The National Interest: Daniel R. DePetris: 10 Questions to Ask Before Intervening in Libya Again

Source:The National Interest- American military jets over Libya. 

Source:The National Interest

It’s not that intervening in Libya in 2011 was the wrong decision. The American, European, as well as Arab intervention there saved as many as a hundred-thousand lives from the Libyan governmental forces. It was the aftermath of that war where the United States, European Union and Arab League, all failed. We knocked out the Qadhafi Regime and handed the country over to Libyan rebels that simply weren’t ready to govern and defend a country the size of Iran and Saudi Arabia in size. The Libyan military and security forces, including law enforcement, simply weren’t ready to defend this large country even with only six-million people. Plus the fact that the National Transitional Council in Libya, only represented at most half of the country and they weren’t ready to govern and defend the entire country.

So now Libya has essentially been divided in half with an east and a west. Without any true national government. Not all that different in how America looked in the 1860s before the Civil War. Or how Vietnam looked before the Communist North took over the entire country in the mid 1970s. And because of this power vacuüm ISIS has moved into Libya and about ready to control part of this large country, because again there is no real national military, national law enforcement agency and no national government, to push back and prevent ISIS from coming in. Whatever you think of the Iraq War and I’m against it, but America didn’t bail after we knocked out the Hussein Regime. We stayed, stayed, stayed and are still there. The Iraq War would have been a hell of a lot worst for Iraq had we not stayed after we knocked out the Hussein Regime in 2003.

I believe America, Europe and the Arab League, should and need to intervene in Libya again, with coöperation from the two warring government’s there, but to put it simply we need to do it right this time. Destroy ISIS and whatever other terrorists group are there, but then stay to help a unified Libya develop their own military and law enforcement agencies and national government. As well as the provincial government’s there so they can govern and defend themselves in the future. And that would mean bringing the two government’s there together and forming a national unity government. With one executive, one legislative and one national judicial branch. As well as one government for each province and locality so this large country and govern and defend itself. And no longer be vulnerable to rebels and terrorists groups.

Libya, is in America’s and Europe’s interest, because ISIS is now there and they’re a threat to us. Not the same threat as lets say Russia, but they could hit one of our embassies or hit America inside of the United States. Libya is also in America’s and Europe’s interest, because its’ such a large country. Only Algeria has more land than Libya in Western Arabia. And it’s simply ‘too big to fail.’ (A phrase from the Great Recession) And we need to at least try to make this country work which is what we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan with limited success and are still trying to help those big countries succeed as well. The West and the Arab states, can’t afford to have a large country that is in chaos that is being run by terrorists, because we and them could get hit by those groups. And the United States and European Union should help Libya in the air with the Arab League on the ground, to destroy ISIS.
CATO Institute: Did The Military Intervention in Libya Succeed?

Stephen M. Walt: How The U.S. Inspires Anti-American Terrorism

Source:Free Association

Watching the GOP presidential debate last night, I paid close attention to Senator Ted Cruz. For no other reasons to see how he would try to differ from the realty TV character The Donald, Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Rand Paul, on foreign policy and national security issues. As well as the War on Terror and cvil liberties. Senator Rubio, Generation X's version of Dick Cheney on these issues, but at least he's consistent. Senator Paul, Generation X's version of Barry Goldwater. Fiscally conservative across the board, even as it relates to national security. Again his consistency is something to respect whether you agree with Rand or not.

Senator Cruz, the most interesting person up there and not because he's got an Anglo-Saxon Texas accent, to go with a Spanish face. But because he knows he can't beat Donald Trump by trying to more like The Donald. He probably can't win the GOP presidential nomination by being another Barry Goldwater. With the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives still calling the plays. So he's trying to carve out this new patch of space when it comes to foreign affairs in the GOP. That says, 'America, should not just worry about America first, but only worry about America. And when it comes to foreign affairs oversees, we should fund the lesser of all evils which are the monarchs and military dictators. To keep peace and stability in the Middle East.'

I don't know where Ted Cruz is getting his military and foreign policy advice, but it can't be from people who actually know what they're talking about. What the Senator doesn't seem to understand is that what fuels anti-American terrorism is the fact that America backs government's that these Jihadist's and just average people on the streets in these countries who aren't the bad people there, hate. The U.S. Government, is not popular in Egypt and the broader Middle East, because we've backed their dictators and authoritarian regimes over the years that have kept their people down and their countries in third-world status. That is how the Jihadist's have gotten their start and have kept going and have been attacking us at least since the late 1970s.

You don't defeat terrorism by backing authoritarian dictatorships that fuel terrorism by how they treat their people. What you do is cut off the dictator's legs and encourage people on the ground to stand up and demand change. As well as working with responsible government's like in Iraq and Turkey, to defeat the Jihadist's on the ground. And give the people in those countries the opportunity to create their own civilized societies. Create their own countries that are responsive to their people and there to serve their people and not crush the opposition, or simply look just to stay in power. How different would Egypt be today if we had never backed Hosni Mubarak. Or Iran had we never had backed the Shah.

The National Interest: Scott MacDonald: Venezuela Votes For Change After 16 Years of Chavismo

The National Interest: Opinion: Scott MacDonald- Venezuela Votes For Change After 16 Years of Chavismo

The Neo-Communists and Neo-Marxists, (as I at least call them in Venezuela) finally not only have some competition, but a liberal democratic opposition to their authoritarian rule. And shows that there’s even a limit to the mount of socialism that Venezuelans will put up with in their country. Especially when it comes with a high cost of the lost of personal freedom and a strong economy. Just as the Cuban economy is improving and the economy starting to move again in Columbia, the Socialist Maduro Administration in Venezuela has seen their economy collapse.

Because of falling oil prices in their country and the Venezuelan government’s Marxist miss-management of their economy, a country that is energy independent and yet not able to pay for their bare essentials like toilet paper and even food. The people in Venezuela stood up and demanded change and chose the liberal democratic opposition the Democratic Party there, which in Venezuela would be considered right-wing, which tells you how Far-Left the current government in Venezuela is. And now The Maduro Administration will have an opposition Assembly that it will have to deal with. With real limits on their power.

It’s not so much socialism that is the problem here, but how far you go with it and are you democratic or not and allow for real personal and even economic freedom, including a free press, free speech and a true opposition. Or do you concentrate so much power in the central government, the executive and head of state. To look after and take care of everyone else for them. Which is what happened in Cuba fifty-five years ago and perhaps would happen in Venezuela if the Neo-Communists there were allowed to hold on power indefinitely.

What the Venezuelan people did with their Assembly elections is to say that there’s a limit to what they expect one government and one political party to do for them and what they’ll allow to do to them. That you can’t blame America and Venezuela’s allies for all the problems that are going on in Venezuela. That at some point a political party, the Neo-Marxist Socialist Party in Venezuela that has had all the power in Caracas for the last 16 years has to take responsibility for the condition of the country.

Sheldon Richman: The Phony Mystery of Why They Hate Us

Source:Free Association

I don't tend to use the phrase of 'why they hate us', because it is a Far-Left way of almost justifying the 9-11 attacks without actually saying that. As if the 9-11 attacks are justifiable revenge for American Middle-Eastern policy. And then you have to go into who is they and do they really hate us or not. Its clear the Jihadist's not only hate American foreign policy and national security policy, America values and are liberal democratic values, American individualism and everything else. But that doesn't mean the average person in the Arab World hates us.

But the average person in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and other countries in the Arab World if anything likes those things about Americans. They don't like everything about American culture, but they tend to like us. And a reason why a lot of them have emigrated over here to make a better life for themselves and to escape the authoritarianism from their own country. They want to build a quality life for themselves and live in freedom while they stay true to their own Arab and religious values that they brought from home.

I can give you excellent reasons why Arabs hate American foreign policy and our national security policy as it relates to the Middle-East and perhaps in general. Its the hypocrisy of it. We claim to be big champions of liberal democracy in individual freedom on one hand, as we back big government statist  authoritarian regimes who are the complete opposite of what we preach and practice at home. We claim to support individual freedom at home and even abroad while we back Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and his authoritarian regime. The same thing with the Shah in Iran in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. President Jimmy Carter even called the Shah a model of stability and leadership in the Middle East in 1977. And the Shah is thrown out of power by his own people just more than a year later.

America, at one point during the Cold War, were allies with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, because he invaded the Islamic Republic of Iran. America has a seventy-year history of backing authoritarian dictators and regimes while we claim to be champions of liberal democracy and freedom. And Arabs on the ground who hate their authoritarian regimes, see through the American hypocrisy of it and stand up and even risk their lives as a result. And fall victims to Islamic theocratic radicals who if anything are even worst than the authoritarians that they want to replace. Which is what happened to Iran in the late 1970s as they became the Islamic Republic of Iran. And what happened to Afghanistan in the 1990s after they defeated Russia with American help and Islamic theocratic Taliban comes to power there.

The justification for American backing of Middle-Eastern dictators and their regimes has always been, "that if we don't do this, those regimes will fall, because they don't have the backing of their people and something worst will come in and replace it. Who would be anti-American." Well, what do you call the Islamic Republic in Iran? They came to power by overthrowing the Iranian Monarchy that was backed by America and Britain. What do you call ISIS in Iraq and Syria? They came to power in Iraq, because Iraq couldn't or wouldn't defend itself and had their own corrupt government led by Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. We're still backing the Islamic Kingdom in Saudi Arabia, who still treats their women like slaves and second-class women. Who put people to death for being gay. Who finances schools and groups that put out this anti-Western and American propaganda.

Not saying that if America stopped backing Middle-Eastern dictators, or that he we never did that in the first place, that those countries would back Western liberal democratic values and individual freedom. Maybe they would replace those military and Marxist dictatorships with Far-Right Islamic theocratic states. The Arab World has no history of liberal democracy, liberal democratic values and individual freedom. But if you want to promote liberal democracy and freedom, you do that by encouraging people to get behind it and backing people who support it and would bring it to their country. Not by backing regimes that are anti-freedom and completely Un-democratic. What America has done is to back authoritarianism and statism in the name of American foreign policy interests. And the people in those countries see right through that propaganda.

Notes On Liberty: Brandon Christensen: From The Comments: A Libertarian Solution to DAESH (ISIS/ISIL) & The Civil War in Syria

Source:The New Democrat

An interesting idea to dealing with ISIS and the Syrian Civil War. But I gotta tell you its a non-starter. The idea that Turkey would unilaterally give up Kurdistan whether it’s in Turkey, Syria, or even Iraq, where they’re now involved in taking on Iraqi forces there that they are claim are terrorists, it aint happening. America, Iraq and Europe, who are all now involved in trying to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria, need Turkey on our side here. And they are already there bombing ISIS in Syria and we could use their troops on the ground as well. They know the land and people, being neighbors and everything else.

America, can’t take out ISIS by ourselves, or take out Bashar Al-Assad by ourselves. Unless you want to occupy another country 20-25 million people who doesn’t like us. And then end up being bailed out ourselves financially, by the IMF or even China, because we’re already so heavy in debt. And American taxpayers simply won’t pay for this especially if we’re by ourselves again in another Arab-Muslim land and country that doesn’t like us. And our taxpayers aren’t going to pay for this in either new taxes or budget cuts to programs they care about.

Which leaves us to a non-libertarian non-dovish and isolationist solution here. Which is called liberal internationalism and putting together a broad coalition that includes America, as well as Europe, Turkey, Iraq, the Iraqi-Kurds, to not only destroy ISIS and knock them completely out of power like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but knocks the Assad Regime out of power as well. America and Europe through the air in what is called a no fly zone, which is what we did in Libya four years ago. Turkey, the Syrian rebels, Iraq and hopefully Saudi Arabia and Jordan on the ground.

And tell that Russian bullish asshole Vlad Putin, that he can be part of the solution here and have a stake in the new Syria where millions of Syrians don’t want to overthrow their own government, because they’re no longer living under a Baathist psycho dictator, or they can be part of the problem. And risk having another one of their planes shot down in Syria this time. But from a first-world NATO jet, or firepower. America, can’t do this ourselves, certainly Iraq and Syria can’t do it either. We could take out Bashar Al-Assad and his regime by ourselves, but again that would leave us with another mid-size to big country that we would be stuck occupying. We have to do this through coalition.

The National Interest: Robert Farley: 'What If America Had 'Eliminated' Saddam Hussein?'

Source:The National Interest- American fighter jets. 

"In the early days of the air campaign of the 1991 Gulf War, the United States undertook a concerted effort to track and strike Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The effort was predicated on the belief that eliminating Saddam Hussein would have two effects; it would throw the Iraqi military hierarchy into chaos, and it would make the surviving Iraqi leadership more amenable to a negotiated solution." 

From The National Interest

To answer Robert Farley's question: I think the answer would be chaos. If you think 2003 was a bad time to invade and take out the Hussein Regime in Iraq, especially the unilateral way we did it, that would have been a great time compared with 1991. 

If we had taken out Saddam in 1991 and he's either replaced by another Baathist dictator like one of his sons and what would we have gained from that? Or almost twenty-five years later we're still trying to occupy Iraq today. America, was in recession in 1991 and had its own economic and financial problems at home. And couldn't afford to take on the responsibility of occupying another big country.

And the economic boom that we had in the 1990s probably doesn't come about in America, because we're spending so much money in Iraq. At least in 2003 there was something that looked like an opposition and there were people that could come in and at least temporarily run the Iraqi Republic. It just took them more than two-years after the invasion to make that come about. There wasn't any at least moderate opposition to the Baathists in 1991. There was Saddam and his Baathists and anyone who opposed them risked their own lives as a result.

The 1991 Gulf War was a very simply and well-executed. Get Iraq out of Kuwait and protect our economic and energy interests in Kuwait. That war was in the national and self-interest of the United States to not have a Baathist dictator in charge of one of the largest oil suppliers in the world to go on top of his already large supply of oil and gas in Iraq. This was not some idealistic neoconservative utopian war that was about bringing freedom and liberal democracy to a country of twenty-million that had no idea what those things were.

President George H.W. Bush and his National Security Council, didn't want to invade and occupy a country about the size of California in land and about the same population as Texas. Just because Iraq invaded Kuwait, an Arab ally of America's. All they wanted to do was get Iraq out of Kuwait and put Iraq in a tight box so they couldn't invade anyone else again. Which they remained in for the next twelve years with Iraq being so weak that they had a hard time feeding themselves. In were never in any position to attack another country again.

The 1991 Gulf War, was conservative foreign policy and national security at its best. Protect American national interests which was the energy supply coming from Kuwait. Which has a peaceful and moderate regime, as well as a strong economy. And get an evil tyrant out of that country and box him in so he can't invade anyone else. Not to bring peace and liberal democracy to a country that has never heard of those things. The Gulf War, was probably H.W. Bush's finest days as President of the United States, with the grand coalition of European and Arab allies that he bad behind him. And why you wanted someone who his professional and national security background as Commander-In-Chief in a time like that. 

Instead of having a dove in there who generally sees American strength and use of force as a bad if not evil thing, who tends to be against the American military and things that it does. 

Or someone in there who would've done nothing and froze, because they didn't know what to do. Because they lacked the experience and judgement in foreign affairs. And another reason why the 2003 Iraq War was an unnecessary mistake, because we already had Saddam under control and so weak to the point that Iraq didn't even bother defending themselves in that war. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

The American Conservative: Tom Switzer- 'Dean of the Realists'

Source:The American Conservative- "Owen Harries/ photo courtesy of the Lowery Institute." From TAC.

"When the first issue of The National Interest was published in 1985, its editor, Owen Harries, proclaimed an affinity between realpolitik and conservatism. By this he meant that realism—a foreign policy that respected the primacy of self-interest as a motive and of power as a means in an anarchic international system—reflected a conservative temperament. After all, both realism and conservatism put “their stress on what is, rather than what should or might be.” Both “emphasize the importance of circumstance and are suspicious of abstract theory and general principles as bases for action.” And both are “aware of the intractability of things and the difficulties and dangers involved in attempting sweeping changes.”

For Harries, realism was not incompatible with the pull to incorporate moral principles into foreign policy; democratic values simply had to be treated as one among many interests. Looking back to George Washington’s Farewell Address of 1797, Harries pointed to the first president’s clear-eyed assertion that U.S. interests must not be compromised by “permanent alliances,” which in turn might undermine America’s diplomatic flexibility. Harries also reminded his readers that John Quincy Adams warned that freedoms at home would only be tarnished by wars abroad. In Adams’s words, America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Were she to “become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.” Not for Harries any ideological crusades or grandiose plans for global social engineering.

Yet when the foreign-policy journal he edited was officially launched at the Sheraton Carlton (now St. Regis) in Washington on October 9, 1985, guests were a Who’s Who of leading neoconservatives, including Irving Kristol, editor of The Public Interest; former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick; former chairman of Council of Economic Advisers Martin Feldstein; Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams; Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz; writers Gertrude Himmelfarb and Midge Decter; and the rising 35-year-old star columnist Charles Krauthammer. Writing in the Washington Post to mark the event, future Hillary Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal adjudged: “In an effort to influence the foreign-policy agenda, a group of neo-conservatives is rolling out what its members consider their ultimate weapon.”

From The American Conservative 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

The National Interest: Peter Harris: 'Losing the International Order: Westphalia, Liberalism and Current World Crises'

"The war in Syria demonstrates the limits of the Westphalian system—but it's still the best rulebook we have."

From The National Interest

"Speaking from the State Floor in the White House on September 10, 2014, President Obama addressed the nation on the situation in Iraq and the United States’ strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL, a terrorist organization."

Source:The Obama White House- President Barack Obama, speaking at The White House.

From The Obama White House

To put it mildly the world is a lot more complicated now and the developed world which is mostly in the West is different now and less united than it once was. America and Europe, still believe in great liberal values like freedom of speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, personal freedom, self-ownership, the ability for one to live freely and make a good life for themselves and basic human rights and civil liberties. And even though we’re no longer fighting Marxism and Communism in general at least in the traditional sense, the West is dealing with a different type of authoritarianism that in many cases is not state-sponsored and organized from some authoritarian state.

Islamism, and private Islamist groups, have now replaced Marxism as the main competitor when it comes to liberalism and liberal values. The liberal order, to use a German term, is now facing Islamism as its main enemy when it comes to whether countries are going to live in free societies that are governed responsibly. Or are they going to live in the stone ages where women, gays and non-Muslims are treated like second or third-class citizens and even prisoners. The West and their Arab allies, haven’t figured out how to deal with Islamism and ISIS effectively yet. For one, a lot of those Arab states don’t believe in liberal values and human rights and are just looking to protect their own authoritarian regimes and monarchies, but don’t want to move to some fourth or fifth-world theocracy. The other being the West, America and Europe, aren’t sure about how much they are willing to invest to fight ISIS in Arabia.

This is a different battle or war taking on Islamism than the Cold War. During the Cold War, the main and really only major enemy to America and Europe was Russia and their Marxist Soviet Union. The People’s Republic of China, was still a very poor Marxist society similar to North Korea today for most of the Cold War. With Islamism, it’s not countries that we have to fight for the most part. But groups and groups powerful enough to knock out weak government’s and states and take at least part for their land. As they’ve done in both Iraq and Syria. But the only way you defeat a group like ISIS is through a strong broad committed coalition, which is what liberal internationalism is. That is going to go in and take on ISIS until they’ve defeated them. If you want to protect liberal democracy, liberal values and free societies, you have to fight for them and be united behind that.

The National Interest: Christopher A. Preble: Expecting More From Our Allies

The National Interest: Opinion: Christopher A. Preble: Expecting More from Our Allies: Why U.S. Foreign Policy Needs a Reboot

You can't be both a Neoconservative who wants America to police the world mostly if not completely by ourselves and be a fiscal Conservative who puts real limits on what government can do. Who doesn't want to consistently be borrowing money, running up deficits and expects government to pay for most if not all of its government operations as least when times are good. Speaking as a non-fiscal conservative, but fiscal Conservatives prioritize government spending. They lay out what is the money coming in and figure out exactly what government needs to do and then they pay for it.

A Progressive, is different and would try to figure out exactly what government should do without putting many if any limits on it and try to figure out how to pay for it. Even if that requires borrowing the money. Same thing with Neoconservatives who actually tend to be somewhat progressive when it comes to economic policy. George W. Bush in the 2000s, is an example of that. Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, who wanted to use government to move people out of poverty through work and job training. And encourage business's to hire people on Welfare. Speaker Paul Ryan, very similar today.

So if you just look at foreign policy and national security from a fiscal conservative point of view and not from a liberal internationalist or smart power point of view, or even a dovish perspective, having American taxpayers pay for the national security of other developed countries who can economically afford and have the population to defend themselves, doesn't make good fiscal sense, or even national security sense. Also it is not just American taxpayers who pay for other developed countries national defense in taxes. They also pay for it in higher interest rates because of the national debt and that we borrow from countries like Saudi Arabia and Japan, to defend them.

Out of all the Republican presidential candidates, maybe three of them are actually fiscal Conservatives. In party that is supposed to be a conservative party. And I'm thinking Senator Rand Paul, Governor John Kasich and perhaps Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Marco Rubio, wants to spend another trillion-dollars on national defense and invest even more money in having America try to defend Europe for Europe and Arabia for Arabia, Japan for Japan and South Korea for South Korea. All of the countries are developed countries that can afford to defend themselves. Saudi Arabia and South Korea, already have two of the largest militaries and defense budgets in the world. The European Union if they were a country, their economy would be roughly the size of the United States. How come they can't pay for their own national defense? They can, but have chosen not to. Why pay for your own defense, when someone else does that for you. The mind of a Socialist I guess.

America, can't afford to have a small military and defense budget, but we sure as hell can't afford to police the world ourselves. Especially when we're stuck with a twenty-trillion-dollar national debt and we're borrowing money from countries in order to defend the countries that we're borrowing money from. For America to be as secure as possible, financially, economically and security, other countries especially Europe, has to at least play their own part when it comes to their own national defense, as well as dealing with international challenges when they come as well like Syria and Iraq. Socialism, is cheap when you don't have to pay for your own security. Europe, would be a lot less socialist if they had to pay for their own defense and not expect America to do that for them.

Mal Partisan: ISIS Must be Destroyed, But it Won’t be Easy

Source:The New Democrat

For anyone to say that this is just about revenge for what happened in Paris and that I and others are scared that this could happen in Washington, or some other great big American city, I have some questions for you.

One, what are you smoking?

Two, how long have you been high?

Three, is what you’re smoking legal in the United States?

Four, can I have whatever you’re smoking?

This is not about what happened in Paris and seeking revenge. At most Paris was the tipping point and the smoking gun that has now united America with Europe, (there’s an odd couple) together to want to now destroy ISIS. President Obama, called for air strikes against ISIS in Syria, as well as to protect the innocent Syrian people in the late summer of 2013, but neither chamber of Congress would even officially debate that. Or update the Iraq War Resolution to include ISIS. Which I supported as well that is on this blog. ISIS is not new, they’ve been around at least since the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the early summer of 2003 and since the start of the Syrian Civil War.

For anyone who believes in great liberal values that I share like minority rights, protection of women from bad men that would abuse them, freedom to practice, or not practice religion and individual freedom in general, whose not a pacifist, should want to destroy ISIS. Not contain them or want to work with them. If they surrender, that would be one thing, but destroy them and put them completely out of the terrorism business and give Islam back to who it belongs to. Which are peaceful Muslims who go about their everyday business and live their everyday lives.

I’m not calling for some neoconservative unilateral five-hundred-thousand American troop invasion of Syria. To knockout Bashar Al-Assad and is horrible regime and to take out ISIS ourselves. As once we again we try to occupy another Middle Eastern Muslim country. But America has to play its part and at the very least supply the air power while Europe and the Arab League, or Turkey, Iraq and Kurdistan, provide the ground troops to destroy ISIS, as well as the Bashar Al-Assad forces. So a responsible Syrian coalition can take over the government there.

The only way to knockout both ISIS and the Al-Assad regime, is through the air where America has to play a role there. As well as an international ground force on the ground from NATO to pound the Al-Assad and ISIS forces on the ground. This is not about revenge, or even sweet revenge. This is about justice and not just for Paris, but for all the other innocent people who ISIS has murdered. Including Muslims, even though ISIS has the balls to call themselves Muslims. And America has to play its role here, along with Europe, Iraq and Kurdistan, to get this mission accomplished.

The National Interest: Leslie Gelb: What Should Be The Purpose of American Power?

The National Interest: Blog: Leslie Gelb: What Should Be The Purpose of American Power?

I believe Les Gelb has the right attitude here and he’s someone who knows about American Power being the President of the Council of Foreign Relations. American Power, it depends on how you define it. I find think of most Americans when they think of American Power think of the U.S. Armed Forces and the broader National Security State. Like the Central Intelligence Agency, to use as an example. But our entire National Security Council is part of American Power. Which includes the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, as well as our Treasury Department.

See American Power, is our Armed Forces, and the National Security State, but it is also our economy. The stronger our economy is, the better our military can be. The more effective our economic sanctions against terrorist states can be. The main reason we won the Cold War against Russia, is because our economic strength. Their Marxist system simply failed their country. And their people had enough and you saw all of those non-ethnic Russian Soviet Republics break up and form their own countries. America, probably had a stronger military than Russia during the Cold War. But our economy and economic system was the main weapon there.

Now the purpose of American Power again using the NSC and economy to make America as strong as it can be. So we never have to worry about our own security. At least in the sense that someone could invade us, or wipe out a section of our country, or even attack us from the air. Which is where we’ve always have been at least since Pearl Harbor. The purpose of American Power is not to rule the world, or even police the world. At least by ourself, but to use our power to more than adequately defend us when needed. And to advance our interests and values that a lot of the world already shares.

I agree with Les Gelb, that America is and should be the strongest leader in the world. Simply because we are and there isn’t another democratic developed nation in the world that is capable of replacing us, or even coming close. But being the strongest leader in the world and the most powerful country economically and everything else, is different from being the leader of the world. And having to take all the risks and pay all the price when some crisis develops around the world. While everyone else debates what America should be doing at the debating society known as the United Nations. While they don’t do anything themselves.

The National Interest: Paul R. Pillar: Right and Wrong Lessons From the Iraq War

The National Interest: Opinion: Paul R. Pillar: Right and Wrong Lessons From the Iraq War

I believe I know how Peter Beinart, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry, feel about the 2003 Iraq War. See, I supported it to. I thought it would be a good opportunity to one, eliminate a brutal Middle Eastern dictator in Saddam Hussein. Perhaps one of the top three most evil dictators of the 20th Century. I at least would put him in the same bastard class as Joe Stalin and Adolph Hitler. And the idea of Saddam being allowed to continue to had weapons of mass destruction to be used against his own people, or use them against others, or perhaps sell them to terrorists, was unacceptable to me.

I wish I had the foresight of Dick Durbin. Who when was one of I believe twenty-two Senate Democrats who voted against the war. Sometimes it helps to be in Congress especially with a national security role and serving on one of those committees. And then maybe I would’ve seen the same lack of evidence that Saddam still even had WMD and a competent military, let alone a nuclear weapons program. Remember, the original justification for invading Iraq in 2002-03 and original being the key word here, is to prevent Saddam from obtaining nuclear weapons. Not to save a large country from a brutal dictator.

The lessons for Iraq, I think are pretty simple. Don’t invade a country unilaterally without a plan for the aftermath. What the country could look like in the short and long-terms after the regime is kicked out. Once you eliminate another country’s government, you then have the responsibility for governing that country until they can do that for themselves. That is what occupation is about.

If you’re going to invade another country simply to eliminate a brutal authoritarian regime and that country is not currently a threat to you, don’t do it unilaterally. Make the case the case to the country’s neighbors and your allies that the regime has to go, so we can save the people there from future murders and a genocide. Build a coalition to not only take out the regime, but to occupy the country in the short-term in the aftermath. Work with the opposition on the ground if you can and get their assistance.

The last lesson and I think might be the most important, other than believing the current evidence on the ground and not taking out the weapons inspectors before they’ve completed their work and this has more to do with the Iraq Civil War than anything else, is don’t try to fight for a country that won’t fight for themselves. One of the reasons why we’re still trying to assist Iraq twelve years after we knocked the Hussein Regime out of power, is because the Bush Administration set no deadlines. They said we would be there as long as we need to be. The new Iraq Government took that as forever and didn’t do their part to make sure that their country could be secure.

I know I said last lesson already, but I’ll close with this. And you can talk about hindsight all you want, but we had weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. They were finding nothing and again I go back to the original justification point for the original reason to invade Iraq which was to eliminate their WMD and nuclear weapons program. But as the years went on the Bush Administration kept coming up for new reasons for invading Iraq.

And they finally settled on Saddam was evil and brutal and needed to go. If they took that to Congress even with a Republican House and a divided Senate, their Iraq War Resolution would’ve have never gotten approved. The American people wouldn’t have backed it. We know now that the original reason for invading Iraq that Congress and the country backed was never justified and backed up even at the time of the war.

The National Interest: Scott MacDonald- 'This Is Not Your Parents' Caribbean'

"Change is coming from multiple directions, driven by a thawing of U.S.-Cuban relations, Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, and the decline of Venezuela’s regional influence...."

Source:The National Interest

Source:Carib Nation TV- Talking about a Caribbean single market.

"The CARICOM Single Market and Economy is intended to benefit the people of the Region by providing more and better opportunities to produce and sell our goods and services and to attract investment. It will create one large market among the participating member states...

From Carib Nation TV

There are a lot of opportunities and challenges in the Caribbean especially with Cuba coming back from the dead so to speak with its economy and having restarted diplomatic relations with America again. And will become heavy trading partners that will benefit both economies. Cuba, the largest island nation in the Caribbean will see a lot of money coming into their country as a result. Cuba, very similar to Florida as far as its physical beauty climate and tourist attractions. And culturally South Florida is very similar to Cuba. But with a much better economy and infrastructure system.

With Cuba on the move again, that could hurt struggling little Caribbean states that are already struggling economically and could do even worst in the future with more money and people going to Cuba. Which is the challenge for Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Dominican, Haiti, Bahamas and others. But with challenges tend to come with opportunities. The whole Caribbean region is an area of forty-five-million people roughly. But with the biggest country being Cuba with a eleven-million people. The Dominican, has around ten-million people. Maybe its time that these countries get together and restructure their debts and deficits and do what Europe did back in the 1940s and 1950s.

To look at a Caribbean Union, or some type of West Indie Alliance where they become one economic market. That everyone would want to trade and invest with. Because one Indie market would be a lot bigger and wealthier than fifteen, or so mostly very small states like the Bahamas and Barbados. As well as having a joint defense alliance and foreign policy coordinator and even law enforcement alliance. Because Cuba, is coming back and will be even stronger economically than they were pre-Fidel Castro and the Marxist Revolution there. And Cuba could become part of this West Indie Alliance as well. Especially if their human rights record improves and perhaps even lead the Alliance.

The National Interest: Albert Carnesale: Deal or No Deal: The Choice Before Congress

Source:null

Albert Carnesale, in his National Interest piece, makes a good point about Congressional Republicans. And maybe the problem they’re having is that America unlike Europe and a lot of other places, does not have a true opposition leader and opposition leadership. One opposition leader and their leadership who represents the alternative to the administration in power. And when they disagree with the administration they can lay out exactly what they don’t like about administration policy and what they would do differently. What we have in America for the opposition party, is several different leaderships, but not one that can bring the whole party together. Which makes it difficult especially when the opposition party is already divided to begin with to pay out a clear alternative to administration policy.

Senate Marco Rubio and other Congressional Republicans say that there is a clear alternative to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. But they’re essentially advocating for the status quo. Which is common with Conservatives. “Don’t rock the boat, keep things as are” and so-forth. They’re arguing for continuing the economic sanctions and basically preying that the United Kingdom, Europe, Russia and China do the same things. The problem is our partners in this deal which is why it’s called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action have already agreed to the deal and are going forward with it.

And part of that is sanctions relief for a failing Iranian economy. And Republicans, also argue just continue with the economic sanctions on Iran, while everyone else isn’t. The problem with that is the sanctions have already severely hurt the Iranian economy going back to 2005. And now even under all of that economic pressure are now closer to a nuclear weapon then they were ten years ago. Some Republicans say get a better deal. But what would be a better deal. The whole point of a deal and compromise is that you give up something in order to get something in return that you value more.

The definition of a deal, or compromise to Neoconservatives seems to be total surrender. Iran, gives up their nuclear weapons and we won’t invade them. Which is not something that Congressional Republicans are willing to do as far invading Iran right now and perhaps not even trying to hit Iran from the air. And obviously Iran wouldn’t agree to that. I mean if you make that offer to them, they would simply walk away. And to talk to people who know how to negotiate. Iran, will get real economic relief for their economy which they obviously need. But in exchange they’ll give up their nuclear weapons program, if they live up to their end. And if they don’t we’ll catch them if they try to cheat and they’ll pay a price for that as well.

So what Albert Carnesale said in his National Interest piece, “Deal or No Deal”, he’s right on point. Because this is the only deal that is on the table, or has even been offered. House Republicans, haven’t put any alternatives on the table. Senate Republicans, haven’t offered any alternatives either. None of the Republican presidential candidates even the ones with real foreign policy experience like Senator Lindsay Graham, has offered an alternative to the JCPA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. So the JCPA, is the only deal on the table. If America walks, we walk alone while the UK, European Union, Russia and China move forward without us. And if this deal is fully implemented, they would get the credit for it.

The National Interest: Matthew Del Santo: The Next Superpower: Is a United States of Europe Possible?

Source:The New Democrat

To answer Matthew Del Santo’s question, yes. But it would depend on how a Federal Europe, Federal States of Europe, or whatever this new Euro State would be called, would look like. This idea that it would simply be an economic zone, but where the central authority lets say led by Germany, could veto other states budgets, simply won’t fly. That would be like a bird trying to take off without their wings. France, Italy, Spain, would never go along with that and you put their populations together and you’re talking about one-hundred and seventy-million people. With a GDP somewhere around six-trillion dollars, or Euros.

I believe if a European superstate, or a Federal Europe were to emerge, it would be exactly that. A Federal Europe with a federalist system and constitution. Where the states would maintain their own autonomy over their own domestic affairs. But where the federal government would come in to handle the currency, national security and foreign policy. As well as dealing with interstate crime and commerce. Each state would retain their welfare states, instead of having the federal government trying to manage a large welfare state, or safety net, from lets say Brussels, where the European Union capital is. A Federal States of Europe lets say, would look similar to the United States of America. As far as states in relation to the federal government.

I believe this would be the only way a Federal Europe could work. Because the leaders of these countries would have to sell this idea and new union to their people. About how it would benefit them, the economy, national security and foreign policy, to have a Federal State with a population of over three-hundred-million people who would now become economically, militarily, politically and perhaps even energy independent and emerge as the next democratic developed superpower in the world. As opposed of being part of a large country of eighty-million people, like Germany, or sixty-five-million like France, that is so dependent on other countries for their well-being like America. Instead this one united country would be able to take control over and manage their own affairs instead.

The Washington Post: Anne Applebaum: Greece is a Turning Point For The European Union

Source:The New Democrat

Wow! I actually agree with Anne Applebaum on something. I tend to see her as a Neoconservative, at least when it comes to foreign policy and national security. But she’s damn right in most if not her entire piece about Greece and Europe.

The problem with the Euro, the European currency, is that you have a large developed country like Germany of eighty-plus million people, thats economy looks more like America and Canada, than it does Sweden. Germany, is not a socialist state, they can’t really afford to be one. They invest heavily and education, energy and infrastructure. They promote free trade and private economic development in their country. They require people who can, to work and take care of their health care through their private health care system. And as a result, they are now the power in Europe. Economic, but have real political and defense as well and are the fourth largest economy in the world. With living standards, that are equal, or better than America’s.

But then you have a small semi-developed country like Greece. Where the average Greek, makes about 1/3 of the average German, or American. That is dependent on other countries for its defense, energy and economy. They’re drowning in debt right now. That has one of the largest socialist state’s in the free world. As far as how much their national government spends for its people. Socialists, don’t believe there’s a limit to what government can do for their people. Or how much government can spend for their people. They don’t believe debts and deficits matter and even now as Greece is drowning in their own debt, they still don’t believe that they should have to tighten their belts and cut back on their services. And expect others like Germany, that is very successful economically, to bail them out.

When the Euro was created in Europe in the late 1990s, the idea was that instead of having 25-30 small to medium-sized markets in Europe, you would create one huge market of three-hundred plus million people. That the whole world would want to invest in. On paper, that sounds like a very good idea. And they had strict requirements on debt and deficits. That each member couldn’t let those things reach like four-percent of their economy. And had to manage their financial affairs and not run up high debt and deficits. But again, Greece is one of the members of the Euro and is a socialist unitarian state. That doesn’t believe debt and deficits matter and that there’s no limit to what the state can do for their people. And that they can run up debts and deficits, because their socialism will make their economy stronger. Or someone, like Germany, will bail them out. And Greece, is paying a heavy price for their socialism right now.

A united currency amongst several different countries, doesn’t work very well, unless you have strong rules and rule enforcement and similar economies and economic systems. Which is one of the reasons why Sweden isn’t part of the Euro, because they have a similar economic system as Greece, but are energy independent and can afford their socialism. The idea of having a single market in Europe, makes sense, but the best way to do that is to have a single state, a federal state. With one economy and economic system. With a federal authority to manage the currency and economy. Manage the debt and deficit, negotiate trade deals with other countries, encourage economic investment in the country. From domestic and foreign business’s. As well as defend and secure the country.

A federalist, not federal, but a Federalist Europe, a united European country, that would go from lets say Portugal in the Southwest, to Italy in the Southeast and Belgium in the Northwest and Poland in the Northeast, would benefit all of these Euro States in several ways. You would be talking about the first, or second largest developed economy and country in the world. That could replace NATO with a united European defense, that would be more than capable of defending itself and become a great strong ally of the United States and the United Kingdom and serve as a deterrent to the Russian Federation. With one president, one administration, one Assembly, or Parliament and federal court system all under one federal government. But where the Euro States, would have autonomy over their state and domestic affairs. With the federal government being in charge of interstate and national affairs.

Not saying a Federal State of Europe will ever happen and certainly not happen soon. But for a Euro, or Eurozone to work as well as it possibly can, you need the member states to have either similar economies and living standards, or agree not to let the government spending get out of control. You can’t afford to have a Greece, or a Portugal, or big states like France and Italy, to drown themselves in debt and watch their economies sink and drive down the worth of the Euro. Which makes thinks tough for the rest of the states in the Union. Because they lose customers and investment opportunities when one, or several of their trading partners sinks in debt and depression.

Thomas Sowell: Who Lost Iraq?

Source:The New Democrat

Thomas Sowell, said in his piece that China wasn’t America’s to lose in the 1940s, but then suggested President Barack Obama lost Iraq. As if Iraq was America’s to lose. Last time I checked, America doesn’t own Iraq. We no longer occupy Iraq. This might be the first and last time that I’ll ever quote Vladimir Putin on anything, at least something that I agree with him on. But he was asked about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. And he said, “a country that can’t defend itself, is not a country.” What I would add to that is a country that can’t, or won’t defend itself and Iraq certainly qualifies as that, is just a piece a land where people live.

During President Bush’s administration, it took them four years just to get Iraq stabilized. Because they didn’t have enough troops to occupy the country in the first place. And under the Bush/Cheney policy, America would stay in Iraq until there are no longer any dangers and security challenges in Iraq. They would say that we would stay there until Iraq can defend and govern themselves. Which tells Iraq that they don’t need to defend and govern themselves, because America will always do that for them and our taxpayers will always pay for the government and defense of their country.

President Obama, figured this out pretty quickly when he came to office in 2009. That for Iraq to ever become stabilize and be a place that can govern and defend itself, they need to know that America won’t be there to that for them indefinitely. That they need a government and security forces than can take care of and defend the country themselves. That the Obama Administration will work with and help the Iraqi Government as long as the Iraqi Government and the Iraq people are doing what they can for themselves. Under the Maliki Government in Iraq, what they did was centralize more power with the Central Government, especially with Prime Minister Al-Maliki and became corrupt. And lost the trust of the Iraq people and lost their power as a result.

Iraq, post-War in Iraq and Saddam Hussein, has had their own government for ten years now, going back to 2005. We’ve been training their defense forces for what twelve years now. And that’s because the Bush Administration kicked out the old Iraqi military and they started from scratch. In the midst of a civil war in Iraq. A country that can’t and won’t defend itself, is not a country. Iraq was never America’s to lose, because we never owned it. We went in their by ourselves for the most part and have paid for most of the costs of our being there and occupation. Along with millions of Iraqi’s who have died. If anyone lost Iraq, it was Iraq themselves.

The National Interest: Seyed Hossein Mousavian: How to Fix The Syrian Mess

The Nation Interest: Opinion: Seyed Hossein Mousavian: How to Fix The Syrian Mess

Source:The New Democrat

I think I found an issue where I agree with Senator John McCain on. Someone who when it comes to foreign policy we rarely agree on anything. It is about Syria where four years ago I believe a NATO no fly zone was a good idea to stop the Assad Regime from murdering its own people, simply because they opposed the Assad Regime and made those feelings public. A no fly zone over Syria or at least parts of it would give the Syrian rebels a fighting chance, literally of taking out the current government there. Or at least bring President Bashar Al-Assad to the negotiating table and negotiate how he would step down from power peacefully.

One of the mistakes that America made in Iraq in 2003, is the same mistake that both America and Europe made in Libya in 2011. Which was to take out the current government including the military without anything to go in and immediately replace the government. So the country could function while they are transitioning and building their new country. So knocking out Bashar in Syria shouldn’t be the ultimate goal at least through military means. But to bring him to the negotiating table to get him to step down from power. And transition to a new government that could and would govern the country responsibly and respect the human rights of their people.

Bashar Al-Assad can’t govern a united Syria now or into the future. He’s lost the ability and credibility to do that. And leaving him in power even to help us take out ISIS there wouldn’t work either. Because he would go back to doing what he’s done before which started the crisis in the first place. All he’s interested in is staying in power at all costs. So what America and Europe could do is to aid the Syrian rebels in the air, but not arm them with lethal weapons. As the Syrian rebels take on the Assad Regime and at least bring Bashar to the negotiating table. But without destroying the government. Especially the military and law enforcement.

Foreign Policy Journal: Opinion: Paul Craig Roberts: The Neoconservative Threat to International Order

Foreign Policy Journal: Opinion: Paul Craig Roberts: The Neoconservative Threat to World Order

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

This is going to sound somewhat partisan at least from a Neoconservative’s perspective and if that is the case you’re more than welcome to way in on this and attempt to contradict me. But then I’ll get to Europe where I believe there is a lot of common ground on both the Left and Right when it comes to foreign policy and national security.

The reason why we are dealing with all of these independent terrorists groups now that are free to flow everywhere in Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia is because of the 2003 War in Iraq. ISIS didn’t exist pre-Iraq and yes the War in Afghanistan was something we had to do because the Taliban in Afghanistan were subsidizing and protecting the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. And even though it has taken a long time thanks to the War in Iraq and Afghan corruption that mission is starting to finally pay off. As that country is finally stabilizing and their economy is finally moving.

The Middle East was a fairly stable area pre-War in Iraq. And as horrible as the Saddam Regime was there and most people including myself are glad he’s no longer running that country and even dead, you didn’t have terrorists in Iraq killing Americans before the war. And you didn’t have terrorists occupying Northern Iraq and Northern Syria. Which would be ISIS today because the central government’s in both countries were strong enough to secure their countries even if they were horrible to their people.

You also didn’t have a jealous Vladimir Putin as President of Russia thinking who needed to make his own power play because of what America was doing to countries that were close to Russia. Part of President Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine has been that he doesn’t believe America should be the sole power in the world that can act unilaterally even in their own interests. The world was a much safer place in 2002 pre-Iraq when our main security threat was Al-Qaeda, a nuclear armed North Korea that still can’t even feed its people. And a potential terrorist state in Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Now where there I believe there is bipartisan agreement, lets look at Europe. Part of the rise of Russia has to do with the fall, or at least steep decline in Europe. Where only Germany as far as a large country in Europe has a healthy economy. But Europe is falling in population and young people and gaining in older people. Because they don’t take in many immigrants each year unlike America and as a result their social democratic economic systems are collapsing. Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Greece all drowning in high debt, and deficits, unemployment. Greece having to take a bailout package that is actually larger than their national economy to stay afloat. And have just elected a new socialist government that’s against austerity.

But if that is not bad enough for Europe, as their populations and economies continue to decline, so does their militaries. Where NATO is essentially just made up of America now as far as real military threat. And to a certain degree Britain, France and Germany to some extent. Europe is more than capable of responding to Russia in any way themselves at least as far as resources, but has chosen not to. Wouldn’t be great to go back to 2002 and far as the security situations for the Western world, but subtract George W. Bush for Al Gore and only be dealing with Afghanistan right now. But we of course can’t go back in time.

The National Interest: Jack Matlock: The House That Stalin Built

The National Interest: Jack Matlock: The House That Stalin Built

Source:The New Democrat

I saw a show on Book TV on C-SPAN last weekend with Stephen Kotkin who just wrote a book about Joe Stalin perhaps the most evil and worst dictator that at least Russia has ever produced if not in the history of the world. And it was a good show and Kotkin goes into how Stalin built the Soviet State essentially on his own and how he built Russian authoritarianism. He he was able to centralize so much power inside of not just Moscow and the Russian central government, but in how own presidency. And someone who was stupid at some people see Joe Stalin would’ve never had been that successful and been able to stay in power in Russia as long as he did.

Russia was a peasant third if not fourth world society like that of China fifty-years ago when Stalin became President of the Soviet Union in the mid 1920s. And he knew enough about economics and his own as well as Russia’s future that for them to accomplish what he wanted that they needed to develop their economy and move to the industrial age. Probably the only good thing that Stalin did for Russia was to create and industrial society and economy even under Marxist state-control. But he did that by creating state-owned industries and companies and then he would nationalize the Russian people. And make prisoners and slaves out of them in Soviet work camps. Sounds like North Korea, right.

Joe Stalin served as an inspiration for future evil dictators. Including Adolph Hitler, but then later Saddam Hussein in Iraq and I’m sure many others. You were either on Stalin’s side or he killed you. And even if you weren’t against him, he might still kill you anyway because of the horrible working conditions you were put under in his forced work camps. As far as the amount of innocent people who Stalin murdered including Russian-Jews and other non-ethnic-Russians in Russia, as well as ethnic-Russians, Joe Stalin is the worst dictator in world history. And should only be remembered as such.