The View from Right Field

Donald Trump on the Israelis and Palestinians

Among Donald Trump’s foreign policy shockers, this week, was his statement that he doesn’t necessarily support a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem.  Instead, he said he supports whatever the two sides agree to:

“I can live with either one.  I thought for a while the two-state looked like it may be the easier of the two but honestly, if Bibi [i.e., Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] and if the Palestinians -- if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I'm happy with the one they like the best.”

This was a shock to the foreign policy establishment.  Europe, the United States.  Everybody has supported a two-state solution.  President Trump’s statement was seen as allowing the Israelis to do whatever they want.

Barack Obama’s Really Dumb Decision at the United Nations

Several things came up in the last couple of days before Christmas that I wanted to blog about – but I decided to wait because some things (most things?) are more important than politics.  Here’s my first:

President Obama is obviously a big supporter of the United Nations.  That makes me think he made a mistake, even from his own point of view, with his decision to abstain, and not veto, the UN Security Council resolution last Friday censuring Israel for its expansion of settlements in the West Bank.¹  I understand that President Obama agrees with the substance of the resolution.  Many countries do.  (For example, see here.)  On the other hand, others feel the resolution wasn’t balanced and may wind up making it even harder to reach a peace agreement.  (See this Washington Post editorial.)

The Problem With Benghazi Was That We Didn’t Try

The House Republican and Democratic reports on Benghazi came out this week, the Republican report on Tuesday and the Democratic response (or pre-response) on Monday.  Most of the news reports said there wasn’t much new in the reports.  Whether that is good or bad for former Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign probably depends on what you think about what we knew before the reports came out.

Among other things, the Democratic report said that the inadequate security in Benghazi was not Secretary Clinton’s fault, but was the result of decisions by mid-level officials in the State Department.  I have already commented on that idea here.  I don’t need to repeat those comments other than to say (as I said before), if Secretary Clinton wasn’t responsible for inadequate security in Benghazi, then George W. Bush wasn’t responsible for the in adequate response to Hurricane Katrina, either.

Islamic Extremism Is More than ISIL and the Goal Is More than Fallujah and Mosul

The battle for Fallujah has begun – again.  Apparently, the theory is that, if Iraqi forces can take Fallujah from Islamic State, that will weaken Islamic State before the expected effort to retake Mosul.  An effort to reclaim Mosul has been talked about for a year.  My guess is that the US is hoping Iraq can take both Fallujah and Mosul before the end of President Obama’s presidency.  If they are successful (or at least getting there), President Obama can say that Islamic State is beaten (actually, the Administration calls them ISIL; more about that later) – or has at least been put on the road to defeat – and he claim a foreign policy success before he leaves office.

Except that would be wrong – for at least a couple of reasons.  First, even if Fallujah and Mosul are retaken, we will merely be back where we were when President Obama took office.  Actually, we won’t even be in as good of shape.  George W. Bush made a lot of mistakes in Iraq, but eventually he figured it out.  Starting in late 2006, the counterinsurgency strategy, the surge, David Petraeus, and Ryan Crocker – plus President Bush himself – turned the situation in Iraq around.  It took us too long to get there, but we got there.  Unfortunately, Iraq today, even if Fallujah and Mosul are recaptured, isn’t in as good of shape as it was in January 2009.

May 16 in History: Anniversaries in the Middle East and China

May 16 is the anniversary of two significant events in history.  One hundred years ago today, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed between France and Great Britain.  The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret convention that partitioned the Ottoman Empire after World War I.  It served as the foundation for the modern Middle East and much of the bad and good (if, in the case of the latter) that has happened since.

Speaking of bad, fifty years ago today, China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution started when Mao Zedong approved a secret document declaring war on “representatives of the bourgeoisie” who had “sneaked into the Communist Party, the government, the army,” etc.  A year later, Mao explained to his wife, that his aim was to create “great disorder under heaven” in order to achieve “greater order under heaven.”  Whether he believed that or not, who knows. 

How Can You Have a Ceasefire When People Aren’t Going to Cease Firing?

And when they get to decide who they are going to fire at?

Secretary of State John Kerry has been pushing for a ceasefire in Syria and he now claims to have one.  Except that nobody has to cease firing at ISIS and the Nusra Front.  Plus Syria has said that it will continue firing at “other terrorist groups connected to” ISIS and the Nusra Front, whatever that means.  Also, Russia has said, since it moved into Syria last October, that it is attacking ISIS, except it isn’t.  It has been hitting the moderate rebel groups that we were supposedly supporting, and we have apparently done nothing about it.

I appreciate that John Kerrey is trying, but a ceasefire where nobody ceases firing and people get to pick who they keep firing at, isn’t a ceasefire.  Except for anybody naïve enough to comply with it.

Glasnost and Perestroika In the House of Saud?

Karen Elliott House writes in today’s Wall Street Journal about the changes going on in Saudi Arabia.  Since the House of Saud’s founder, Abdulaziz ibn Saud, died in 1953, the Saudi throne has passed among ibn Saud’s 36 sons.  Now, however, the current king, 80-year-old King Salman, has appointed his own 56-year-old nephew, Mohammed bin Nayef, as crown prince.  If Mohammed bin Nayef does become king, he will be the first of the third generation of the House of Saud to ascend to the throne.  Perhaps more interestingly, the king appointed his 30-year old son (and Mohammed bin Nayef’s younger cousin), Mohammed bin Salman, as deputy crown prince and second in the line of succession.

Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has begun to shake things up in Saudi Arabia.  He has severed diplomatic ties with Iran, jumped into the civil war in Yemen, helped organize a 34-country Islamic coalition against terrorism, and met with a number of world leaders, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping.  Domestically, he is doing the same.  The National Transformation Plan 2020, which he is supervising, envisions transforming the Saudi economy from one based on government jobs paid for by oil money to an economy led by private-sector growth.  All while maintaining the control of the House of Saud.

What You Get When You Have No Strategy

In an interview in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that, in the words of the Journal, “the real problem with U.S. policy [in the Middle East and with respect to ISIS] has been the absence of any clear strategy like the one that guided the U.S. in the Cold War.”  Mr. Gates continued:

“‘We all implicitly accepted [George] Kennan’s view that if we contained the Soviets long enough, their internal contradictions would finally lead to their collapse, even if nobody had any idea when.

‘If you accept the premise that we face a generation-long period of turbulence and violence in the Middle East, the lack of an overarching strategy for how you react to a region in flames is a problem.  Are there fires we should just let burn out?  Who are our friends?  Who should we support?’”

President Obama Speaks From the Oval Office on San Bernardino and ISIS: A Few Thoughts

1.  I found it interesting that President Obama called the killing of thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood, by U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan in 2009, an act terrorism. For years, the Army refused to award Purple Hearts to those killed and wounded by Major Hasan, claiming it was “workplace violence,” instead of what it was, a terrorist attack by an Army officer turned al-Qaeda supporter.  It wasn’t until April of this year, after Congress passed legislation forcing the issue, that the Army finally awarded the Purple Hearts. 

2.  Even in a speech as serious as last night’s, and even though he said that “we have to work together to address the challenge,” President Obama couldn’t avoid ripping on those who disagree with him on the tactics we should use in the fight:

“To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.  What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?  This is a matter of national security. 

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino.  I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures.  But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies – no matter how effective they are – cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology.  What we can do – and must do – is make it harder for them to kill.”

Was it really necessary to say “[w]hat could possibly be the argument”?  Instead of just asserting the obvious correctness of his view, why not try to convince people.  And not impugn the motives of those who may disagree by saying there is no argument.

ISIS Kills 129 in Paris. President Obama Gets Mad at Republicans.

With everything happening in the world, it is understandable President Obama got upset at his press conference Monday.  Except it wasn’t ISIS or the terrorists in Paris that upset him most.  It was, of course, the Republicans, the enemy he seems to hate the most.

In particular, the President was irritated by calls from certain Republicans suggesting that, given at least one of the terrorists involved in the Paris killings may have traveled to Europe on a Syrian passport, perhaps we should just admit Christian refugees from Syria and not Muslim:

“When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims; when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution – that’s shameful.  That’s not American.  That’s not who we are.”

A couple of comments.  First, it’s nice to see “no drama Obama” get passionate about something, though it would be nice if, at least once, it could involve getting mad at somebody other than Republicans.