Ronald Radosh's Blog, page 18

Strange Bedfellows in the British Anti-War Movement: Communists Take the Lead in Forcing British Labor’s Hand

In politics, sometimes we come across the “strange bedfellows” phenomenon: joint efforts towards a common goal by those one would ordinarily consider to be mortal enemies. In England, this seems to become a regular pattern quite often.

For many years, radical Islamists joined with British Trotskyists in support of radical clerics and in opposition to the war in Iraq. Secular Marxist-Leninists vigorously opposed to all religion stood alongside fundamentalist advocates of jihad because of their mutual hatred of the Western powers who stood against Saddam Hussein.

Now, strange bedfellows unite over the threat of pending military action in Syria — which collapsed in Britain over a week ago when Prime Minister Cameron lost his move in Parliament when Labor’s Ed Miliband, at the last moment, backtracked on his promise of support. Miliband instead rallied his forces to gain a majority against the PM’s proposed resolution.

Now, a writer for the Telegraph, Andrew Gilligan, has uncovered a new and similar alliance to the one that materialized during the war in Iraq. Calling it “friends of Assad,” Gilligan notes that — working under the pretense of opposition to war and in favor of peace — the actual goal of the groups uniting behind Miliband and British Labor is victory for Assad. They regard Assad as an opponent of American and British imperialism, much as the communists in the era of Clinton’s bombing of Kosovo supported Milosevic as Tito’s successor among the Serbs, and as a heroic opponent of NATO and the American empire.

Like International Answer in the United States, the British group cleverly called the  “Stop the War coalition” is in fact composed of different sects of communists.

Key Miliband donors in the Labor Party include leaders of the new coalition. The Communication Workers Union policy chief is the group’s treasurer; the TSSA union’s chief is Stop the War’s deputy president and former chairman. And these groups were the ones who pushed Miliband to change his position and betray his promise to Cameron.

Stop the War’s current president is Kamal Majid, “a veteran communist and founding member of the Stalin Society, created in 1991 to ‘defend Stalin and his work’ and to ‘refute capitalist, revisionist, opportunist and Trotskyist propaganda directed against him.’”

Last year, Majid actually called Assad not simply a “reformer” — as the early Obama administration dubbed the Syrian dictator — but a man whose family had “a long history of resisting imperialism” and who had to be supported “because their defeat will pave the way [in Syria] for a pro-Western and pro-U.S. regime.”

As for the rebellion against Assad? It was part of an “imperialist plan to replace the Syrian government with a puppet state … which will do the bidding of the Americans and Zionists.”

Another leader of the Stop the War Coalition is Andrew Murray, the chief of the Unite union and a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. The Communist Party’s leader last week called for efforts to stop “tipping the military balance against President Assad’s regime,” since Assad’s defeat would “remove a critic of U.S. foreign policy and the illegal Israeli occupation of Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese land.”

Communist Party International Secretary John Foster has called for “respect for the sovereignty and independence of Syria,” and “an end to the arming and financing of terrorist groups.” Keep in mind that he means not just al-Qaeda, which in this instance they oppose, but all groups and citizens of Syria opposed to Assad’s tyranny.

For the time being, the British pro-Stalin Communists have found themselves united as well with the even more sectarian British Trotskyists, including Socialist Action, whose website attacked “those on the Left who have mistakenly viewed the past two years’ battles in Syria as a progressive revolution.” Most recently, the group condemned the U.S. military, which it said was “preparing an immense assault on Syria.” It reminded the comrades: “U.S. imperialism does not make idle threats.” (I guess they have not included Barack Obama in their estimate of what America’s intentions are.) Also according to the group: “The proposed war is not about chemical weapons. Quite irrespective of whether the Assad regime used them or not, imperialism’s goal had been to remove the regime. The U.S. is planning a substantial intervention in Syria with the aim of qualitatively reducing Assad’s military and assisting the opposition forces.”

Evidently, the proposals made by John McCain and Lindsey Graham are confused by the group with the position of the U.S. government and the Obama administration.

Last May, Gilligan reports, the Stop the War Coalition hosted a talk by pro-Assad Syrian Issa Chaer, who joined the Stalinist CP leader Majid on the platform. Chaer described Assad as “the person who is now uniting the country,” and the Syrian people’s support for Assad, he argued, “gives President Assad the strength to carry on.”

Also aligned with the group is a pro-Iranian regime group called the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, or CASMII, whose chairman sits on the new coalition’s steering committee. Other members on the coalition’s board include a group in support of Hamas and which calls for a boycott of Israel.

What is important is that the group, not without reason, has claimed a leading role in causing Labor’s Ed Miliband to change course. It held a “Hands off Syria” mass rally in London last week, and told the crowds that Miliband’s new position showed that the demonstrations they led had worked.

Strange Bedfellows in the British Anti-war Movement: Communists Take the Lead in Forcing British Labor’s Hand

We all know that in politics, sometimes we come across the strange bedfellows phenomenon—joint efforts by those one would ordinarily think are mortal enemies, but who unite for a common goal.  In England, this seems to become a regular pattern quite quickly. For many years, radical Islamists joined together with British Trotskyists in support of radical clerics and in opposition to the war in Iraq. Secular Marxist-Leninists vigorously opposed to all religion stood alongside fundamentalist advocates of jihad because of their mutual hatred of the Western powers who stood against Saddam Hussein.

Now, the threat of pending military action in Syria, which collapsed in Britain over a week ago when Prime Minister Cameron lost his move in Parliament, when Labor’s chieftain Ed Miliband, at the last moment, backtracked on his promise of support to the government on behalf of a military strike against Syria and rallied his forces to gain a majority against the PM’s proposed resolution.

Now, a writer for the London Telegraph, Andrew Gilligan, has uncovered a new and similar alliance to the one that materialized during the war in Iraq. Calling it “Friends of Assad,” Gilligan notes that working under the pretense of opposition to war and in favor of peace, the actual goal of the groups uniting behind Miliband and British Labor is victory for Assad, whom they regard as an opponent of American and British imperialism—much as the Communists in the era of Clinton’s bombing of Kosovo supported Milosevic as a man they regarded as Tito’s successor among the Serbs, and as a heroic opponent of NATO and the American Empire.

Like International Answer in the United States, the British group cleverly called “The Stop the War Coalition” is in fact composed of different sects of Communists. Key Miliband donors in the Labor Party include leaders of the new coalition, including The Communication Workers’ Union whose policy chief is the group’s treasurer’ Unite and the TSSA union whose chief is Stop the War’s deputy president and former chairman. And these groups were the ones who pushed Miliband to change his position and at the last moment, betray his promise to Cameron.

The most interesting is that Stop the War’s current president is one Kamal Majid, “a veteran communist and founding member of the Stalin Society, created in 1991 to ‘defend Stalin and his work; and ‘refute capitalist, revisionist, opportunist and Trotskyist propaganda directed against him.” Last year, Majid actually called the Assad family not simply reformers, as the early Obama administration dubbed the Syrian dictator, but as a man whose family had “a long history of resisting imperialism” and who had to be supported “because their defeat will pave the way [in Syria] for a pro-Western and pro-US regime.” As for the rebellion against Assad, it was part of an “imperialist plan to replace the Syrian government with a puppet state…which will do the bidding of the Americans and Zionists.

Another leader of the Stop the War Coalition is Andrew Murray, the chief of the Unite union, and who also is a leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain. The British Communist group’s leader last week called for efforts to stop “tipping the military balance against President Assad’s regime,” since Assad’s defeat would “remove a critic of US foreign policy and the illegal Israeli occupation of Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese land.” The Party’s International Secretary, John Foster, has called for “respect for the sovereignty and independence of Syria” and “an end to the arming and financing of terrorist groups.” Keep in mind that he means not just Al Qaida, which in this instance they oppose, but all groups and citizens of Syria opposed to Assad’s tyranny.

For the time being, the British pro-Stalin Communists have found themselves united as well with the even more sectarian British Trotskyists, including Socialist Action, whose website attacked “those on the Left who have mistakenly viewed the past two years’ battles in Syria as a progressive revolution.” Most recently, the group condemned the U.S. military, which it said was “preparing an immense assault on Syria.” It reminded the comrades  “US imperialism does not make idle threats.” I guess they have not come across Barack Obama in their estimate of what America’s intentions are.

So, according to the group, “The proposed war is not about chemical weapons. Quite irrespective of whether the Assad regime used them or not, imperialism’s goal had been to remove the regime. The US is planning a substantial intervention in Syria with the aim of qualitatively reducing Assad’s military and assisting the opposition forces.” Evidently, the proposals made by John McCain and Lindsay Graham are confused by the group with the position of the U.S. government and the Obama administration.

Last May, Gilligan reports, the Stop the War Coalition hosted a talk by a pro-Assad Syrian, Issa Chaier, who joined the Stalinist CP leader Majid on the platform. Chaier described Assad as “the person who is now uniting the country,” and the Syrian people’s support for Assad, he argued, “gives President Assad the strength to carry on.”

Also aligned with the group is a pro-Iranian regime group, called The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, or CASMII, whose chairman sits on the new Coalition’s steering committee. Other members on the Coalition’s board include a group in support of Hamas and which calls for a boycott of Israel.

What is important is that the group, not without reason, has claimed a leading role in causing Labor’s Ed Miliband to change course.  It held a “Hands off Syria” mass rally in London last week, and told the crowds that Miliband’s new position showed that the demonstrations they led had worked.

Of course, British subjects know there are good reasons to oppose a military strike, and they understand the complications of the situation in Syria. But these groups are unabashedly pro-Assad, and have gained ground by being able to exploit the anti-war sentiment of the populace. They are supporters of Assad, the Iranian mullahs and Hamas, and are avowed enemies of democracy and the United States. Although they now oppose Al Qaida because of its fight against Assad, they have not hesitated to support its actions in the past, as when these elements of the British Left argued that 9/11 was a just rebuke to the American government and US imperialism.

As Gilligan writes, The Stop the War Coalition has “a least a certain brutal clarity: Assad is right and must win.” Ed Miliband is too smart to favor such a goal, and his stand against Cameron did not have a victory for Assad as his intent. But, this reader agrees with Gilligan’s conclusion: “Providing succor to the regime was, and is, quite clearly the intention of many of Mr. Miliband’s new friends.”

As usual, in opposing the position of the administration for a military strike, those who are against it must always remain vigilant and be able to recognize that not all opponents of war are made up of groups they should align with. Not all who take the same position are doing so for good reasons. In this country, Code Pink and Answer are lurking around the corner, and hopefully, will remain isolated and without influence. In some ways, we are way ahead of the Brits.

 

 

Theater of the Absurd: Obama and the Debate over Syria

As we wait for Godot — I mean President Obama’s address to the American people on Tuesday night — it looks at present as if both the House and Senate will not grant him the “yes” vote that he is seeking on a Syria strike.

I have read virtually every op-ed and argument on all sides of the question that have appeared, from people on both sides whose views I respect, and one of the problems is that there are good arguments to make on both sides. Today I watched Fox News Sunday, the impressive panel on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, which included General Wesley Clark and Paul Wolfowitz, and a separate interview with Bernard Henri-Levy. And of course, as readers know, I have exchanged arguments on this site with Bryan Preston.

On the interventionist side, I have considered the views of Bill Kristol, Stephen F. Hayes, Eliot Cohen, Clifford D. May, and many others. Read them for yourself. If we have a stake in the outcome, and we do, we cannot ignore their arguments. This is particularly true if you believe that we must stay out of Syria.

On the non-interventionist side, I have read Kathleen Parker, Andy McCarthy, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles R. Kesler, Fareed Zakaria and others who hold a similar perspective. If you are on the side of those who favor a strike, you have the obligation to think and listen to their arguments against it.

One side makes the case; the other side rebuts it. That is what a serious debate should be. But let me single out one essay in particular and take up the problems with the interventionist perspective. The argument comes from none other than Rep. Eric Cantor, the majority leader in the House of Representatives.

Rep. Cantor knows well that his position is unpopular among those who live Virginia’s 7th District, which he represents. As he writes, his constituents have let him know that they have “serious questions” about the propriety of U.S. involvement. He answers that he believes “America has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction … especially by a terrorist state, and to prevent further instability in a region of vital interest to the United States.”

Cantor argues that Syria is more than a civil war, that it is also a proxy war — in which the victory of the Assad regime would be “a strategic victory for his Iranian patrons, [would] embolden the radical Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah…and convince our allies that we cannot be trusted.”

Cantor worries that if we do nothing, eventually the Assad regime will see to it that the chemical WMDs are eventually used against major U.S. interests; in other words, a strike would be a note to our enemies that they cannot take the slippery slope towards advancing military means that would threaten us in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Next comes the least convincing part of Cantor’s argument. He raises the point of those who question whether by intervening we would be “actually helping al-Qaida” and thus end up replacing “one evil with an even greater evil.” Here is what he then argues:

But extremist groups represent only a minority of those opposing Assad. Moderate opposition groups leading the fight against Assad are under attack by al-Qaida as well, and if this conflict draws on, more foreign jihadists will join the extremists and threaten moderate elements.

Continued American inaction will undermine these moderate forces and empower the extremist terrorists who seek to displace them. Right now, the extremists are exploiting the argument that the moderates cannot rely on the U.S. to come to their aid or even enforce our own red lines. It is in our interests that neither Assad – a primary sponsor of terrorism – nor al-Qaida comes out on top.

The problem is that intelligence reports, as Reuters let its readers learn, “contradict Secretary of State John Kerry’s public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence [and] appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.”

Why We Must Support a Military Strike in Syria

Why pro-military, pro-America hawks should stand with Obama against Assad.

I would like to thank Bryan Preston for writing a serious and excellent article in which he carefully lays out his disagreement with me on the issue of a congressional resolution in favor of a military strike on Syria. The conservative movement needs such a debate, and it has to be carried out in the manner in which Preston has written his remarks: without ad hominem comments, without distortion of an opponent’s argument.

I am actually in agreement with a great deal of what Preston says. I agree — and I am sorry if the way I stated my case caused confusion — that one can oppose support of this particular resolution without moving into the camp of isolationism. Preston himself is proof of this: he is an internationalist, understands well the role played in the world by the United States, and usually supports military action against America’s enemies. One would never confuse him with Rand or Ron Paul.

As readers know, two days ago I called Barack Obama an incompetent president and perhaps the worst our country has ever had, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries. So, I agree that Barack Obama is the elephant in the room. Every charge Bryan makes against him I second. Like him, I believe he has been a disaster for our country, and in foreign policy especially Obama has shown almost from the start that he was not suited for the job.

Indeed, he went after Colonel Qaddafi in Libya after the Libyan dictator had actually moved to dismantle his own nuclear capability and had begun to ease up on the terrorist activity his state had long sponsored. He moved to push him out of power on the grounds that if he did not act, Qaddafi might slaughter thousands of his own citizens. At the same time, Obama did nothing about the already existing pattern of slaughter by Assad in Syria — Obama’s administration, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was calling Assad “a reformer.”

It is not surprising that Obama has done little to make a case in favor of his own desired resolution. After all, he has not made a case for his cherished Obamacare, which is collapsing at the seams and for which he has had to call in Bill Clinton to make the case for him.

In the case of Syria, I agree that by announcing that the strike would be limited and of no consequence, Obama has already vitiated any salutary effect it might have. Moreover, he has given Assad assurance that he does not have to worry about regime change, and that the strike will not even substantially affect his regime’s military capability. It is my hope that in exchange for support from Republicans, the administration will do more than merely carry out what was their initial plan. That, at any rate, is what Lindsey Graham tried to negotiate with the president at the White House.

I can understand Bryan’s reluctance to trust the likes of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel in particular. I was among those who opposed Hagel’s nomination for secretary of Defense and Kerry’s for secretary of State. Kerry’s long-standing leftist agenda certainly was valid ground for lacking trust, as were Hagel’s positions on Israel. But I was hopeful and surprised to see Kerry step up to the plate. Yesterday he called the United States “the indispensable nation.” As he defended America’s positive role in the world, he sounded quite the opposite of Barack Obama, and nothing like the leftist and anti-Vietnam War agitator of years past.

Yes, I also wait for verification. But I support the resolution on the grounds that the weakening of presidential power is dangerous. In the current situation regarding Iran — for which Syria is actually a proxy — failure to act is a signal to the mullahs that the U.S. word amounts to little. They will read inaction as an announcement that they can speed up and obtain a working nuclear bomb, and that they have little reason to fear the Obama administration will do anything to stop them.

Why We Must Support a Military Strike in Syria: An Answer to Bryan Preston

I would like to thank Bryan Preston for writing a serious and excellent article in which he carefully lays out his disagreement with me on the issue of a congressional resolution in favor of a military strike on Syria. The conservative movement needs such a debate, and it has to be carried out in the manner in which Preston has written his remarks: without ad hominem comments, without distortion of an opponent’s argument.

I am actually in agreement with a great deal of what Preston says. I agree — and I am sorry if the way I stated my case caused confusion — that one can oppose support of this particular resolution without moving into the camp of isolationism. Preston himself is proof of this: he is an internationalist, understands well the role played in the world by the United States, and usually supports military action against America’s enemies. One would never confuse him with Rand or Ron Paul.

As readers know, two days ago I called Barack Obama an incompetent president and perhaps the worst our country has ever had, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries. So, I agree that Barack Obama is the elephant in the room. Every charge Bryan makes against him I second. Like him, I believe he has been a disaster for our country, and in foreign policy especially Obama has shown almost from the start that he was not suited for the job.

Indeed, he went after Colonel Qaddafi in Libya after the Libyan dictator had actually moved to dismantle his own nuclear capability and had begun to ease up on the terrorist activity his state had long sponsored. He moved to push him out of power on the grounds that if he did not act, Qaddafi might slaughter thousands of his own citizens. At the same time, Obama did nothing about the already existing pattern of slaughter by Assad in Syria — Obama’s administration, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was calling Assad “a reformer.”

It is not surprising that Obama has done little to make a case in favor of his own desired resolution. After all, he has not made a case for his cherished Obamacare, which is collapsing at the seams and for which he has had to call in Bill Clinton to make the case for him.

In the case of Syria, I agree that by announcing that the strike would be limited and of no consequence, Obama has already vitiated any salutary effect it might have. Moreover, he has given Assad assurance that he does not have to worry about regime change, and that the strike will not even substantially affect his regime’s military capability. It is my hope that in exchange for support from Republicans, the administration will do more than merely carry out what was their initial plan. That, at any rate, is what Lindsey Graham tried to negotiate with the president at the White House.

I can understand Bryan’s reluctance to trust the likes of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel in particular. I was among those who opposed Hagel’s nomination for secretary of Defense and Kerry’s for secretary of State. Kerry’s long-standing leftist agenda certainly was valid ground for lacking trust, as were Hagel’s positions on Israel. But I was hopeful and surprised to see Kerry step up to the plate. Yesterday he called the United States “the indispensable nation.” As he defended America’s positive role in the world, he sounded quite the opposite of Barack Obama, and nothing like the leftist and anti-Vietnam War agitator of years past.

Yes, I also wait for verification. But I support the resolution on the grounds that the weakening of presidential power is dangerous. In the current situation regarding Iran — for which Syria is actually a proxy — failure to act is a signal to the mullahs that the U.S. word amounts to little. They will read inaction as an announcement that they can speed up and obtain a working nuclear bomb, and that they have little reason to fear the Obama administration will do anything to stop them.

Why Conservatives Should Rally for the President’s Resolution

As the Obama administration goes to Congress to seek support for a resolution authorizing a military strike against Syria, the deep divisions in both the Democratic and Republican parties are at present making it problematic, at best, that he will gain the votes he needs for a consensus in favor of action.

The divisions today are eerily reminiscent of those at the beginning of the Cold War, when pre-war isolationists or, to use the term they preferred then and prefer now, non-interventionists once again came forth on both the Left and Right to oppose a strong response to Soviet expansionism.

Before Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt had to face convincing a strong isolationist sentiment at home, as well as a reluctant Congress, to do anything that could involve the United States in war. After running for the presidency with a promise to keep the nation out of war, once in office Roosevelt acted to strengthen the British resolve through the Lend-Lease program as well as putting through the famous trading of bases for destroyers.

At home, the America First Committee, headed by Charles Lindbergh and which included old liberals and progressives such as John T. Flynn and Oswald Garrison Villard as well as conservatives such as Col. Robert McCormick and William H. Regnery, became very influential. During the years of the Nazi-Soviet pact, the American Communist Party created its own front group, the American Peace Mobilization, which argued that FDR was seeking to wage an imperialist war for oil and urged Americans to keep out of war and focus their opposition on the nefarious plans for intervention favored by the British Empire.

Pearl Harbor put an end to the America First Committee’s efforts, as the nation united behind the president and thousands of young men flooded the recruiting centers to volunteer to fight against the threat to America’s security. At the war’s end, as the Soviets moved effectively to use the turmoil and insecurity to expand communism as far as they could in the East and the West, a new opposition emerged on both Left and Right against taking a firm stand against Stalin and his cadre.

On the Republican side, “Mr. Republican,” as Senator Robert A. Taft was called, vigorously opposed anything that he thought would lead the United States to “globalism” and a new empire. Taft opposed every measure that the Truman administration took to offset Soviet advances — including the Truman Doctrine, the creation of NATO, and the Korean War. When the communists took over Czechoslovakia in a coup in late February of 1948, Taft argued that it did not indicate any aggression and that the country had been placed in Russian hands and was in their “sphere of influence.”

Why Conservatives Should Rally for the President’s Resolution, and work to Defeat the forces of the New Isolationists- Left and Right

 

As the Obama administration goes to Congress to seek Congressional support for a resolution approving a military strike against Syria, the deep divisions in both the Democratic and Republican parties are at present making it problematic, at best, that he will gain the votes he need to show a consensus in favor of action.

The divisions today are eerily reminiscent of those at the beginning of the Cold War, when pre-war isolationists- let us use the term they prefer then and now, which is non-interventionists- once again came forth on both Left and Right to oppose a strong response to Soviet expansionism.

Before Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt had to face convincing a strong isolationist sentiment at home, as well as a reluctant Congress, to do anything that could involve the United States in war. Running for the presidency with a promise to keep the nation out of war, once in office, Roosevelt acted to strengthen the British resolve through the Lend-Lease program as well as putting through the famous trading of bases for destroyers.

At home, The American First Committee, headed by Charles Lindbergh and which included old liberals and progressives such as John T. Flynn and Oswald Garrison Villard, as well as conservatives such as Col. Robert McCormick and William H. Regnery, became very influential. During the years of the Nazi-Soviet Pact,  the American Communist Party created its own front group, the American Peace Mobilization, which argued that FDR was seeking  to wage an imperialist war for oil, and urged Americans to keep out of war and focus their opposition to the nefarious plans for intervention favored by the British Empire.

Pearl Harbor put an end to the Committee’s efforts, as the nation united behind the President and thousands of young men flooded the recruiting centers to volunteer to fight against the threat to America’s security. At the war’s end, as the Soviets moved effectively to use the turmoil and insecurity at the war’s end to expand Communism as far as they could in the East and the West, a new opposition emerged on both Left and Right against taking a firm stand against Stalin and his cadre.

On the Republican side, “Mr. Republican,” as Senator Robert A. Taft was called, vigorously opposed anything that he thought would lead the United States to “globalism” and a new Empire. Taft opposed every measure that the Truman administration took to offset Soviet advances- including the Truman Doctrine, the creation of NATO, and the Korean War. When the Communists took over Czechoslovakia  in a coup in late February of 1948, Taft argued that it did not indicate any aggression, and that the country had been placed in Russian hands and was in their “sphere of influence.”

It was not surprising that the pro-Communist fellow traveler, Henry A. Wallace, who was running for president on the Communist created “Progressive Party” in 1948, praised Taft as the leader “most liable to keep the peace in the next few years.” The perennial Socialist Party candidate for president and leader of his movement, Norman Thomas, supported Taft as well and praised the Republican understanding that the United States could not “afford to go crusading around the world.”

Today, as Bret Stephens pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, isolationism seems to be rearing its ugly head, although he writes, “Most Republicans don’t want to become, again, the party of isolationists.” But, he cautions, “the Syria debate is also exposing the isolationist worm eating its way through the GOP apple.”  Evidence for his fears were forthcoming at yesterday’s Foreign Relations Committee hearing, especially when Sen. Rand Paul got engaged in a testy exchange with Secretary of State John Kerry.

As Stephens writes, Sen. Paul would be right at home with the views of Robert A. Taft, since Taft in his day and Paul today is oblivious to how failing to use American power to create a safe world endangers our vital national security goals. Writing a blog in his “Postmodern Conservative” site at First Things magazine, political scientist James Ceaser, like Stephens, urges his fellow conservatives to support an authorization of force resolution in Congress.  “Nor is there any way,” he cautions, “to get around the fact that this vote begins to set the future direction of the Republican Party- whether it will be an internationalist or an isolationist party.” He worries that “many in the Republican Party are itching to use Obama’s mishandling of this situation to establish a new isolationist center of gravity for the Republican Party in international affairs. That’s not the place the Republican Party should be.”

I agree with Professor Ceaser. If the Rand Paul followers in the conservative movement, along with libertarians and paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan gain the upper hand, and if they succeed in forming a working alliance with Democrats on the far Left who also use much the same arguments against American use of power, it will only lead to a complete collapse of America’s ability to influence the outcome of world affairs, as well as strengthen the hand of our enemies. Any President in our future, including any Republican Commander-in-Chief, will find it difficult if not impossible to take any kind of military action should it become necessary.

Our country cannot afford the luxury of weakening of presidential power and authority, which could stifle the ability to act when it is most needed in the future. Supporting the authority of the Chief Executive to act, does not mean conservatives and Republicans should stop being critical of the policy of the Obama administration, its half-way measures, its contradictions and its overall embarrassing incompetence. But to weaken the authority of any Chief Executive to act, including President Barack Obama, will only hurt the nation and stifle our ability to respond to aggression effectively, now and later.

The Taft Republicans, we all thought, went the way of the dodo bird. We are finding, sadly, that they were not as extinct as most people believed. If we want a safe and secure future, and a future effective conservative opposition to liberalism, we must act responsibly and support the President now, whatever reservations we may have about his own world view and policies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Barack Obama the Worst and Most Incompetent President Ever?

A case can now be firmly made that Barack Obama is the most incompetent and dangerous chief executive our country has ever had. While historians of the future will undoubtedly rate him very high — because he is the first African-American president and they support Obama Care, which they will say is a major accomplishment for his administration — they will overlook his glaring faults. Moreover, they will understand that if they rate him anything other than the highest level, they will be accused of being racists.

Yet in the past few days this has become so apparent that I do not believe anyone, including those who partake in the game of presidential ratings, can ignore the truth. Obama has shown the world that no one can or should take him seriously. After saying since over a year ago that “Assad must go” and then saying that the use of chemical weapons is a red line that Assad cannot cross, he has undercut John Kerry’s speech on Friday by withholding any action until Congress reconvenes in a week.

In effect, President Obama has learned the wrong lessons from Prime Minister Cameron’s shocking defeat in Parliament. Cameron was publicly humiliated; Labor betrayed him by first assuring him of their support and then, at the last minute, deciding that the unpopularity of a strike on Syria would give them political clout. Hence at the last minute they changed their position and gave the orders for their backbenchers to vote against any UK involvement.

Secretary Kerry said in his impassioned speech on Friday that Assad was a “thug” and a monster, and that his action could not go unpunished. The president then not only embarrassed Kerry by postponing action before even conferring with him, but put on hold all in his administration who were getting ready to gather support for a strike, which, as the president said, did not require any vote by Congress. Yet he has now asked for a vote, one in which he has no assurance that he can win. He has opponents on both the Republican and Democratic side of the aisle, and they might very well have enough votes to go against his stated desire that a strike against Syria be taken.

The result, should he lose, will not only be further humiliation, but a damaging setback for the reputation and word of the United States. Our enemies throughout the world will be waiting in anticipation for such a failure. Already, the reports are arriving from the orchestrated celebrations in Syria, which has declared that the regime has already won. By delaying any action for what could be two weeks or more, Obama has given Assad even more time to assure that if a strike comes, it will not harm any of his troops, their weapons, or their strategic military capability.

President Obama, if he had read the Cameron defeat correctly, would have decided to act without consulting Congress, as John Yoo and others have argued is constitutional. Indeed, President Clinton ordered bombing strikes in Kosovo as Congress was deliberating and without waiting for the results of a vote. Eventually he got an endorsement, but he acted first. President Obama now says he is going to Congress even though he knows he does not have to. Do we really believe that if the vote in Congress goes against him, he will then act on his own? I doubt it. What he will do is precisely what Cameron did in Britain — throw in the towel and decide the U.S. really does not have to do anything.

Some would argue that President Obama favors a negative vote. That will give him the option to bow out by saying he is listening to the American people.  We know that he has announced what in effect is the kind of strike that will be only symbolic; one that will not harm Assad in any meaningful manner. That is why ardent hawks like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are contemplating voting no; they think Obama’s planned strike will not accomplish anything. He could, of course — short of regime change, which he will not support — take out Assad’s air force and strategic capability, allowing the regime’s opposition to have a chance. Moreover, such a move would at least stop Assad from killing thousands of more civilians, which the dictator has shown he is capable of doing without using poison gas.

But one thing President Barack Obama is not is a leader. He has the title of commander-in-chief, but he continues to lead from behind and to command nothing. John Kerry, who I argued earlier should have resigned after being so humiliated, has buckled down for his president and had the task of going on all the Sunday talk shows to rationalize and support Obama’s decision to wait for Congress to return and go into session. Obama did not even decide to call Congress back into session on Labor Day or Tuesday, preferring to wait till the scheduled date of resumption.

Obama Undercuts His Secretary of State on Syria, While the UK Abandons Ship

I never thought I would be singing the praises of John Kerry, but in his speech on Friday, he laid out the consequences of not acting in response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons. “If we choose to live in the world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity,” Kerry argued, “even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will.”

Juxtapose those words with the very next paragraph in the Washington Post report of the speech:

A short time later, in brief remarks before a White House meeting, President Obama said he was considering a “limited, narrow act” against Syria but has not yet made a final decision on a military strike.

“We’re not considering any open-ended commitment,” Obama said. “We are not considering any boots on the ground approach. We have consulted with allies. We have consulted with Congress.” With these words, the president effectively undercut any message his secretary of State was trying to get across. If Kerry had any honor, he would immediately resign from office to make clear how seriously in disagreement he is with his commander-in-chief.

With his own explanation, Barack Obama has let Assad and the world know that what he is considering is nothing but an ineffectual symbolic act that would accomplish nothing and only empower and embolden our worst enemies. As Kerry went on to say, Hezbollah, North Korea, and other powers were testing the resolve of the United States, and would breath a sigh of relief if they found that the United States allowed Assad to act with impunity.

Now that the president has let Assad know that any military strike would not take out his regime, the Syrian dictator can go to sleep easily, knowing that he will awake safe in his presidential palace, with his military and main troops unharmed. If he was for a time worried that Obama would strike their barracks, he has had ample time to send them elsewhere before a strike takes place.

At the same time, David Cameron’s shocking announcement that he would accept the sentiment of his countrymen not to get involved came as a shock to even his opponents. They had expected Cameron to accept only a decision to wait until the reports of the UN inspectors were made available, and then ask UK’s Parliament to join with the United States. Instead, Cameron capitulated entirely to the anti-war opposition. Winston Churchill must be turning over in his grave.

As for the Labor opposition, the speech before Parliament by Ed Miliband, Labor’s leader and son of  the late Ralph Miliband, the far-left Marxist professor, displayed the kind of gobbledygook logic one has come to expect from official liberalism. The night before his speech, he sent out the following message to Labor about the crisis in Syria:

Like everyone, I have been horrified by the pictures of men, women and children gasping for breath in Syria. In Parliament just now, I laid out my plan for how Britain should respond.

My position is clear: any action that our country supports must be legal, legitimate and effective. Our country must not make the same mistakes that happened ten years ago.Our desperate desire to help stop this suffering in Syria must not lead us to rushed or wrong decisions.

You can see my full roadmap for action in Syria by watching my speech to Parliament:

If we are to ask yet more of the most exceptional of our country’s men and women — those in our forces — it must be on the basis of a decision that has complete moral authority.

Here are the five steps we must take before coming to such a decision:

1) We must let the UN weapons inspectors do their work and report to the UN Security Council;

2) There must be compelling and internationally-recognised evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attacks;

3) The UN Security Council should debate and vote on the weapons inspectors’ findings and other evidence. This is the highest forum of the world’s most important multilateral body and we must take it seriously;

4) There should be a clear legal basis in international law for taking military action to protect the Syrian people;

5) Any military action must be time limited, it must have precise and achievable objectives and it must have regard for the consequences of the future impact on the region.

I will use the full force of my position as leader of the Labour Party to ensure that Britain works fully with international institutions when we respond to outrages like those we have seen in Syria.

We must work together for a world in which there is peace and security for all people, and we must also acknowledge that stability will not and cannot be achieved by military means alone.

I will keep you updated on developments from Parliament.

To translate, Miliband says that to have “moral authority” one must depend on the UN Security Council, which of course he well knows — given the vote of Russia on that body — will do nothing except support whatever the Assad regime wants.  When he says we must take “seriously” the Security Council’s judgment, he means that no matter what, the UK will do nothing. We already have solid evidence of a major chemical attack, but Miliband prefers to wait for the UN report, although many observers have noted that by the time they entered Syria, much of the evidence has already dissipated.  Like any good multilateralist, he also asks that his countrymen wait for the decision of international law, which is yet another bygone conclusion. Finally, he ends with the old liberal belief that “stability cannot be achieved by military means alone.” What he means by that is “let us depend on diplomacy,” which is a joke when one is talking about engaging in it with Bashar al-Assad. Or, assuming he gains the leadership and becomes PM, can we expect Miliband to appear at the side of Assad and Vladimir Putin, proclaiming that we have found “peace in our time”?

President Obama Undercuts his Secretary of State- while Great Britain Abandons the Ship

I never thought I would be singing the praises of John Kerry, but in his speech to the State Department, he laid out the consequences of not acting in response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons. “If we choose to live in the world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity,” Kerry argued, “even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will.”

Juxtapose those words with the very next paragraph in The Washington Post report of the speech:

A short time later, in brief remarks before a White House meeting, President Obama said he was considering a “limited, narrow act” against Syria but has not yet made a final decision on a military strike.

“We’re not considering any open-ended commitment,” Obama said. “We are not considering any boots on the ground approach. We have consulted with allies. We have consulted with Congress.” With these words, the President effectively undercut any message his Secretary of State was trying to get across. If Kerry had any honor, he would immediately resign from office to make clear how seriously in disagreement he is with his Commander-in-Chief.

With his own explanation, Barack Obama has let Assad and the world know that what he was considering was nothing but an ineffectual symbolic act, that would accomplish nothing and only empower and embolden our worst enemies. As Kerry went on to say, Hezbollah and North Korea and other powers were testing the resolve of the United States, and would breath a sigh of relief if they found that the United States allowed Assad to act with impunity.

Now that the President has let Assad know that any military strike would not take out his regime, the Syrian dictator can go to sleep easily, knowing that he will awake safe in his presidential palace, with his military and main troops unharmed. If he was for a time worried that Obama would strike their barracks, he has had ample time to send them elsewhere before a strike takes place.

At the same time, David Cameron’s shocking announcement that he would accept the sentiment of his countrymen not to get involved, came as a shock to even his opponents. They had expected Cameron to accept only a decision to wait until the reports of the UN inspectors were made available, and then ask Parliament to join with the United States. Instead, Cameron capitulated entirely to the anti-war opposition. Winston Churchill must be turning over in his grave.

As for the Labor opposition, the speech before Parliament by Ed Miliband, Labor’s leader and son of the far left Marxist professor, the late Ralph Miliband, displayed the kind of gobbledygook logic one has come to expect from official liberalism. The night before his speech, he sent out the following message to Labor about the crisis in Syria:

Like everyone, I have been horrified by the pictures of men, women and children gasping for breath in Syria. In Parliament just now, I laid out my plan for how Britain should respond.

My position is clear: any action that our country supports must be legal, legitimate and effective. Our country must not make the same mistakes that happened ten years ago.Our desperate desire to help stop this suffering in Syria must not lead us to rushed or wrong decisions.

You can see my full roadmap for action in Syria by watching my speech to Parliament:

If we are to ask yet more of the most exceptional of our country’s men and women — those in our forces — it must be on the basis of a decision that has complete moral authority.

Here are the five steps we must take before coming to such a decision:

1) We must let the UN weapons inspectors do their work and report to the UN Security Council;

2) There must be compelling and internationally-recognised evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attacks;

3) The UN Security Council should debate and vote on the weapons inspectors’ findings and other evidence. This is the highest forum of the world’s most important multilateral body and we must take it seriously;

4) There should be a clear legal basis in international law for taking military action to protect the Syrian people;

5) Any military action must be time limited, it must have precise and achievable objectives and it must have regard for the consequences of the future impact on the region.

I will use the full force of my position as leader of the Labour Party to ensure that Britain works fully with international institutions when we respond to outrages like those we have seen in Syria.

We must work together for a world in which there is peace and security for all people, and we must also acknowledge that stability will not and cannot be achieved by military means alone.

I will keep you updated on developments from Parliament.

 

To translate, Miliband says that to have “moral authority” one must depend on the UN Security Council, which of course he well knows- given the vote of Russia on that body- will do nothing except support whatever the Assad regime wants.  When he says we must take “seriously” the Security Council’s judgment, he means that no matter what, the UK will do nothing. We already have solid evidence of a major chemical attack, but Miliband prefers to wait for the UN report, although many observers have noted that by the time they entered Syria, much of the evidence has already dissipated.  Like any good multilateralist, he also asks that his countrymen wait for the decision of international law, which is yet another bygone conclusion. Finally, he ends with the old liberal belief that “stability cannot be achieved by military means alone.” What he means by that is let us depend on diplomacy, which is something that is a joke when one is talking about engaging in it with Bashar al-Assad. Or, assuming he gains the leadership and becomes P.M., can we expect Miliband to appear at the side of Assad and Vladimir Putin, proclaiming that we have found “peace in our time?

Today’s Guardian, the Left’s favorite British newspaper, reports that Miliband was upset that one major government figure told the London Times that   “No. 10 [Downing Street] and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit.” Those Brits don’t mince words, and unlike our own press, does not pause to use asterisks leaving readers to figure out themselves what the PM’s office thinks.

Evidently, before he gave in and abandoned intervention, Cameron complained that in effect, Miliband was standing with Russia and not with his own government and its interests. As for Miliband, they reported that he had signed on with action against Syria, only to move away from it at the 11th hour. Cameron now has only weak statements to make stressing that his government will not abandon its responsibilities to stop Syria from using chemical weapons, and to pledge that there are other ways to pressure them without warfare.

As usual, no one has stated Obama’s problem more clearly than Charles Krauthammer in his syndicated column. The question for our President, he writes, is “about applying American power to do precisely what you know deny this is about- helping Assad go, as you told the world he must.” If he no longer means what he once said repeatedly, Krauthammer writes, Obama should  “just send Assad a text message. You might incur a roaming charge, but it’s still cheaper than a three-day, highly telegraphed, perfectly useless demonstration strike.”

It is not surprising that Assad’s 10-year-old son mocks the U.S. in his Facebook page.  Even the youngster can sense that with President Obama, his father and the regime he leads has little to fear.