Friday, August 12, 2016

August 12, 2016--Russia Is Winning the New Cold War

It is now generally acknowledged that Russia's intervention in Syria has, from a Russian perspective, been effective.

Putin's Russia, unlike Obama's United States, is now seen to be the leading and most influential great power operating in the region. Russia's military and political support for Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, has effectively ended the rebellion against his government, and so now, since they made this possible, he is "owned" equally by both Russia and Iran, Assad's major patrons.

The United States is now relegated to the insignificant sidelines, unable to figure out which rebel faction(s) to support and is also seen to be impotent in regard to efforts to impose "red lines," topple Assad, or defeat ISIS.

Even in Second Cold War terms, Russia's modernized military is more than a match for ours even though we have outspent them on the development of smart weapons designed for asymmetrical warfare. This represents another miscall by the CIA and our military intelligence operatives--as during the First Cold War when they failed to notice that the Soviet Union's economy was collapsing under the pressure of attempting to compete with us weapon-system-by-weapon-system, this time around they failed to alert us to the power and sophistication of the new Russian military.

Most revealing, as Russia flexes new muscle to protect its borders as well as reduce the power of the United Staes and especially Western Europe, is the new cynical feel-good relationship developing between Russia and Turkey.

Just nine months ago a Turkish jet downed a Russian military aircraft and though it looked as if a hot war might break out between the two nations, in spite of this, earlier this week Turkish president Recep Tayyip-Erdogan was in Moscow to talk with President Putin about putting aside the past and establishing a closer relationship.

They both have skin in the regional game (and both leaders within their own countries need propping up) so going to war with each other would not be in either one's best interest.

Thus, out of mutual need, Turkey is raising questions about its role in NATO--something Putin enthusiastically welcomes--and Russia is helping to cut off the military aid the U.S. is supplying to the Kurds who are eager to carve Kurdistan out of land they live in in Syria, Iraq, and most geopolitically important, Turkey.

Erdogan is blaming America for the recent coup that failed to topple him and is suspicious about our agenda regarding the Kurds, while Putin seeks to destabilize NATO and push its forces, very much including those of the United States, back from its western borders.

Thus the appearance of these unlikely bedfellows. And their mutual interest in the candidacy of Donald Trump who is confounding our freight policy establishment as well as that of our NATO allies when he questions the on-going role of NATO, particularly why the U.S. should underwrite a disproportionate portion of its budget.

A more credible Republican candidate would have a field day with these failed polices of President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.


Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

July 26, 2016--Hillary Quiz

Some claim that Hillary Clinton, with the exception of a few of America's founders--Thomas Jefferson, for example--is the most "qualified" nominee ever to run for president.

This assessment more than anything is based on her resumé. It is indisputably impressive.

She was First Lady for eight years and had real responsibilities. She did much, much more than preside over congressional wives' teas. Among other things, in a quasi-official capacity, she visited 82 countries.

Then for eight additional years she was a U.S. senator from New York.

In 2008, she almost won the Democratic presidential nomination.

After Barack Obama was elected, as part of his "team of rivals," she served for four years as his Secretary of State.

Even George H.W. Bush, who also had a very impressive professional history, didn't compare.

So by these resumé criteria, Hillary Clinton, on paper, is about the most qualified. Ever.

But before coming to that conclusion, there is another way of thinking about "qualified."

Not by a list of job titles and honorary degrees but by an accounting of accomplishments.

On this basis, Hillary Clinton as most qualified? Not so sure.

But, if you are inclined, convince me otherwise by taking this snap quiz.

Rate each of the following on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being indictable and 10 worthy of the Nobel Prize.

As First Lady:

Health care reform? OK, this one is too easy.

As Senator:

Support for the Children's Health Insurance Program? (CHIP)
Vote to authorize invasion of Iraq?
Other?____________

As Secretary of State:

"Resetting" relationship with Russia?
Keeping Russia from invading and annexing Crimea?
Containing North Korea's nuclear weapons program?
Overthrowing the Muammar Gaddafi regime in Libya?
In Syria, attempting to remove Bashar al-Assad from the presidency?
Overthrowing the Mubarak government in Egypt?
Seeing the election there of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Stabilizing Iraq?
The emergence of ISIS?
Containing/defeating ISIS?
Limiting China's expansion in the South China Sea?
Resolving the Israeli-Palistinian conflict?
Leading the effort to reach a nuclear deal with Iran?
Managing her State Department e-mails?
Other? (Anything but Benghazi) ____________

Of course we could do the same thing with Jefferson. Also on scale of 1-10:

Declaration of Independence?
Ambassador to France?
The Louisiana Purchase?
University of Virginia?
Sally Hemmings?
Other? ____________

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,