Category Archives: International news

International news, national news, political news

Partisanship has no place in foreign policy

OK, one more attempt at making sense of this Bibi blowup and I’ll move on.

It’s being reported that about a quarter of congressional Democrats are going to stay away from the speech Tuesday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will make before a joint session of Congress.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/234398-bibi-boycott-grows-ahead-of-address

Democrats are angry that Republican Speaker John Boehner invited Bibi to speak without consulting with the White House. I get their anger. It is infuriating that Boehner would flout longstanding diplomatic protocol by inviting a foreign head of government in such a manner.

Netanyahu, in remarks today to a pro-Israel group, said he doesn’t want to become the object of partisan scorn in Washington. Indeed, such partisanship shouldn’t be an issue when we’re talking about foreign policy matters.

Who, though, turned it into a partisan event? I’ll go with Boehner, who stuck it in the president’s eye in the way he invited Netanyahu. The prime minister opposes negotiations to get Iran to stop its nuclear development program; he favors tougher sanctions on Iran now, along with Boehner and most Republicans; Obama opposes the sanctions; and the president is miffed over the invitation issue.

None of this means the United States and Israel are going to part company. Netanyahu will affirm the nations’ close ties Tuesday, just as he did today.

The partisan nature of the protest, though, smacks more of petulance than anything else.

I’ll say it again: Democrats should listen to Bibi in person and give him the respect that the leader of our nation’s strongest Middle East ally deserves.

 

International news

ISIL making a stand in Saddam's hometown

Iraqi forces are launching a major offensive to take Tikrit away from the Islamic State.

Do we see the symbolism here?

http://news.yahoo.com/major-offensive-under-way-retake-iraqs-tikrit-army-081036649.html

Tikrit is the hometown of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

ISIL is a Sunni Muslim cult that seeks to take Iraq away from the Shiites who now govern the country.

Hussein was a Sunni Muslim.

I would like to think of the battle for Tikrit to be some sort of ISIL’s Last Stand, if you’ll pardon the reference to a 19th-century American military officer.

Sadly, it won’t be a last stand. There will be other stands, other battles to fight, other cities to liberate from these monstrous terrorists.

But the Tikrit battle that is unfolding with a reported 30,000 Iraqi army troops taking part could give us a good indication of just how battle-ready the Iraqi armed forces are for the fight that lies ahead.

If the Iraqis succeed in recapturing Tikrit, they can turn their forces toward where it really and truly matters.

As the news agency AFP reports: “Commanders voiced hope the operation would be a step towards the recapture of Mosul, the jihadists’ main hub in Iraq.”

This is the Iraqis’ fight to win or lose. Their benefactors — the United States of America — need to know they’re up to the task.

 

International news

Netanyahu plans no 'disrespect' of Obama

Benjamin Netanyahu has laid it out carefully: His speech Tuesday before Congress is not intended to “disrespect” President Obama or the office he holds.

The Israeli prime minister made that point today in a preliminary event at the American Israel Public Affair Committee speech. He said the U.S.-Israel alliance is stronger than ever, but that the two friends have differences on how to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The main event occurs Tuesday when the prime minister speaks before a joint session of Congress.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/netanyahu-says-congress-speech-is-not-intended-to-show-any-disrespect-to-president-obama/ar-BBi9ajY

Actually, if any disrespect has occurred, it came from the man who invited the prime minister to speak to Congress. That would be House Speaker John Boehner, who broke with diplomatic protocol by extending the invitation without consulting with the White House — or with the president.

Netanyahu contributed to showing up Obama by accepting the invitation.

But the speech he has planned to deliver Tuesday will seek to drive home the friendship that the two countries maintain in spite of differences over specific strategies and tactics.

“Israel and the United States agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. But we disagree on the best way to prevent Iran from developing those weapons,” he told the AIPAC audience. “Disagreements among allies are only natural from time to time, even among the closest of allies.”

He added: “We’re like a family. Disagreements in the family are always uncomfortable.”

The prime minister will no doubt get an earful from the president’s domestic critics about why they think Obama is wrong on Iran. He’ll agree with them clearly.

Let’s not look for any sign of a breakup between two of the world’s tightest allies. From where I sit, the United States and Israel remain the best of friends.

 

International news

Let's hear Bibi make his point

1 Comment

Allow me to call him “Bibi,” OK?

He is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, aka Bibi. He’s going to speak Tuesday to a joint session of Congress. I am opposed to the way he was asked to speak — invited by Speaker John Boehner without giving the White House a heads up, thus violating a longstanding rule of diplomacy.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/benjamin-netanyahu-address-to-congress-115640.html?hp=r2_3#.VPPabVJ0yt8

But now that he’s coming, let’s hear what he has to say.

A key Republican congressman, Mike Rogers of Michigan, and Michael Doran, a policy wonk at the Hudson Institute, have written an essay laying out the reasons for hearing the prime minister’s remarks.

The chief reason, according to Rogers and Doran, is that Bibi’s speech will spark an important debate about how to deal with Iran and its desire to develop a nuclear program — and virtually everyone agrees means a nuclear weapons program.

Rogers and Doran are incorrect in asserting that President Barack Obama is indifferent about fighting the bad guys of this world. They are correct, though, in suggesting that Bibi is making a courageous stand against his country’s arch-enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

My main problem with his speech is its timing, given that the United States is in the middle of negotiations with Iran to end is nuclear program development.

Still, the prime minister is a key world leader with a vested interest in a permanent Middle East peace.

It cannot happen if Iran develops a nuclear bomb. Let’s hear what Bibi has to say.

 

International news

Rift in U.S. foreign policy team?

John Kerry says Benjamin Netanyahu is “welcome to speak” in the United States.

Susan Rice calls an upcoming speech by Netanyahu “destructive.”

Who is correct, the secretary of state or the Obama administration’s national security adviser?

I’ll put my money on Secretary Kerry.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/234242-kerry-netanyahu-is-welcome-to-speak

Netanyahu is going to speak Tuesday to a joint congressional session about Iran. President Obama wishes he wouldn’t make the speech; Obama has no plans to meet with Netanyahu while the Israeli prime minister is in this country — at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner.

Bibi’s talk will center on Iran’s desire to develop a nuclear program, which critics say — correctly, in my view — is a precursor to the Islamic Republic seeking a nuclear weapon. Israel doesn’t want the Iranians to have a nuke. Neither does the United States.

However, let’s stipulate something. The United States prides itself on freedom of expression. It extends that freedom to friendly foreign dignitaries. Set aside reports of serious tension between Netanyahu and Obama over this upcoming speech and consider that the two nations remain ironclad allies.

Kerry said the relationship, “in terms of security,” has never been stronger.

Let’s hear what the prime minister has to say.

International news

Democrats wrong to boycott Bibi's speech

It’s probably too late to change anyone’s mind, but it’s never too late to drive home a point that needs to be made.

Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu’s audience as he speaks to a joint session of Congress this week will be missing about 30 congressional Democrats, who’ve decided to boycott the speech for a couple of reasons.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/bibis-boycotters-115612.html?hp=r3_3

One is that House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation of Netanyahu was done without consulting the White House. What’s more, Boehner wants the United States to impose sanctions on Iran, which is negotiating with other nations on a possible deal to end its nuclear development; Netanyahu is expected to make that case during his speech to Congress — which the White House doesn’t want to happen.

The other is that the invitation injects the United States into Israeli politics, given that Netanyahu’s governing coalition is facing an election shortly. President Obama has said it’s inappropriate to invite a foreign head of government to make such a speech so close to an election in his or her country.

Democrats shouldn’t boycott the speech. They should sit there, applaud politely, listen to Netanyahu and then decide whether they agree with whatever he says.

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said, “I will not dignify it by being here. It is an unfortunate incursion into Israeli politics.”

“As a long-time supporter of the U.S-Israel relationship, I believe the timing of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress — just days before Israeli elections — is highly inappropriate,” U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement. “I am disappointed that, as of now, the speech has not been postponed. For this reason, I will not attend the speech.”

I don’t think Boehner’s invitation was appropriate, either. I also disagree with the idea of imposing sanctions at the very time we’re seeking a negotiated settlement on whether Iran should pursue its nuclear program. Let the negotiations run their course; if they fail, then drop the sanctions hammer.

But the Israeli prime minister is a key U.S. ally — the current spat notwithstanding. His standing among world leaders compels his foes to sit and listen to his message.

Having said all that, it’s good to know that the absent lawmakers will have access to TV, radio and the Internet to hear the prime minister’s remarks.

Be sure to listen.

 

International news

Let's ask: Did Putin play a part in this killing?

It’s easy for peanut-gallery observers far away from the action to ask questions those closer to the scene might not ask. So, I’ll ask it: Did Russian strongman/president Vladimir Putin have a hand in the assassination of a leading critic of his government?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/surveillance-video-appears-to-show-nemtsov-killing/vi-BBi6dTs

I’m not sure if the Russian criminal justice system has a presumed-innocent clause in its framework, but having watched Putin from a great distance over many years, and knowing of his background, my darker side tells me something just doesn’t smell right in Moscow.

Boris Nemtsov was gunned down on a Moscow street — in the shadow of the Kremlin — this past week. Who is this fellow? He was considered perhaps Putin’s leading critic. He had a huge political following in Russia and was seen by some as a serious political threat to the Russian president. Many thousands of them marched in tribute to the slain leader.

http://news.yahoo.com/russians-march-memory-murdered-critic-putin-101910307.html

Now, what about Putin?

His background is worth examining. In his previous life, Putin fellow led the KGB, the intelligence agency of the Soviet Union, the one-time “Evil Empire” made infamous by its known practice of eliminating critics of the communist regime. The KGB’s name went away when the Soviet Union vaporized in 1991, but its infrastructure has remained pretty much in place, even as the agency was split into two parts.

Putin has served a couple of non-consecutive tours of duty as Russia’s president. Each one has demonstrated the hallmark of this individual’s makeup.

He is as ruthless as ruthless gets. He took over a portion of Ukraine, a supposedly sovereign country bordering Russia. The term “bully” doesn’t even come close to describing Putin.

I have this terrible feeling in my gut that Vladimir Putin — at the very least — just might have a good idea as to who killed Nemtsov. If he does — and I believe that’s the case — let’s not expect Putin to give up whoever did the deed.

 

International news, national news, political news

Foes 'all too willing to test us'

Here’s a tiny part of what former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said before a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“Here’s the simple truth of our foreign policy: Our allies doubt us and our adversaries are all too willing to test us. No one should be surprised, no one should be surprised that dictators like Assad would cross the president’s red line because he knows the president will not even defend the line that separates our nation from Mexico.” 

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/perry-compares-middle-east-troubles-texas-border

Did you get what he’s inferring here? Perry is possibly going to run for the Republican nomination for president of the United States — again — in 2016. To make the case to GOP voters, he must lambaste the president from the other party.

I understand how it works. Democrats do the same thing to Republican presidents as well, as U.S. Sen. Barack Obama demonstrated when he won the presidency in 2008.

But is this “testing” of U.S. power and prestige limited to just this president?

Let’s see: President Richard Nixon was tested when Arab nations executed an oil embargo in 1973, causing near-panic at gasoline service stations throughout this country. President Ronald Reagan was tested in 1983 when terrorists blew up the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, killing 241 of our young Marines. President George H.W. Bush was tested in Panama when the dictator Manuel Noriega kept looking the other way while drugs were pouring into this country from Panama. President George W. Bush certainly was tested when terrorists flew those hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11.

Yes, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were tested too. Carter faced the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979-80  and Clinton had to deal with those warlords in Somalia.

Testing of U.S. presidents has been the norm perhaps since the end of World War II, when this nation emerged from that global conflagration as the world’s pre-eminent military and economic power.

It goes with the territory. It’s part of the president’s job description.

 

International news

Why the masks, terrorists?

1 Comment

The thought keeps occurring to me: Why do terrorists keep covering their faces when they make these videos intended for international distribution?

Have you ever wondered?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-isis-threatens-europe/ar-BBhZurk

The picture on the link here shows an Islamic State goon waving a knife at the camera. All you see are this fellow’s eyes. Why don’t they show themselves to the public? Why don’t they reveal their identity?

Is it because:

* They believe what they’re doing is wrong?

* They don’t want international cops, spooks, commandos, anti-terror analysts to identify them?

* They’re cowards?

Maybe it’s all of the above. I’m going with the coward angle, kind of like the way the Ku Klux Klan goons cover their faces under hoods.

Terrorists don’t comprehend that they commit criminal acts when they behead innocent victims. They don’t seem to have any understanding of “right” and “wrong” the way you and I do. They’ve perverted every single principle, concept and tenet under which civilized human beings live.

They’re surely hiding from the good guys, which might imply they know what they’re doing is wrong. I believe it’s more akin to the last part. They don’t want to get caught because they’re afraid of the consequence they’ll face.

Fear. Cowardice. Get it?

Some of them have deserted from military organizations in their home country, usually somewhere in the Middle East, to join forces with ISIL, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda … whatever. They’re hiding their faces from their former military commanders.

In the end, though, it all seems to smack of cowardly acts. Just as lynchings were the acts of cowards in the United States a century ago, these terrorists have zero sense of honor and courage.

 

International news

Brooks, Shields speak with reason, clarity

If only conservatives and liberals could speak to each other the way these two fellows speak on subjects that have driven the ideologies so far apart.

If only …

David Brooks is a conservative columnist for the New York Times; Mark Shields’s left-leaning column is circulated in newspapers all across the country.

They took on the issue of what to call the terrorists with whom we are at war.

I particularly liked Brooks’s assessment of whether the monsters are “Islamic terrorists.” His view? All religion is open to interpretation. Christians, Jews and Muslims all interpret their faiths differently. He said the terrorists don’t practice mainstream Islam, but they’re Islamic, so why not call them such?

I don’t necessarily think it’s important that we call these terrorists Islamic. We know what they’re doing. As Shields noted, most of the Islamic State’s victims are Muslims. They’re also killing Christians and Jews. They’re evil in the extreme and we need to respond accordingly — which we are doing.

But the discussion on PBS is worth seeing anyway.

If only the two sides could talk to each other the way these fellows do.