Tag Archives: Middle East

International news, military news

Women play key role in defending Israel

female pilots

This picture showed up on my Facebook news feed today and it brings to mind something I witnessed six years ago during a four-week tour of Israel.

Yes, more women fly F-16s than drive cars in Saudi Arabia. I’m not going to thrash Saudi cultural norms. I am, though, going to remember one of the major takeaways from my tour of Israel.

It is that the country must rely on every single able individual — men and women — who are able to serve in the armed forces.

Israel has a mandatory conscription law. If memory serves, men must serve three years in the military; women are called up for two. And, yes indeed, women areĀ ordered to perform dangerous duty in defense of their country, such as flying high-performance tactical jet aircraft; for that matter, so are American women.

I arrived in Israel in early May 2009 as part of a Rotary International Group Study Exchange team. One of the first sites we visited was a military museum in Be’er Sheva, a modern city on the edge of the Judean Desert.

It was at that museum where we were told that enemy jets can cross the width of Israel in less than five minutes. The individual who told us that was a young woman who was serving in the Israeli air force.

Later on our tour, I stayed in the home of a family in Karmiel. One of my hosts was a young woman, the daughter of the couple who owned the home, who had just gotten out of the Israeli military. She informed me of her country’s insistence that all young people don the uniform of their country. Israel does grant religious exemptions toĀ Hasidic Jews — which I also learned is a source of some tension among less-observant Israelis.

But the women of that small but mighty country are asked to step up and to do their part. Who should doubt that the entire country is on notice to serve? It comprisesĀ slightly more thanĀ 8,000 square miles; it is home to around 7 million residents. It is surrounded by nations with which it has gone to war multiple times since Israel’s founding in 1948.

Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt. However, it holds the Golan Heights, which once belonged to Syria … and we all know what’s happening there.

It’s good to put some things in perspective as we consider the cost of war and whether we’re asking everyone to commit to its defense.

In Israel, such a commitment becomes essential forĀ the embattled nation’s very survival.

International news, national news, political news

Refugees or criminals? Which is it?

immigration-9

One of my very best friends in the whole, wide world is a lawyer who lives in California.

I’ve known Tim Lundell since I was in high school. He was my best man and we’ve shared a lot of emotions over many years.

TimĀ posted this commentĀ today on Facebook.

“Isn’t it funny? In Europe they have ‘desperate migrants, embarking on a perilous journey in search of a better life.’ Here, according to certain politicians, we have ‘illegal immigrants who rape and murder.’ I guess it’s just a matter of humanitarian perspective.”

The target of Tim’s barb, I’m certain, is Donald Trump, who’s gained considerable mileage over his rants about illegal immigrants who come to the United States from points south … meaning Mexico and beyond. Republican primary voters are eating this stuff up, giving Trump a tremendous boost in the current public opinion polling

I do not dispute the notion that some of those who come into this country without the proper documentation come here to do harm, just as Trump has said.

But many others do come here to seek a better life, just as those who are fleeing the Middle East and heading for places such as Greece, Italy, France and Germany are doing.

I’ll also acknowledge that the influx of immigrants into Europe has spawned a considerable backlash from right-wing extremists, who contend that the refugees present a considerable danger to the European way of life.

However, as we keep debating the issue of whether to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants from the United States, shouldn’tĀ we keep in mind that many of them are here for the right reasons and are not here to commit crimes?

The blanket condemnation of illegal immigrants does not square with the reality of why many of them are here in the first place. They are here to make a better life for their families.

I am not suggesting they all should be granted amnesty, or that they shouldn’t be required to start the process of obtaining legal immigrant status.

Let us just try to understand that people come here for a lot of reasons — and many of them have no intention of committing crimes against the country they want to call home.

 

 

 

International news, local news, national news

Where is LBJ when you need him?

1 Comment

Barack H. Obama needs to channel Lyndon B. Johnson.

In a big way.

President Obama’s negotiating team — led by Secretary of State John Kerry — has just brokered a deal that cuts off Iran’s path to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

But not only are congressional Republicans opposed to the deal — which is no surprise in the least — but congressional Democrats appear to be skeptical of the deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/key-democrats-skeptical-of-iran-deal-120123.html?hp=t1_r

How does LBJ play into this? I’m trying to imagine congressional Democrats bucking ol’ Lyndon, who was legendary in his ability to cajole his former congressional colleagues into seeing things his way.

Vote with me, or else I’m going to make your life holy hell, he would tell friend and foe alike. There was not disputing LBJ’s sincerity. When he said he’d make congressmen and women’s lives uncomfortable, he meant it.

Former Amarillo College President Paul Matney, who is no slouch as a political observer, once told me he thought Obama’s greatest weakness as president was his lack of congressional relationships. He served only three years in the Senate before being elected president in 2008 and hadn’t built a large cache of friends on Capitol Hill upon whom he could depend when the going gets tough.

It’s going to get quite tough in the weeks ahead as the president seeks to sell the details of his Iran nuclear deal to members of both parties.

Imagine Democrats telling Lyndon Johnson that they’re skeptical of a deal negotiated byĀ a presidential team of the same party.

As for President Obama’s efforts to sell this deal — which I believe has the potential for bringing a more comprehensive peace to the Middle East — well, good luck, Mr. President.

International news

Iran deal struck; now the fight begins

iran nuke deal

At some level, I totally understand Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s suspicion of Iran.

When a country’s leader declares his mission to wipe your country off the map, you take such threats seriously. That’s what Iranian leaders have vowed to do to Israel.

Bibi doesn’t trust the Iranians as far as he can toss any of them.

However, is the deal struck with Iran by the United States and other world powers a waste of time and effort? I do not believe so.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/us-world-powers-historic-deal-iran-120076.html?hp=rc1_4

They’ve reached a deal that — on paper — eliminates Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon. In return, the world powers will lift the economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

That’s the deal breaker, according to critics in Washington — namely the Republican congressional leaders, who vow to kill the deal.

Hold on. There’s also language in the agreement that reserves the right to reinstate the sanctions if Iran reneges on any element of the deal. There also are inspection requirements that Iran will be forced to allow. Show us the progress you’re making, Iranian leaders, in dismantling your nuclear program … or else!

To no one’s surprise, the GOP presidential candidates vow to toss the deal into the trash if they’re elected president next year. For his part, President Obama remains confident that Congress would uphold a veto if he chooses to nix whatever moves the GOP makes to nix the agreement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/iran-deal-got-lawmakers-react-kill-deal-120083.html?hp=t1_r

Moreover, as is usually the case with the critics, they aren’t offering alternatives. All they’re saying is that they hate the deal. Democrats are leery, too. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland said: ā€œIt is in Americaā€™s national security interest that Iran is blocked from ever having a nuclear weapon.Ā There is no trust when it comes to Iran.

Oh, and Netanyahu’s concern about his country’s security? Barack Obama has declared — for the umpteenth time — that the United States remains as committed as ever to protecting its strongest and most reliable Middle East ally. What more must the president do to persuade criticsĀ — on this issue — he means what he says?

Yes, the agreement isĀ  historic. Let’s make it stick.

International news, Uncategorized

SCOTUS hands White House an unexpected victory

The Supreme Court has decided that the United States needs to remain neutral in an ancient debate over who controls one of the world’s holiest cities.

The issue is aĀ passport and whether the parents of a child born in Jerusalem could put the word “Israel” on the document’s listing of one’s place of birth.

It’s kind of convoluted. The court — in a 6-3 decision — sided with the executive branch of government, which contended that “Jerusalem” should stand alone onĀ passports, given the contentious nature of the debate over who actually controls the city.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-strikes-down-jerusalem-passport-law?cid=sm_fb_lastword

Longstanding policy had stated thatĀ passports marking the place of birth of those who hold themĀ shouldn’t put JerusalemĀ in Israel, as it remains a key sticking point in the on-going dispute between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority.

The American citizens of a boy born in Jerusalem in 2002 wanted hisĀ passport to contain the word “Israel.”Ā Congress enacted aĀ bill declaring that birth certificates could identify the birthplace as Jerusalem, Israel if parents requested. President Bush signed the bill into law, but complained that it interfered with the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.

The court sided with the executive branch.

I’ve been to Jerusalem.Ā Much of it clearly is inĀ Israel. The Israeli government has its capital there. However, the city also is divided by a large, forbidding wall, on the other side of which is the West Bank, governed by the Palestinian Authority.

The Supreme Court has decided correctly in not interfering in this most sensitive dispute.

As NBC News’s Pete Williams reported: “The administration, under presidents of both parities, has insisted that because sovereignty over Jerusalem is one of the major sticking points in any Middle East peace agreement, the U.S. would remain neutral. Being forced to say that Jerusalem was under the control of Israel, the idea went, would be taking sides.”

 

military news, national news, political news

‘Don’t vote for me if you’re worn out by war’

Wow!

Lindsey Graham today offered the most compelling campaign argument against his own candidacy I’ve ever heard.

The South Carolina Republican, who’s running for his party’s 2016 presidential nomination, said it flat out. “Don’t vote for me if you’re worn out by war.”

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/244022-graham-dont-vote-for-me-if-youre-anti-war

Well, senator, no worries there.

What he told “Morning Joe” on MSNBC is that he’s going to be the “war candidate.” He plans, if elected to the presidency, to send more troops into Iraq; he also plans to send troops into Syria; he plans to enlist Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and whichever other regional ally will join, to help American troops defeat the Islamic State and then keep the peace.

Oh, how long will they be there? “A long time,” he said.

There’s no exit strategy. No timetable. No end to the bloodshed.

Get ready for battle, he warned.

Oh, if you’re tired of fighting a war, don’t vote for me, he said.

No-o-o-o-o problem. You’ve got a deal, Sen. Graham.

 

International news

Iran nuke deal worth the gamble

The more I read about the Iran nuclear deal framework, the more inclined I am to give it a chance to work.

It’s not going to gather much support among Republicans who control the U.S. Congress. They’re going to oppose it no matter what, given that it was hammered out by a negotiating team sent to the bargaining table by President Barack Obama.

The Los Angeles Times has editorialized correctly that the framework requires some patience, but that it does hold the promise of making the Middle East safer.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-iran-nuclear-framework-20150403-story.html

The critical point, according to the Times, lies in the verification process.

Nuclear agency officials will have ample opportunity to ensure that Iran complies with its pledge to reduce its centrifuges. Iran also has agreed to limits on its enrichment of uranium. The economic sanctions? They’ll remain until Iran complies. If it doesn’t, the sanctions remain.

That won’t stop congressional Republicans from a knee-jerk opposition to the agreement. They are dead set against this deal. Their reasons baffle me. They use fiery demagoguery language by referring to the U.S.-led negotiating team to the “appeasers” who gave Europe away to Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s.

How about settling down?

This framework could fall apart. There remain a lot of details to work out. Absent a binding agreement, Iran will be free to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon as it sees fit. What then? Do we bomb them? Do we start a war in the Middle East? Do we really want to let the bombs fly, putting the entire region at risk?

The agreement needs a chance to work.

 

International news

Waiting for some language in Iran deal

The Iran nuclear deal is going to require some major salesmanship in the United States.

The “sales team” must be headed by President Obama, who now needs to persuade Americans — notably Republicans in both houses of Congress — that the deal brokered with Iran will prevent that country from developing a nuclear weapon.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/iran-nuclear-pact-stirs-hope-%e2%80%94-and-fear-%e2%80%94-of-new-political-order-in-mideast/ar-AAapd0E

But some of us — me included — are waiting for some language to appear in the framework agreement hammered out by U.S. and other nations’ negotiators.

The language should include something like this: “Iran agrees that it will not ‘weaponize’ uranium at any time, ever.”

I haven’t seen such language in all the discussion since the announcement of the framework.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will abide by the terms of the deal if the other side — meaning much of the rest of the world — lifts the economic sanctions against Iran. He says his leadership isn’t “two-faced” and does not lie.

That’s good enough for me — not!

My understanding of the agreement is that there will be careful monitoring of Iranian intentions as it moves ahead with what’s left of its nuclear program. Iran has said all along it intends to develop nuclear power for domestic energy consumption only.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemns the agreement, saying it “legitimizes” Iran’s nuclear program and poses a grave threat to Middle East and world peace. Netanyahu’s concern is legitimate, given Iran’s stated objective of wiping Israel off the face of the planet.

However, as long as the powers can keep all eyes on Iran to ensure that it complies with the nuts and bolts of the deal — which still have to be worked out — then Netanyahu will have far less to worry about in the future.

Still, I am waiting for some written commitment from Iran that it won’t build a nuclear bomb.

Just, you know, for the record.

 

International news

Forget the 'water's edge' stuff about foreign policy

It’s safe to suggest that the time-honored belief that partisanship ended at “the water’s edge” has now been inundated.

House Speaker John Boehner went to Israel this week and declared that the “world is on fire” and that the United States is doing too little to put it out. He offered a blistering critique of U.S. foreign policy while standing in the capital city of one our nation’s staunchest allies.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/boehner-israel-jerusalem-isil-netanyahu-iran-116600.html?hfp=t1_r

It’s a new day. Or perhaps it’s a continuation of an old way of thinking.

I don’t know which it is.

I do know that wherever he is, the late U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg is spinning in his grave.

It was Vandenberg, R-Mich., who criticized politicians for venturing overseas to criticize U.S. policymakers, coining the “water’s edge” definition of bipartisanship.

I’ve always thought it was wise to speak with a single voice, especially when politicians venture abroad to discuss foreign policy matters. Yes, I know that this affinity to blast presidents of the “other party” goes both ways and that Democratic pols have dissed Republican presidents as well as the other way around.

The speaker of the House, though, speaks with forked tongue when he warns of the world going up in flames and then promises to keep speaking out against the president of the United States — even as the world burns.

“I wouldnā€™t have believed that I would be involved in as much foreign policy as I am today,ā€ Boehner said in Jerusalem. ā€œAnd it certainly isnā€™t by choice. Itā€™s just that the world is on fire. And I donā€™t think enough Americans or enough people in the administration understand how serious the problems that weā€™re facing in the world are.ā€

Is the speaker unaware that he well might be fanning those flames when he says such things?

 

International news

No deal on Iran nukes now looks possible

JUST IN: Parties agree to extend Iran nuclear talks until June.

***

So, what happens if Iran fails to strike a deal with other nations — including the United States — to end its nuclear enrichment program?

Might it be that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right, that “no deal is better than a bad deal”?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/in-iran-talks-failure-is-an-option-116528.html?hp=rc1_4

The deadline comes at the end this day. There might be a framework for a deal that sets up a new deadline.

If not, well, then more sanctions are due. Perhaps even the “military option” if Iran weaponizes the uranium that other nations want it to surrender.

The prospect of no deal shouldn’t be of grave concern.

U.S. negotiators insist, as they should, that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. No one on Earth trusts a nuclear-powered Islamic Republic of Iran, which has stated its No. 1 mission is to destroy Israel. The Israelis haven’t said it in so many words, but they clearly stand ready to strike Iran if it gets a whiff of a nuclear weapon being on developed. President Obama has refused repeatedly to take a military strike off the table as well.

What constitutes a “bad deal”? It would be one that allows sanctions to be lifted over time, which reportedly is one of the options being considered by U.S. and allied negotiators. It’s the kind of deal that Netanyahu has warned shouldn’t be allowed to occur.

We are dealing with a seriously rogue nation. Let us treat it as such.