Redstate

Posted at 11:00pm on Jun. 10, 2008 The peace agreements between Pakistan and the Taliban (that you probably haven't heard of)

By Jeff Emanuel

An Erstwhile "Ally" in the War on Terror Sells its Soul for Thirty Pieces of Silver and an Agreement its Enemies will Never Live up to

On February 17, the Pakistani government and the Taliban jointly signed a peace treaty dealing with the North Waziristan region of the Afghan/Pakistani border area (see graphic at right, and click for more detailed map). The agreement was shrouded in secrecy, with its terms being kept under wraps by both parties.

This weekend, a Pakistani news organization, the Daily Times, managed to obtain a copy of the agreement, which they roughly outlined on their web site.

They report that the agreement, "inked between the government and the Utmanzai tribes on February 17 to fight Taliban-linked militancy through support from the local population," contains the following terms:

• • Sharing the agreement’s contents with the media violates the terms laid down in the document [Auth. note: There is no information available yet as to how this leaking of the peace agreement to the Daily Times will affect the overall agreement, given this requirement]
• • "Al Qaeda-linked militants" are allowed to live in North Waziristan "as long as they pledge to remain peaceful"
• • "All foreigners" are required to "leave the area"
• • No "parallel government of suspected Taliban militants" will be tolerated
• • There will be "no attacks on security personnel or government employees" and no "target killings" will be "initiated" [Auth. note: The Daily Times points out that "suspected Taliban militants continue to blow up CD shops in Miranshah and target killings have continued despite the February 17 peace deal"]
• • Any violator of the peace accord will be fined 50 million Pakistani Rupees [Auth. note: Approximately U.S. $742,000]

Read on.

Posted in Al Qaeda | appeasement | Foreign Affairs | foreign policy | GWOT | Pakistan | Taliban | War — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:00pm on May 27, 2008 Obama Takes All Sides on Chavez

Inexperienced and Naïve on Foreign Policy, Good at Campaigning

By Mark I

Another day, another position on Hugo Chavez from Sen. Barack Obama. Last week, he told the Orlando Sentinel that he favored meeting with the Venezuelan Marxist dictator He even went so far as to say that Chavez could set the agenda. But the very next day, he told a Miami audience that Chavez’s support for the FARC narco-terrorist rebel group in Colombia disqualified Venezuela from such a meeting. Speaking to the Cuban American National Foundation, Obama said the following.

"We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and -- if need be -- strong sanctions. It must not stand."

Thank God for the qualifier. Strong sanctions? Whoa! hold on there big guy. You’re inexperienced in foreign affairs and all, but you just can’t go around threatening sanctions, especially strong ones, without months and years of delays, negotiations, aggressive diplomacy, and Security Council debates. You don’t want to blow all your options in one fell swoop.

Mocking aside, there are a couple of bigger points to make from this.

Read on...

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | foreign policy | Hugo Chavez | Liberals | Obamafiles — Comments (7)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:00am on May 23, 2008 Obama Would Dance to Chavez’s Tune

“Hi, President Chavez. What Can I Do For You?”

By Mark I

After weeks of backtracking on his pledge to meet unconditionally with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, Sen. Barack Obama has doubled down on his dangerous foreign policy naiveté, telling the Orlando Sentinel yesterday that not only would he have no pre-conditions for the meetings, he wouldn’t even have an agenda. Speaking of a future meeting with Venezuelan dictator, and soon to be internationally recognized terrorist supporter, Hugo Chavez, Obama said that whatever Hugo would want to talk about would be just fine with him.

I would be willing to initiate such talks with leaders of countries adversarial to the United States. There would be a lot of preparation. The first steps would not be to pre-judge all the items on the list. […]

One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about. It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests.

There needs to be a shift in foreign politics and return to traditional foreign politics that were supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the past.

First of all, it’s difficult to determine from his words whether Sen. Obama believes that the, "fermentation of anti-American sentiment," and Chavez’s, "support of FARC in Colombia," are necessarily bad things. Obama could have said, "the disturbing fermentation of anti-American sentiment," or, "his unacceptable support of the terrorist group FARC in Colombia." But he didn’t. Chavez certainly does not think that his behavior needs to improve. For all we know, Obama doesn’t either. He won’t pre-judge it. Rather he would reward Chavez by granting him the honor of a meeting of equals, complete with unspecified agenda items that would take Chavez’s phony complaints about U.S. imperialism at face value.

Second, if Obama holds so low an opinion of the Office of the Presidency that he would use the office to bend and scrape at the feet of thugs like Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il, one wonders why he is running for it.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | foreign policy | Hugo Chavez | Liberals | Obamafiles — Comments (15)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:39pm on May 13, 2008 When Obama Negotiates With Terrorists

he'll do everything the UN does - nothing

By haystack

[Image courtesy Cartoon Stock ]

Barack Obama promises he will talk to everyone - friend and foe alike. He's convinced himself our unwillingness to do so under the "Bush-Cheney" approach makes us look arrogant, [and] it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership."

Of course, we DO talk to all nations (friend and foe alike), we just don't sit down and make nice with them - we tell them to behave themselves and take care of their people with decency and the human dignity they deserve...and until they do, we're not going to do them any favors (or give them any cash handouts). Obama doesn't seem to GET that part of it, but this fact goes hand in hand with all the other things he doesn't "get" about Foreign Policy.

Obama wants to sit down with a country that considers one of our allies a stinking corpse doomed to disappear at the hands of another country currently run by the armed thug terrorists that recently endorsed his candidacy themselves. Of course, Obama "understands" why the terrorists running Palestine would endorse him...and why wouldn't they? These are the same lunatics who suggest that his Muslim-world dwell-time, his Muslim-like middle name, and his "worldly appearance" might preclude his using the "cowboy diplomacy" that has thus far enabled Israel to continue its existence despite continued Muslim efforts to the contrary. Why wouldn't they endorse him assuming they'll get away with a whole lot more evil-doing when the "why can't we all just get along" President takes over?

More below the fold...

Posted in 2008 | foreign policy | negotiating with terrorists | Obamafiles — Comments (45)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:22am on Apr. 1, 2008 Barack Obama: I'm Lying To You For Votes And You're Too Stupid To Know Any Better

Pretend my people NEVER said we should not hope for a democratic Iraq

By haystack

This "100 year war" tug of war foolishness between Obama and McCain has gone far enough. Barack Obama is lying staight-faced to his followers, and he knows it. His Campaign Co-Chair is on record stating categorically that Iraq is "just the first of our Middle East occupations":

Look. We've been in Europe now since '45. We've been in Japan since '45. Been in Korea since '50. So we've had a European occupation force and a Asiatic occupation force for half a century, and we haven't had a Middle East occupation force, so this is a start of that, this is the way great powers operate, it's the way Rome operated. We will be in the Middle East for a long time. This is just the first of our Middle East occupations.

Barack Obama would have you believe that our being in Iraq is a bad thing. He is against war...well, war in Iraq... but has no problem expanding it in Afghanistan. According to a piece in the WSJ today:

Mr. Obama's call to increase the size of U.S. ground forces by 92,000 troops -- 65,000 for the Army and 27,000 for the Marines -- is precisely the figure offered by Secretary of Defense Bob Gates in 2007.

Fine. He wants to send 92,000 US Soldiers to Afghanistan to beat up an already "badly broken" Taliban, and rummage through caves looking for a couple old guys with cell phones and laptops running the war on terror. Whatever.

That he wants NO soldiers in the streets of Iraq to provide the necessary security and support for Iraqi citizens to conduct business, feed and clothe their families, and educate themselves escapes me, but even THIS is beside the point.

Obama's people are saying the same thing McCain is saying about Iraq...AND the greater Middle East. They are correct in suggesting we will continue exerting our lone superpower status, and they are even factually fair in pointing out that we don't always exert that status appropriately. We make mistakes sometimes too, after all. We've made our share in Iraq, to be sure, but leaving the place isn't how you correct them..is it Mr. "I want to be President without ever having to face reality?"

More below the "lies and the liars that tell them" fold...

Posted in 2008 | foreign policy | Iraq | Liberal Lies | Obamafiles | War and Peace — Comments (28)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:15am on Mar. 27, 2008 McCain's Realistic Idealism

A Foreign Policy We Can Support

By California Yankee

Senator John McCain, just back from his five-country fact-finding mission to the Middle East and Europe, outlined his vision of foreign policy in a remarkable speech at The Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

The Republican presidential nominee to be, started by denouncing war:

When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years.

My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day.

In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well.

I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description.

When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict.

Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly.

Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us.

Read on. There is much more.

Posted in 2008 | foreign policy | John McCain | Realistic Idealism — Comments (44)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:58pm on Jan. 2, 2008 ...and they appear to be in the process of taking the torch and running with it

Or, "Being there at the beginning of a bona-fide phenomenon? Priceless."

By Jeff Emanuel

The ellipses at the beginning of this post's title are intended as a continuation of the subtitle of this excellent post from earlier today. Well done as always, Charles.

[Note: Photographs from the meeting mentioned below are available here.]

During the year that General Petraeus and his counterinsurgency force have been on the ground in Iraq, the Concerned Local Citizens program, until recently a tiny, localized “neighborhood watch” equivalent, has grown into a nationwide phenomenon.

Called “basically a thumb in the eye at a Maliki government that won’t get its [act] together” by one American officer whose unit I spent time with in August, the Concerned Local Citizens program puts ground-level security in the hands of the individual tribes and groups who need it most. Under the program’s coalition-crafted guidelines, members of individual tribes are allowed to arm themselves and to conduct their own security operations and patrols, provided that, among other requirements, they submit to the authority of Coalition and Iraqi Security forces.

Read on.

Posted in concerned citizens | foreign policy | General Petraeus | Iraq | War — Comments (9)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:41pm on Dec. 29, 2007 The Mike Huckabee For President Campaign: Where Knowledge Of World Affairs Comes To Die

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

I realize that Presidential candidates are under a lot of stress and pressure and from time to time, they make a gaffe or two. But this is ridiculous and indicates quite clearly that Mike Huckabee is not the most well-versed foreign policy candidate around . . . to say the least:

Posted in 2008 | foreign policy | Mike Huckabee — Comments (106) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:31pm on Dec. 29, 2007 Bhutto Assassination Renews Concern About Huckabee's Foreign Policy

By California Yankee

Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's first reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was a diplomatic blunder. Huckabee expressed "our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan." After criticism, Huckabee's campaign said he meant to say "sympathies" not "apologies." In the same statement, Huckabee revealed that he was unaware that martial law was lifted in Pakistan about two weeks ago.

Posted in 2008 | Bhutto Assassination | foreign policy | Immigration | Mike Huckabee | National Security | Pakistan — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:54pm on Dec. 20, 2007 "To Be Or Huckabee"

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Dean Barnett says what I say about Mike Huckabee: Bismarck, he ain't.

Look, I don't mean to be highbrow about this but the Foreign Affairs essay was bad. Just awful. You can't write stuff like that and expect people to take you seriously and since we all know that candidates don't write Foreign Affairs articles--they outsource them to their aides instead and those aides are presumably better informed and better at writing--the scary thing is that the end product was probably better than anything the candidate could have come up with on his own. We live in times that are interesting at best, and dangerous at worst. A President needs to be substantively up to snuff in order to deal effectively with the challenges of the moment and the future when it comes to foreign and national security policy. Huckabee had a chance through his Foreign Affairs article to audition for The Big Time.

Posted in 2008 | foreign policy | Mike Huckabee — Comments (46) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:14pm on Dec. 19, 2007 Vladimir Putin: Person Of The Year

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

As a consequential figure on the world stage, I can certainly understand why Vladimir Putin got selected as Time's Person of the Year. For all of its problems, Russia remains a country with great sway and power and Putin is therefore a key player on the world stage. His efforts to shut down a nascent democracy deserve mention, attention and worldwide opprobrium. His efforts to reignite the forces of Russian imperialism via bullying former Soviet republics, a likely recognition of the efforts being made by the breakaway ethnic Russian enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia to achieve independence (this in response to any effort on the part of Kosovo to achieve independence), Russia's withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty and Putin's own efforts to enhance his cult of personality and his political power at home should be of deep concern to any and all Russia-watchers.

I continue to think that General David Petraeus should have been selected Person of the Year. Just as consequential as Putin, he used his talents for good, leading the troop surge in Iraq and helping to set the country on a path towards reconstruction, political reconciliation and full re-integration into the international community. But as I indicate above, the Person of the Year award doesn't just go to good people, though in this case, a powerful argument can be made that a good person (Petraeus) deserved it over a deeply flawed and power-hungry one (Putin). The consequence of this "award" should be a renewed emphasis on the threats a belligerent Russian government poses to its own citizens and to other countries. No, this is not the Cold War. Not even close. But it's nothing to shut our eyes to either.

Or to put matters more succinctly, see this.

Posted in Authoritarianism | Dictatorship | Foreign Affairs | foreign policy | Tyranny | Vladimir Putin — Comments (9)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:58pm on Dec. 15, 2007 Mike Huckabee: The John Edwards Of The Republican Party

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Yet another reason for me not to support the former Arkansas Governor for President. It is one thing to critique the Bush Administration's foreign policy and to be sure, the Bush Administration's foreign policy is not above critique. It is quite another thing to cynically parrot clichés in the process:

Mike Huckabee, who has joked about his lack of foreign policy experience, is criticizing the Bush administration's efforts, denouncing a go-it-alone "arrogant bunker mentality" and questioning decisions on Iraq.

Posted in foreign policy | General Ignorance | Mike Huckabee | Republicans — Comments (44) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:33am on Dec. 15, 2007 The Foreign Policy Platforms Of Mike Huckabee And Bill Richardson

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Dan Drezner has the scoop on each candidate's foreign policy priorities. Huckabee's makes for especially depressing reading; I don't agree with the thrust of Richardson's arguments, but at least he has an argument while Huckabee quite plainly has no feel or grasp of major foreign policy issues. His writings and his grand strategy--to the extent that one can be divined from his article--are a mushy mess.

Incidentally, I too oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty. I put out my reasons for opposing it here. It's nice to see that Huckabee agrees with my stance but I don't think he has any idea why he's supposed to agree.

Posted at 2:30pm on Nov. 28, 2007 The Least Experienced Namedropper in the Race

A Bird in Hand is Better than Stealing from Bush

By Mark I

Yesterday, at an event with a group of black ministers in South Carolina, Sen. Hillary!™ Clinton showed that when it comes to foreign policy, she has the most practical experience in the Democratic presidential field. While her chief rival pledges to sit down at the feet of any dictator, anywhere, anytime, Sen. Clinton knows that the presidency is too important an institution to be seen to kowtow. She!™ knows it’s much better politically to have someone famous do it for you.

Sen. Clinton recognizes the value of the Special Envoy, the High-Level Delegation, and the Presidential Emissary. She demonstrated this by floating a name of such high respect and stature as a potential Good-Will Ambassador to the World, her rivals for the nomination must surely be staring in awestruck amazement. Who cares if she hasn’t actually spoken to him? It’s the thought that counts, and the political savviness behind it.

”I won’t even wait until I’m inaugurated, but as soon as I’m elected I’m going to be asking distinguished Americans of both parties — people like Colin Powell, for example, and others — who can represent our country well, including someone I know very well. Because I want to send a message heard across the world. The era of cowboy diplomacy is over”

President Bush used to float Colin Powell’s name a lot on the campaign trail back in 2000. But there was just one difference. Many of those times, candidate Bush did so with Powell standing right beside him. According to his spokesperson, Peggy Cifrino, Hillary!™ hasn’t even spoken to the general cum diplomat about his willingness to do her bidding. “He’s not been in touch with Senator Clinton in regards to this, and has no comment,” she said.

Whoops!

Sen. Clinton, if you just want to throw names on the table, you could at least look around and see who is on stage.

Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Colin Powell | Democrats | foreign policy | Hillary Clinton — Comments (6)/ Email this page » / Read More »