Since today was my 83rd birthday and I played
tennis, I thought I would get better line calls.
I didn't. I also played lousy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obama continues with his fig leaf foreign policy in the hope the next president will have to deal with the mess GW created because there were no WMD . (See 1 below.)
===
What I sent this morning had two good articles but were very long. Therefore, this is a far shorter memo. I want to emphasize the second article by Mauldin that referred to Noonan and her characterization of the various classifications among the protected and unprotected explaining why they act as they do and how their status impacts their political thinking.
If you skimmed the article I urge you reread it.
===
Comey vs Clinton. I am putting my money on the FBI. (See 2 below.)
===
European nations are constantly anti-Israel because of their decades of dependence on Middle East oil and anti-Semitism, but now that they are faced with being overrun by Muslims and attacked by ISIS they are beginning to have a deeper respect for Israel.
This does not mean these same nations will embrace Israel politically but it does mean their military will have the opportunity to learn from Israel and become more familiar with the problems Israel faces not only from Islamic radicals but from the politics emanating from their own countries. (See 3 below.)
===
Trump must prepare to be dumped on, vilified and attacked and I believe he will ultimately come to be defined by those who hate him. I believe their antipathy will help him.
Being hated and attacked by radicals, liberals, progressives, college kids who are unwilling to allow those with whom they disagree to speak, women who believe they are special because Hillary says so and blacks who feel they are privileged because of tragedies perpetrated eons ago, newspapers and media types may not get Trump elected but it will cause those who feel disenfranchised and also unliked by these same to feel they have a lot in common with Trump. There is something to be said for being attacked by those who believe they are more everything than their peers.
Meanwhile, I received an untold number of calls, cards and good wishes today. I may not be understood but it appears, to some, I am loved and for this I remain very grateful.
Frankly, my mother and father never dwelled on birthdays so BD's are just another day on the calendar but I do understand their significance and truly appreciate the efforts friends and family made to make me feel special.
Of course my opponents on the tennis courts today saw nothing special about it being my birthday. They made me feel like Rodney Dangerfield.
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Obama’s minimalist Mideast muddle
Deputy Editorial Page Editor
Monday is the 100th anniversary of something called the Sykes-Picot agreement, an occasion that has touched off a small frenzy of Washington think-tank conferences and journal articles — not to mention Islamic State manifestos. Mark Sykes and François Georges Picot were diplomats from Britain and France, respectively, who agreed on a secret plan to partition the collapsing Ottoman Empire. The result, after a few more years of imperialist machinations, was the creation of Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon — the heart of what is now the bloody chaos of the modern Middle East.
The anniversary has become an occasion for debate about what could or should be made of that mess, once the Islamic State — for which Sykes-Picot has become an unlikely rhetorical touchstone — is militarily defeated. Should Iraq and Syria retain their current borders and centralized political systems, which have the effect of lumping together Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and smaller ethnic groups that have been at war with each other off and on for centuries? What about Lebanon, whose elaborate power-sharing arrangements have produced a seemingly intractable political gridlock?
Not surprisingly, reasonable people differ on these questions. One broad current of opinion says Iraq and Syria must be preserved as nation-states. The two countries, it is said, were distinct and often competing entities long before Sykes-Picot; their people have developed national allegiances over the past century that transcend sect; and anyway, attempting to redraw the borders would create more problems that it would solve. “There is no way to divide borders and create homogenous states,” writes American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin. “To even try is to conduct ethnic and sectarian cleansing.”
Another school says it’s folly to suppose that either country can be patched back together. The leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan appear determined to push toward independence, though they differ on whether to do it slowly or quickly. “Iraq is a conceptual failure, compelling peoples with little in common to share an uncertain future,” wrote the head of Kurdistan’s security council, Masrour Barzani, in a recent op-ed in The Post. For its part, the Islamic State has made the erasure of the border between Syria and Iraq — which divides two majority-Sunni regions — one of its central ideological tenets.
Some Arab leaders and thinkers say the West should stay out of this debate — Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot and their colonializing descendants, up to and including George W. Bush, have done more than enough damage, they say. Others contend the region can be stabilized only by a foreign intervention — not another Western invasion, but maybe a U.N. trusteeship, like those that managed several pieces of postwar Yugoslavia. “The traditional solutions for this region will not work,” argues the Egyptian human rights activist Bahey eldin Hassan. “Some states are not qualified for now for their own people to run the country.”
The Obama administration, for its part, has embraced the “keep out” imperative. Its mind-set is “to define our interests very narrowly and focus very aggressively on achieving those interests,” Obama’s envoy to the region, Brett McGurk, recently told Robin Wright of the New Yorker. In Iraq that has meant investing heavily in the survival of the central government and its weak prime minister, Haider al-Abadi. The hope is that Abadi will provide just enough political cover for the U.S.-led reconstruction of just enough of the Iraqi army to retake Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, with the help of the Kurds.
In Syria, Secretary of State John F. Kerry indefatigably pursues the mirage of a “transitional” government that would somehow unite the genocidal Assad regime with its victims. The diplomacy is a fig leaf that Obama uses to rationalize a refusal to support more consequential action to remove Bashar al-Assad while patching together an ad hoc Arab-Kurdish force to advance toward Raqqa, the Islamic State capital.
The problem with this minimalist approach is that it has obstructed the emergence of a genuinely workable consensus about the future of the two countries. Though the U.S.-orchestrated military campaign could, within the next year or so, effectively destroy the Islamic State by recapturing Mosul and Raqqa, there’s no realistic plan for the borders of political structures that would replace it. That, in turn, makes some potential contributors to the offensive, such as the Kurds, reluctant to go forward. Obama’s refusal to engage politically thus makes even his narrow objectives unachievable.
Outside the administration, not many people believe Iraq and Syria can survive in their present form. At a minimum, they will have to become loose federations, like Bosnia after the Yugoslav wars. Who will devise those solutions, and how will they be brought into being? On that, this U.S. president is punting — which means the would-be successors to Sykes and Picot must wait for another year.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Clinton’s Crimes and Comey’s Choice
2)Clinton’s Crimes and Comey’s Choice
|
FBI Director James Comey knew he had to make a decision that would change his life, and maybe the history of his country, as he surveyed the piles of papers spread out in his office. The Deputy Director in charge of the investigation of Hillary Clinton – a criminal investigation, not some benign “security review” as the Clintonistas had tried to spin it – sat quietly, letting his boss think. The evidence was overwhelming. Hillary Clinton was clearly guilty of multiple felonies, and the Obama Department of Justice was not going to prosecute her. Now, it fell to Director Comey to decide what he would do about it.
James Comey was a veteran prosecutor and former Deputy Attorney General who convicted hundreds of criminals during his career before coming to direct the troubled Federal Bureau of Investigations. Until now, his integrity always came first, and he served faithfully regardless of the party in power, always careful to put aside any personal political agenda, though he'd seen more than enough people who didn't.
“There's no question, sir. None at all. She’s guilty.” said the Deputy Director, telling Comey nothing he did not know. He had sat in the secure classified information facility deep in the bowels of the Department of Justice when his agents had made their two-hour presentation to the stone-faced prosecutors. Clinton had grossly mishandled classified documents in violation of 18 United States Code Sections 793 and 1924. Some of the information Clinton had on the bathroom server was so sensitive that his agents needed upgraded clearances to see it, and it could only be discussed behind reinforced concrete walls in a room scanned twice a day for bugs. Clinton, because she did not want the accountability that came with using official email, had given industrious hackers and foreign governments carte blanche to pillage through some of America's most sensitive secrets. Though her loyal acolytes tried to spin it as innocuous, anyone who ever held a security clearance would go pale upon hearing what she had done.
Then there was the compelling evidence of the former Secretary of State’s quid pro quo influence peddling – favorable Department decisions and contracts linked to cash for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which was essentially just a slush fund that subsidized the ex-president and his wife’s lavish lifestyle. And, of course, there was obstruction of justice – Clinton’s brazen attempted destruction of over 30,000 emails. She might as well have wiped them with a cloth because the skilled FBI technicians were able to recover most of them – and what they found was damning.
Well, it would be damning for anyone else. Even at that moment, there were ongoing prosecutions brought with a fraction of the evidence his dozens of agents had assembled against Clinton. At that moment, people were serving sentences for doing less with less sensitive material. And if some company under investigation had destroyed thousands of emails it had the legal obligation to maintain, the CEO would already be sweating out shower time in a federal prison.
But that briefing was weeks ago and since then there had been nothing from Justice – not a word. In any other case, the grand jury would have been empaneled and the indictments already issued. Here, no one had even pulled Clinton’s security clearance. And now the rumor was that Loretta Lynch had decided not prosecute, and that after her election Barack Obama would pardon the President-elect “for the good of the country.”
It was clear that the law was, once again, not going to apply to Hillary Clinton. Now Director Comey had to decide what he was going to do about it. Would he go along quietly with something every fiber of his being told him was a great wrong, or would he make a public stand and keep his integrity?
Comey tried to stay out of politics, but that didn't mean he was unaware of them. If he was to go public after resigning in protest not even the mainstream media that was backing Clinton could mitigate the damage. His public act of conscience could very well hand office to Donald Trump, a man someone with integrity like Director Comey could only loathe. The justice system shouldn't determine an election, but then justice had to be blind, didn't it? Was there to be one rule of law for all Americans, or a special rule of law for the important and connected?
Comey could go along. He knew that's what President Obama wanted. Oh, the President was far too clever to pick up the phone and tell his minions at the DoJ not to indict. He didn't have to. They knew, and they would do it without his fingerprints on it. And if Comey played along he'd be richly rewarded. Unctuous functionaries had hinted as much. “You have a great future, Director. I’m sure once you leave public service, you’ll have many, many, many opportunities.”
But if he stood up for the law, they would destroy him. Comey had no illusions about the price to be paid for crossing the Clinton machine. Ken Starr, another man of integrity, had done it 20 years ago and to this day remains exiled from elite society. The Clintons and their media minions would mercilessly slander Comey and his family, tearing down his career of public service and integrity. He would be a pariah.
There was something the Mexican drug cartels say when they try to corrupt government officials, Comey reflected. Plata o plumo. Silver or lead.
“What will you do, sir?” asked the Deputy Director. Comey gestured to the door.
Now alone, Comey stared out his window, and his eyes settled on the tip of the Washington Monument piercing the skyline of the city named in the first president’s honor. There was no question what George Washington would do, the Director mused. He sighed, stepped back toward his desk and picked up the phone.
“I've made a decision,” he said.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
Israel as a Security Asset - For Everyone
The week of Israel's 68th anniversary, NATO invited Israel – and three other countries – to "establish diplomatic missions to NATO headquarters." This is not NATO membership, something to which Israel does not aspire, but recognition that Israel has something to offer the Atlantic Alliance. Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "The countries of the world want to cooperate with us because of our determined struggle against terrorism, because of our technological knowledge, our intelligence deployment and other reasons."
It may have something to do with the revelation that Israel had warned Brussels of lax airport security before the terror attack at Zavantem Airport in March. Or the discovery that Israel had offered France a tracking system for terror suspects after the Charlie Hebdo/kosher supermarket attacks and nearly a year before the September bombings that killed 130 people in Paris. France had declined. An Israeli source said, "French authorities liked it, but (an official) came back and said there was a higher-level instruction not to buy Israeli technology... the discussion just stopped."
It may have something to do with NATO member Turkey's increasingly perilous position in the Middle East. Facing increased Kurdish restiveness, spillover from the Syrian war, ISIS imposed genocide, and increasingly strained relations with Russia over Syria and Ngorno-Karabakh, restoring security cooperation with Israel might be a lifeline for Ankara. This would account for Turkey dropping its opposition to Israel's NATO mission.
Or maybe NATO is reverting to its previous view of Israel as a security partner and moving closer to the traditional American position, regardless of the increasingly shrill tenor of European politics (we're not the only ones). There is history here.
In 1979, I worked on what was called a "quick reference guide" to the capabilities Israel brought to U.S.-Israel security cooperation. Israel has:
- A secure location in a crucial part of the world
- A well-developed military infrastructure
- The ability to maintain, service, and repair U.S.-origin equipment
- An excellent deep-water port in Haifa
- Modern air facilities
- A position close to sea-lanes and ability to project power over long distances
- A domestic air force larger than many in Western Europe and possessing more up-to-date hardware
- Multilingual capabilities, including facility in English, Arabic, French, Farsi, and the languages of the (former) Soviet Union
- Combat familiarity with Soviet/Russian style tactics and equipment
- The ability to assist U.S. naval fleets, including common equipment
- The ability to support American operations and to provide emergency air cover
- A democratic political system with a strong orientation to support the United States and the NATO system.
NATO formally bought the idea, and in 1989 Israel was designated a "Major Non-NATO Ally." The status allowed for joint R&D, purchase of certain weapon systems off-limits to others, joint training, the ability to bid on certain contracts, and various other benefits. More countries were added over time, essentially degrading the category from "supportive allies not in NATO" to "countries seeking NATO support." After Pakistan (2004) and Afghanistan joined the list (2014), the U.S. Congress created an additional category for Israel – Major Strategic Partner – to ensure that Israel would stay a step ahead.
And as the Europeans shifted this week, so did the U.S. Reversing its previous opposition, the U.S. announced that Israel would be permitted to modify the F-35 fighter jets that will be delivered beginning in December. According toWired magazine, Israel will install software described as "an app-like 'command and control' system' and Israeli-made weaponry." Wired went on to note:
Israel is quite adept at building advanced military technologies, from weapons systems to sensors to communications gear, and sells a lot of it to the U.S. Israel's Litening precision targeting system -- an external pod that uses infrared imaging and laser range-finding to guide bombs to targets—is used in a variety of U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft. The sophisticated Joint Helmet-Mounted Display system for F-22 fighter pilots leans heavily on Israeli technology.
The idea that investments in Israeli defense and defense industries will pay dividends in the United States and to our NATO allies also underpins the Congressional budget debate over security assistance to Israel. It isn't a debate between Republicans and Democrats, but rather a mechanism by which the Obama administration deliberately short-changes Israel's missile defense programs – possibly out of antipathy for missile defenses in general – and a bipartisan majority in Congress restores the money. Senator Lindsay Graham called it "a game they (the Administration) play. We're far more realistic about Israel's defense needs than they are. And they know we're going to meet them."
This year, the appropriation will include $62 million for the Iron Dome system and $150 million and $120 million, respectively, for the David's Sling and Arrow 3 systems, for a total of $332 million -- more than double the administration's request.
And it should be noted that regardless of the administration's views on missile defense or Israeli politics, it has never vetoed the Congressional appropriation.
It should be noted, too, that the "quick reference guide" of Israeli capabilities that can benefit NATO and individual allied countries has undergone revision over time. In 1996, R&D capabilities and intelligence cooperation were added. Post 9/11, urban counter terror training was added. More recently, ballistic missile defense and tunnel detection capabilities have been added.
Nothing has been ever been deleted.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment