RUTHFULLY YOURS

It now appears that the plan was for these terrorists to shoot down a Russian passenger flight over the Ukraine in order to create a casus belli [cause for war].

Putin repeatedly claims that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons as a “de-escalatory measure” even against non-nuclear states.

The evidence that this war was preplanned is overwhelming. The planning for this Ukrainian operation started in 2006, when Putin offered to “guarantee Crimea’s territory.”

The forces fighting in Kiev consist not mainly of “separatists” or rebels, but of trained Russian army, intelligence and paramilitary officers, as well as Russian and some Ukrainian “volunteers” recruited by Moscow.

Putin would incite disturbances in Crimea, then graciously offer to take over Crimea to solve the problems.

For the Russians, and particularly for Putin, Ukraine can have no future other than as a Russian colony. This is indeed a phased invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. did not accept Russian aggression before; it should not accept it now.

If “truth is the first casualty of war,” Russia’s war against Ukraine, illegally launched by Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, is no exception.

One of the saddest developments of this war is that on all political sides, in both Europe and the U.S., an entire army of Putin defenders has emerged, for whom the United Stares can do little right and Russia can do little wrong.

On the “right,” for instance, Patrick Buchanan has discovered that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is supporting both Christian values and U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Consequently he asserts we should not be worried about his illegal annexation of Crimea and aggression in Eastern Ukraine in violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for Russian and American assurances that the use of force or threats of military action would not be taken against it.

In just the last five or six years the world has been fundamentally transformed. Instead of the old accustomed Western-inspired postwar global order, crafted and ensured by the United States and its European and Japanese partners, there is now mostly chaos, from Ukraine to Syria to the South China Sea. Or, rather, there may be emerging new rules, given that we are still frozen in a Wild West moment, when everyone in the saloon has drawn his six-shooter, paused, and is wondering what happened to the sheriff — and wondering, too, who will be the first to dare start shooting.

The general cause of the unrest is that, fairly or not, the world senses that the United States is tired after its recent interventions, cutting back its defenses, and all but financially insolvent. We might scoff at Neanderthal notions like a loss of deterrence inviting aggression, but Neanderthals do not.

Barack Obama apparently believes that such a retrenchment was both inevitable and to be welcomed. He thought that most U.S. interventions abroad had been either wrong or futile or both; he questioned the world’s status quo and certainly felt, for example, that the widespread persecution of Christians in the Middle East was not nearly as much of a problem as Islamophobia in the West. He came into office believing that Iran, Hamas, and Russia had all been unduly demonized, especially by George W. Bush, and could be reached out to by a sensitive president whose heritage and attitudes might not appear so polarizing.

To Obama, old allies like Britain and Israel either did not need unflinching U.S. support or did not necessarily warrant it. The postwar world that the U.S. had once ensured was no fairer a place than is America at home, and certainly did not justify the vast investment of American time and money — resources that could be far better be spent at home addressing inequality and unfairness. A program of higher taxes, huge budget deficits, and enormous increases in entitlement spending did not have budgetary space for the sort of defense required to keep things calm abroad.

Revitalizing the nation’s seapower should be a top priority for any president.

In 1987, the United States Navy numbered 594 ships. On, above, and below the ocean, the Navy reigned supreme, granting the commander-in-chief a flexible tool to secure the world’s economic maritime highways and project power ashore from the sea at the time and place of the nation’s choosing.

More than a quarter century later, the Navy has shrunk to just 288 ships and sits poised to shrink still further in the coming years. The naval buildup of the 1980s was so large and so enduring that it allowed the U.S. Navy to thrive for the next three decades. But succeeding presidents and Congresses have failed to sustain the fleet that President Reagan built. As this fleet retires in the decade ahead, the Navy will begin experiencing serious shortfalls in the minimum number of attack submarines, amphibious ships, and large surface vessels required to execute its mission.

The Navy’s relative decline cannot be measured simply by numbers of ships. The last 20 years have been a hiatus in the development of key capabilities and the maintenance of important skills. Areas like anti-submarine warfare, long a specialty of the U.S. Navy, have been neglected. Anti-mine warfare, which is critical in waters like the Strait of Hormuz, has been similarly ignored. And today the rapidly modernizing Chinese navy has developed anti-ship missiles that can “out-stick” our own missiles.

With 90 percent of global trade carried by sea, and the vast majority of international financial transactions conducted via undersea cables, the U.S. Navy is the backstop for securing a stable global financial system for the U.S. economy to operate in. In addition, the Navy is a highly versatile force that can generate sovereign, forward-deployed military power to do anything from strategic nuclear deterrence to humanitarian assistance. Whether it is launching air strikes against Islamist militants in Iraq or evacuating civilians from conflict zones, this flexibility makes naval power uniquely suited to an international security environment that requires scalpels in some instances and axes in others.

Past buildups of our naval power during periods of relative international peace, from the late 19th century to the 1930s to the Reagan era, can teach us much about the process of revitalizing American seapower today. In each of these cases, a far-sighted president, aided by like-minded members of Congress, was able to undertake the investments needed to rebuild U.S. naval power, often in difficult economic times. Yet a future effort to reinvigorate the Navy, while still requiring presidential vision and congressional leadership, must also be uniquely suited to the circumstances of our time.

OH PULEEZ! NOT THAT AGAIN….DIPLOMACY AND PARTNERSHIP WITH BARBARIANS IS A DELUSION…ONLY OVERWHELMING AMERICAN STRENGTH WORKS

International politics are shaped by two colliding realities: the perceived reality and the physical reality.

Take Libya. This weekend, social media were flooded with videos and photos of a U.S. Embassy residential annex in Tripoli. Islamist militiamen were shown partying in the pool and exploring the compound.

The perceived reality is that terrorists have conquered another American facility in Libya and that, two years after the Benghazi attack, American diplomats remain deeply vulnerable.

However, the physical reality is that U.S. diplomats were evacuated from Libya more than a month ago. In fact, the annex had been left to a Libyan government security force — who then abandoned it. While the Benghazi attackers in 2012 were from the Libyan Ansar al-Sharia, the annex is now “secured” by the Libyan Dawn Movement. Libyan Dawn embraces an Islamist-populist revolutionary ideology, whereas Ansar al-Sharia is defined by Salafi-jihadist fervor. And perhaps for that reason, the annex remains in reasonable condition.

Unfortunately, in the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA), perception drives reality. That makes this seizure a wake-up call for America. For those who hate America, the images of jihadists swimming in the compound’s pool will induce great joy. Driven by their zeal, jihadists see this kind of footage as proof that God supports them. It’s because jihadists believe in an omnipotent God who supports and justifies their every action that they are so intolerant of criticism and so gleeful about death. It’s likely that this incident in Tripoli will inspire them to new endeavors.

And that’s a major problem. After all, in Libya, the Islamist rebel alliance holds the initiative. Rampaging through Tripoli and degrading the already-paper-thin institutions of the Libyan state, the Islamists are leaving a failed state in their wake. Where Qaddafi retained authority by co-opting Libya’s diverse ethnic and tribal groups into his authoritarian rule, his downfall has led to a resurgence of tribal allegiances. It’s now, indisputably, a utopia for fanatics. And unless the United States restrains this madness, we can expect another disaster in the style of the Islamic State.

Western leaders failed to recognize the similarities between the Islamic State and Hamas.
The summer of 2014 is probably the most appropriate moment to remember a 19th century maverick genius: Jan Gotlib Bloch, otherwise known as Jan Bogomil Bloch, Johan von Bloch, Ivan Stanislavovich Bloch or even, among his French readers and admirers, as Ivan de Bloch.

Born in Radom, then a city in Russian Poland, in 1836, educated in Berlin, Bloch made a fortune in the construction of railways in the Russian Empire. While he converted to Calvinism, clearly for social rather than spiritual reasons, he remained close to his former Jewish brethren, fought anti-Semitism, funded investigations on the Jewish contribution to Russian economic development, and supported nascent Zionism.

His greatest achievement was a six-volume book published in Paris – and in French – in 1898, some four years before his death: La Guerre de l’Avenir (“Future War,” translated into English as “Is War Now Impossible?”).

Drawing from the best available information on military and strategic affairs, and in particular on the rapid and global improvement of military technologies, Bloch warned that a major war between industrial countries in Europe would result in a stalemate on the ground, the entrenchment of large armies, enormous casualties, financial bankruptcy, the break up of social organization and finally revolution.

In other terms, he accurately predicted what was to take place from the chain reaction of August 1914 to the overthrow of the Russian, Austrian and German monarchies in 1917 and 1918, and the rise of Communism.

Bloch may thus be praised as one of the real founding fathers of geopolitics as we understand it today, the study of power relations between states, nations and other human groups. Much more so, one would venture to say, than Harold Mackinder, whose major concepts, “Heartland” and “World Island,” have always been as questionable as fashionable, or Karl Haushofer, who, for all his talent and insight, never took off from pan-Germanic fantasies about organically growing states and lebensraum.

The cease fire agreement ending hostilities in the Fifty Day War between Israel and Hamas marks yet another milestone attesting to the failure of Jews and Arabs peacefully to resolve their claims to sovereignty and self-determination in the territory once called “Palestine”.

Amazingly, the continuing inability of the parties – and the international community – to reach consensus on identifying when this long running conflict actually commenced, ensures it will continue to remain unresolved.
Emeritus Professor Richard Falk – formerly United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights in the West Bank – still claims in his latest article that the conflict started in 1947.

“Israel was born in 1948. Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly [dated 29 November 1947 – Ed] is widely regarded as the most convincing legal basis for founding the State of Israel.”

Falk gave the following reasons for his viewpoint on 1 August 2012:

“I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law.”

Falk’s opinion mirrors Article 20 of the Palestine Liberation Organization Charter:

“The Balfour Declaration [1917], the Mandate for Palestine [1922], and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”

Falk’s opinion is not sha

The EU’s new, Italian foreign policy supremo
People will like the look of EU foreign policy with the appointment of Federica Mogherini as the new Brussel’s supremo. But if Vladimir Putin may swoon, will you once you know how she got the job?

Federica Mogherini has a broad and rather engaging smile, and people are going to be seeing a fair bit of it in the coming days. She has just been chosen as the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, otherwise Foreign Minister of the EU.

Mogherini is 41, which is considered young for the job, although she is older than her current boss, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. She is Roman, and after leaving Rome’s La Sapienza University went straight into politics. She specialised in Foreign Affairs, in particular the politics of the Middle East, and became one of the Democratic Party’s spokesmen.

Renzi appointed her Italian Foreign Minister and she has been less than six months in the job.

Mogherini’s predecessor Catherine Ashton had been a Commissioner (albeit only for a year) and had steered the Lisbon Treaty through the House of Lords, and there were complaints that no one had heard of her. Mogherini is less well known. Incidentally, since Ashton was the first High Representative this job will only ever have been done by a woman. Expect demands for male only shortlists next time: you heard it here first.

So how did Mogherini get the job? It is by the European Procedure which still, after more than forty years of membership sounds strange to British ears. For one of these big jobs, the candidate has to emerge through some sort of murky, secret consensus.

I recall in July 2008 watching candidate Obama’s sympathetic address [1] to the rocket-battered residents of the town of Sderot in southern Israel, in which he declared “an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security” — and being appalled by his performance. Judging from his body language, something furtive in his gestures, and the smarmy, brackish diction and rhetoric that have since made it impossible for me to listen to an Obama speech without grinding my teeth, it seemed clear that Obama was lying with every ostensibly heartfelt word. My “reading” of Obama’s disingenuousness, however, was plainly not shared by the troupe of Israeli officials earnestly bustling about and an audience filled with respect and enthusiasm for their artfully sincere guest.

How things have changed. The presidential aspirant who swore [2] in Sderot that he would not let his daughters be terrorized by incoming missiles — “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing” — is now “outraged [3]” by Israeli defensive actions jeopardizing Gaza civilians in the current Hamas-initiated conflict, regardless of preliminary warnings of impending strikes to eliminate or reduce civilian casualties. Obama appears oblivious to the terrorists’ recruiting their own citizens as human shields, conducting rocket and mortar launches from residential areas, occupying hospitals as command centers, and using UNRWA schools as missile-storage facilities [4].

He now allows the FAA to suspend flights to Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, resulting in the crippling of the Israeli economy; places a limit on arms shipments to the IDF; and instructs his secretary of state, the lamentable John Kerry, to confer with jihadist-loving, anti-Israel regimes like Turkey and Qatar to broker a ceasefire on terms favorable to Hamas.

Obama’s 2008 histrionics were bad enough, but the jubilant acclaim with which his speech was greeted by Israelis, Zionists, American Jews, and liberal voters was no less distressing. I said to a Jewish friend, an academic with strong left-wing proclivities, who was swooning with delight at Obama’s suave assurances, “Don’t trust this man for a second,” and was duly accused of cynicism and conservative bile.

They call themselves the Islamic State. They claim to be the restorers of the caliphate, the ones who have finally fulfilled the most cherished aspiration of jihadists and Islamic supremacists the world over. They declare their intention to govern their domains solely and wholly by Islamic law, acting swiftly and ruthlessly to end any practice that does not conform to that law. They repeatedly proclaim their piety, ascribing all their victories to Allah and submitting themselves in all things to his will.

Yet despite all this, Western leaders, the mainstream media, and much of the public are certain of one thing: the Islamic State has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with Islam. So many people tell us so:
5. Shirley Sotloff

Shirley Sotloff [1] is the mother of Steven J. Sotloff, an American who is being held hostage by the Islamic State. On Wednesday, she released a video appeal to the Islamic State’s “caliph Ibrahim,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Her message to him was extremely respectful. Sotloff began: “I am sending this message to you, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi al-Quraishi al-Hussaini, the caliph of the Islamic State. I am Shirley Sotloff. My son Steven is in your hands.”

Sotloff went on to tell the caliph that Steven had “no control over the actions of the U.S. government. He is an innocent journalist.” In fact, she said he had gone to the Middle East to chronicle the sufferings of Muslims. This was tantamount to signaling to him that Steven Sotloff could be more useful to him alive than dead. She assumes throughout that the U.S. has indeed done wrong to the Islamic State, but argues that her son should not be punished for it.

“Since Steven’s capture,” she added, “I have learned a lot about Islam. I’ve learned that Islam teaches that no individual should be held responsible for the sins of others. As a mother, I ask your justice to be merciful and not punish my son for matters he has no control over.”

It’s odd that Shirley Sotloff, after addressing the caliph so respectfully, would presume to lecture him about Islam, and it’s frankly embarrassing that she does so based on her whitewashed Karen Armstrong/John Esposito understanding of the religion. Only from such peddlers of the Islam-is-a-Religion-of-Peace myth could she have gotten the idea that the caliph’s heart would be melted by an appeal to Islam from a Western non-Muslim woman with head uncovered.

“When women go wrong men go right after them.”
– Mae West

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.

During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment. I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”

What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.

Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me. Katie said, “Come to New York. We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”

I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.

And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice: