforce a singular direction by backing either the Egyptian Military or the Freedom and Justice Party which is still the last elected political entity in Egypt. It makes no difference what anyone may personally feel about the Muslim Brotherhood holding political power over Egypt through their elected representatives from the Freedom and Justice Party as what is in question here is the lack of commitment of the United States in world affairs allowing for so many places slowly falling onto chaos without any strong leadership currently setting the mood and direction for the world.

 

In all fairness, there is one instance where President Obama has taken a stand and a very firm stand. He has supported with every ounce of energy and influence he is capable of mustering to force by any means necessary the formation of a Palestinian state and one that preferably meets every desire and specification that the Palestinians desire. President Obama has from the outset of his Presidency found means of forcing his will upon Israel in support of the Palestinian aspirations. President Obama has even gone so far as to invent new or never before even thought of demands of Israel towards setting the conditions under which the Palestinian state should be easily facilitated. Upon taking office President Obama demanded of Israel that they freeze all building beyond the Green Line because President Obama was convinced in his heart and mind that it was Israeli building in these areas that stood in the way of reaching an accord. Israel enacted a ten month building freeze rather than anger the new American President and Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership wasted this presumably golden opportunity that President Obama had rammed through in order to give the Palestinians an atmosphere where peace was supposed to be within their reach, if they would only reach out and take advantage of this gift. The only concession that resulted was Mahmoud Abbas met Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and shook his hand and then refused to meet again until a mere five weeks remained in the ten month freeze. Then, at that late date Mahmoud Abbas once again met with Netanyahu and Abbas demanded that the Israelis extend the building freeze indefinitely. Israel refused, Abbas blamed Israel for refusing to take the necessary steps for peace and there were no more meetings for the remainder of President Obama’s first term.

 

Now at the beginning of President Obama’s second term we are witnessing his new and improved push to form a Palestinian State in conjunction with his Secretary of State John Kerry. Once again the main impetus for the renewed peace negotiations was to ask the Palestinians which of their preconditions they would most desire the Israelis to meet and that Secretary of State Kerry would do everything in his power to impose said precondition on the Israelis as a goodwill concession necessary to persuade the Palestinians to even sit and talk once. There have been rumors that the Israelis had offered to once again impose a building freeze but that the Palestinians preferred a large and unprecedented release of terror prisoners who were serving life sentences for murders, some multiple murderous attacks, from Israeli prisons. This is what will now result in some one-hundred-four worst of the worst terrorist master planners and actual committers of terror in the entire history of the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Even with this agreement, the Palestinians further demanded that any decision on borders were to be made based on the 1949 Armistice Lines which are also referred to as the pre-June 1967 Borders. Kerry did not even try to receive Israeli agreement on this additional demand and instead simply announced that the talks were to resume and told the Israelis that with their agreement to free the terror prisoners they had shown sufficient commitment. Secretary Kerry has been rumored to have noted that he fully expects that Israel will have to let go of at least fifteen percent of what are referred to as the Settlement Blocs and has actually guaranteed the Palestinians that he will force border negotiations to be based upon the pre-June 1967 borders. There are many who, like us, fully expect that should there be any measurable progress made on the negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians that we will run into demands being raised by the Palestinians for Israel to freeze building or they will not return to the negotiations, and if the Israelis meet that demand, then at the next opportunity the demand will be that Israel recognize that east Jerusalem including all of the Old City and Temple Mount be recognized as the Palestinian State Capital and finally, when they wish to blow up the entire negotiations they will make their known deal killing demand, the “right of return” for some five-million Palestinian refugees into Israel proper with citizenship and return of their property or similar replacement properties. This will be the sole accomplishment by President Obama in foreign affairs, pressuring Israel to commit suicide.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.