John Kerry and the “New Isolationism”

by Gerard Emershaw

Secretary of State John Kerry has come a long way from his days of being a heroic and decorated war hero critic of the Vietnam War. Perhaps war is only bad when it affects him and his generation as Vietnam did. Kerry criticized what he calls the “new isolationism.” Obviously referring to the unwillingness of Congress and the American people to support military intervention on behalf of Al Qaeda in Syria, Kerry said: “We are beginning to behave like a poor nation.”

According to Kerry, it is poor nations which are non-interventionist? So the Founders, who loathed the very idea of foreign military entanglements, wished the Republic to be a poor nation? If nonintervention is how poor nations act, how is it that while the United States pursued a mostly non-interventionist policy during the 19^th century, it rose from an agrarian former British colony to the dominant world economic power? Was the United States prior to the unnecessary Spanish–American War a poor nation?

Among the wealthiest nations are Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, the Netherlands, and Sweden. These nations are anything but bellicose. None of these nations warmonger. None of these nations have pursued interventionist foreign policies. So that must mean that they are “poor nations.” Or perhaps History and Economics were not his strong suit at Yale.

One way that a nation can become poor is through war. Look no further than what World War I did to Germany. Look no further what the Orwellian continuous wars that the United States is waging around the globe are doing to the American economy. Or how these wars have caused the national debt to skyrocket to unsustainable levels.

Americans are becoming disenchanted with President Obama’s Orwellian war state, and inaccurate passive aggressive insults of the American people by members of his administration are not going to change this fact.

The Lesson of Fallujah

by Gerard Emershaw

Al Qaeda affiliate the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has seized the Iraqi city of Fallujah. What lesson can be drawn from this? Neoconservatives are likely to claim that this proves that the United States military should never have withdrawn from Iraq. They will likely blame President Obama for not encouraging—or forcing—the Iraqi government to allow American troops to remain in Iraq following the official withdrawal at the end of 2011. President Obama had every desire to maintain troops in Iraq as part of the continuous Orwellian war that he inherited, embraced, and enhanced, but the Iraqi government refused to sign a new status of forces agreement because it did not wish to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to American soldiers.

Would the sectarian violence that killed 7,818 Iraqi civilians in 2013 have occurred had American troops remained in Iraq? There is no reason to believe that it would not have. The only difference would be that there would have been thousands of American troops that could have been targeted. Would ISIS have taken over Fallujah had the United States remained in Iraq? Perhaps it would not have been Fallujah, but ISIS would have taken over a city somewhere. The United States never sent enough troops into Iraq to fully control that broken nation, so there is no reason to believe that fewer troops would have been able to do the impossible. A situation like Fallujah could easily have reignited the war and led to a new full scale American occupation of Iraq. Had Americans been in the middle of this new wave of sectarian violence, the new death toll would have dwarfed the current one of 4,486.

The true lesson of Fallujah is simple. The United States needs to return to its peaceful and noninterventionist roots. The nation needs to return to following the wisdom of the Founders. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator. There is no doubt about this. However, he did not attack the United States and was not planning to do so. He was not connected with Al Qaeda. As ugly as it is to believe, the United States would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power. ISIS would not be influential in Iraq, and Iraq would still be providing a good power balance to Iran. Instead of actively supporting Iraq—as the federal government did during the Iran–Iraq War—or attacking Iraq—as the United States fruitlessly did twice—the United States should just have stayed out of situation entirely. Intervention in the Middle East has proven to be nothing but a powder keg of blowback. The lesson of Fallujah should be that the United States needs to stay out of the mess in Syria and avoid creating a new mess in Iran or anywhere else.

Warmonger Susan Rice Should Not Be the Next National Security Advisor

The latest buzz coming out of beltway is that President Obama plans to appoint UN Ambassador Susan Rice to the position of National Security Advisor. While Ambassador Rice was forced to remove herself from consideration for the position of Secretary of State due to the backlash against her perceived role in the Benghazi tragedy, if President Obama does appoint her as his National Security Advisor, then she will not face confirmation.

Ambassador Rice’s critics seized upon her role in the Benghazi incident to derail her nomination as Secretary of State. Seen as particularly damning was her claim that the Benghazi demonstrations and resulting massacre were caused by an anti-Islamic video rather than by blowback. Predictably, her defenders made allegations that her critics were being racist and sexist. However, any alleged incompetence on Ambassador Rice’s part pales in comparison with her dangerous warmongering tendencies. Ambassador Rice should not be the one whispering in President Obama’s ear about foreign policy because she has never met an interventionist war that she did not like.

Ambassador Rice was a vocal supporter of the Iraq War. In December of 2002 she said:

It’s clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It’s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that’s the path we’re on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side.

Ambassador Rice was also a supporter of the surge in Afghanistan:

Al-Qaida is regrouping and reconstituting their safe haven; the Taliban are gaining strength. Europe is closer to that threat than we are. Yet, we all have to take it very seriously. The US has to put more resources and troops into Afghanistan, and NATO should do the same, while – to the greatest extent possible – lifting operational restrictions.

Ambassador Rice was one of the most vocal supporters of President Obama’s unconstitutional “kinetic military action” in Libya. So eager was she for war that she spread the preposterous rumor that Qaddafi’s soldiers were using Viagra so that they could go out and rape. While Qaddafi was a brutal dictator, the truth was that it was the Libyan rebels that were carrying out a campaign of “ethnic cleansing” against Black Libyans.

Ambassador Rice is a strong advocate of “humanitarian” interventionist wars. In 2006, she advocated using a UN force of 22,000 troops to end the violence in Darfur. Of course, UN “humanitarian” military actions will inevitably cost American blood and treasure. In a world filled with tin pot dictators who do not respect the natural rights of their citizens, there will be far too many tempting places where Ambassador Rice might suggest that President Obama engage in “kinetic military action” for “humanitarian” purposes. While she does not support arming the rebels in Syria, this opinion would not preclude a NATO bombing campaign just as it did not preclude it in Libya. President Obama’s drone campaign would make far too useful a tool in slaughtering people all over the world for “humanitarian” purposes.

Support for progressive “humanitarian” wars in addition to dubious wars to protect “American interests” overseas would only serve to multiply the number of pointless and unconstitutional wars that the United States gets entangled with. A far more cautious voice is what is needed to advise President Obama to “calm down” and curb his interventionist tendencies

Syrian Blowback: History of American Meddling

Secretary of State John Kerry recently expressed the opinion that the Syrian rebels deserve support in their civil war against the Assad regime:

We are determined that the Syrian opposition is not going to be dangling in the wind wondering where the support is or if it's coming. And we are determined to change the calculation on the ground for President Assad.

Given the tragic blowback that occurred in Benghazi following President Obama’s “kinetic military action” in Libya, one would have hoped that the administration would think twice before meddling in the affairs of Syria. American covert meddling in Syria during the late 1940s and 1950s was instrumental in creating a left-wing oppressive regime in Syria which supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This meddling also set the stage for the oppressive Ba’athist Assad regime currently engaged in a campaign of violence against its own people. What follows is a brief timeline of the machinations of the United States in Syria.  

1948

CIA operative Stephen Meade made contact with right wing Syrian army officers to discuss the possibility of a coup in Syria to put Syrian Army Chief of Staff Husni Zaim into power as a dictator. Although the United States knew that Zaim was a “Banana Republic dictator type,” they admired his “stronganti-Soviet attitude.” The United States was also interested in securing the rights for the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to build the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (TAPLINE) through Syria. Negotiations for this had been stalled in the Syrian Parliament. Meade and Zaim planned a Syrian coup for early 1949.

1949

Shortly after American Secretary of State George McGhee arrived in Syria, Zaim staged his coup against the democratically elected government of President Shukri al-Quwatli on March 30, 1949. Zaim arrested Communists and left wing dissidents, approved the ARAMCO TAPLINE, signed a peace treaty with Israel, and considered allowing 250,000 Palestinians to be resettled in Syria. While awaiting an expected $100 million in military and economic aid from the United States, Zaim was overthrown and executed by Colonel Sami Hinnawi. Hinnawi’s coup returned Syria to electoral democracy and gave Syrian women the right to vote. Hinnawi’s Populist Party won in a landslide in November 1949 elections, but Hinnawi was quickly ousted in a coup led by Colonel Adib Shishakli.

1951

Shishakli began to exercise blatant dictatorial control over Syria. The United States supported Shishakli behind the scenes from the beginning because Shishakli was considered “one of the strongest anti-Communist forces in the country.” The United States State Department provided military material to Shishakli’s dictatorship, and in return Shishakli was willing to renew the TAPLINE concession, consider a treaty with Israel, and resettle Palestinian refugees within Syria as long as more financial aid was provided to Syria.

1952

President Eisenhower lobbied the World Bank to expedite a $200 million loan to Shishakli’s government.

1954

Before an arms deal between the United States and Shishakli’s dictatorship could be consummated, Shishakli was overthrown on February 22, 1954. The post-Shishakli Syrian government became increasingly left wing and increasingly sympathetic to the Soviet Union and other Communist countries.

1957

Shukri al-Quwatli had again been elected President of Syria. The United States again used the CIA to meddle in Syrian affairs. The CIA in conjunction with the British Secret Service “called for Turkey to stage border incidents, British operatives to stir up the desert tribes, and U.S. agents to mobilize SSNP guerrillas, all of which would triggera pro-Western coup by ‘indigenous anticommunist elements within Syria’supported, if necessary, by Iraqi troops.” Washington provided $150,000 to the conspirators in the plot and sought to return the anti-Communist Shishakli to power. This clumsy plot was quickly uncovered by Syrian intelligence and was ultimately called off by President Eisenhower. The result of all of this CIA cloak and dagger meddling in Syria was that the Syrian government became even more left wing in the aftermath and became a staunch ally of the Soviet Union for the remainder of the Cold War.

2012

Having learned no lessons from the fiasco in Libya, on December 11, President Obama announced that the United States would formally recognize the Syrian opposition – the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (National Coalition) – as Syria’s legitimate representative and praised the opposition for being “well-organized” and “representative of the Syrian people.”

Four months earlier Obama signed a secret order authorizing the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide aid to the rebels. Obama attempted to be a bit more careful than he was with Libya by blacklisting the Syrian terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra – which is linked to Al Qaeda – for killing numerous Syrian civilians during 600 attacks that the group conducted against Syrian cities. However, Jabhat al-Nusra has great support among the other members of the rebel coalition. One rebel praised Jabhat al-Nusra, saying that “they rush to the rescue of rebel lines that come under pressure and hold them. They know what they are doing and are very disciplined. They are like the special forces of Aleppo.” Such praise of the terrorist group is not uncommon among the Syrian rebel groups. Immediately following the American blacklisting of Jabhat al-Nusra, Moaz al-Khatib – the leader of the National Coalition – asked Obama to reconsider, claiming that “no group fighting Assad should be considered a terrorist organization.” Immediately after al-Khatib’s public display of support for Jabhat al-Nusra, 29 groups within the National Coalition signed a petition in support of the terrorist group and called for mass demonstrations in support of it. The petition included the phrase “No to American intervention, for we are all Jabhat al-Nusra” and recommended that supporters should raise the Jabhat al-Nusra flag as “a thank you.”

Two days later, thousands of Syrians took to the streets and to the internet social networks in support of the terrorist group. If President Obama believes that he can pick and choose whom among the National Coalition to recognize, then he is seriously mistaken. There is also no telling what manner of terrorists may be among the other groups in the National Coalition. The UN has warned of possible war crimes that have been committed by members of the National Coalition. Human Rights Watch has claimed that it has documented over a dozen cases of extra-judicial executions by members of the National Coalition.

2013

Syrian rebels formed an exile government and eagerly waited for American funding. While the American government announced that it would be providing $60 million in new non-military aid to the Syrian rebels, Secretary of State Kerry claimed that the United States would not be providing military aid – at least “at this moment.” However, if the rebels do not turn the tide against government forces, one suspects that it is only a matter of time before the United States or NATO begin engaging in “kinetic military action” in Syria. Doing so will be perilous. There is simply no way to guarantee that the power void will not be filled by Jihadists sympathetic to or even affiliated with al Qaeda if the Assad regime falls. By intervening in Syria, the United States will be creating new enemies at a time when it has more than enough already.  

Iran and the Bomb

Vice President Joe Biden recently said this about his boss’s threats not to allow Iran develop a nuclear weapon: “The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing.” New Secretary of State John Kerry said:

Lines have been drawn before and they've been passed. That's why the president has been so definitive this time. This is a very challenging moment with great risks and stakes for everybody because the region will be far less stable and far more threatened if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon.  

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said of the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon:

The danger is that we could be reaching a point where nuclear weapons would become almost conventional, and there will be the possibility of a nuclear conflict at some point... that would be a turning point in human history,

The subject of Iran developing a nuclear weapon has been a hot button issue for years. Who could forget the image of a demented Senator John McCain singing about bombing Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys’ classic “Barbara Ann?” Who could forget the neoconservative 2012 Republican Presidential hopefuls competing to see which of them could warmonger the hardest against Iran while Congressman Paul watched them in disbelief? Most seem to assume that it goes without saying that Iran should not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. But why? Below is an analysis of the arguments set forth by the Anti-Defamation League in support of the proposition that Iran’s nuclear program is a grave threat to the United States and American interests.

1. A nuclear-armed Iran would embolden Iran's aggressive foreign policy, resulting in greater confrontations with the international community. Iran already has a conventional weapons capability to hit U.S. and allied troops stationed in the Middle East and parts of Europe. If Tehran were allowed to develop nuclear weapons, this threat would increase dramatically.

The premise that Iran has had an aggressive foreign policy is false. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been involved with only one war – a war with Iraq that it did not begin. Contrast this with the neoconservative foreign policy of the United States which has led to aggressive military action in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya since 1979. The mere fact that Iran has the military capacity to hit U.S. and allied troops in the Middle East means next to nothing. They have not done so. There is also no reason to believe that they would use nuclear weapons or conventional weapons against the United States and its allies. Iran is not Iraq.  

2. Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to the United States and the West.

Iran has undeniably been a state sponsor of terrorism. However, this is not that different than the American Cold War policy of setting up and propping up friendly right wing governments around the globe. There is no reason to believe that Iran would be inclined to share nuclear technology with terrorists. If terrorists were to use nuclear weapons, CIA intelligence would inevitably trace it to the Iranian regime. This would result in “regime change” if not the nuclear destruction of Iran. Furthermore, secure in the belief that it is safe from invasion, Iran would have less of a reason to wage asymmetrical terrorist “proxy wars.”

3. While Iranian missiles can't yet reach America, Iran having a nuclear weapons capability can potentially directly threaten the United States and its inhabitants. The U.S. Department of Defense reported in April 2012: “With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.” Many analysts are also concerned about the possibility of a nuclear weapon arriving in a cargo container at a major US port. Furthermore, a federally mandated commission to study electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks noted the vast damage that could be wrought by a single missile with a nuclear warhead, launched from a ship off the US coast, and detonated a couple of hundred miles in the air, high above America.

The United States faced the specter of nuclear destruction at the hands of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Why should the United States fear a poor and weak nation in the Middle East just because they acquire a small number of nuclear missiles capable of reaching the United States? Assuming that the oppressive regime in Iran is so irrational that it would risk its own destruction is bigoted. Why should radical Muslim leaders be considered more suicidal than devout Christian leaders in nations around the world? Like any dictatorial regime – religious or secular – the Iranian regime’s first goal is to keep power over its people. Any aggression on the part of Iran against the United States would lead to its destruction. If anything, possessing nuclear weapons would make Iran feel that it is not at risk of having “regime change” forced upon it in an American invasion. This would likely make Iran less aggressive. The central question is why Iran should not possess the same right to self defense through nuclear weapons that the United States, Israel, and the other nations in the “nuclear club” enjoy. If there is an individual right to bear arms for self defense, why is there not also a natural right for nations to possess nuclear weapons for self defense?

4. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat to America's closest allies in the Middle East. Israel is most at risk as Iran's leaders have repeatedly declared that Israel should “be wiped from the map.” America's moderate Arab allies, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and others are already alarmed at Iran's aggressive regional policy and would feel increasingly threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran.

The idea that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that he wants Israel “wiped off the map” is essentially an urban legend. It is based in a mistranslation. What Ahmadinejad actually said was that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” While the distinction between wishing a nation to disappear and wishing for that nation’s government to disappear may be a matter of semantics, it is important to realize that world leaders often engage in “tough guy talk” to energize their base. Did Khrushev actually follow through with his threat to “bury” the West? Isael is estimated to have a nuclear arsenal of anywhere from 70 to 400 warheads. It is unclear how one or even a small arsenal of Iranian nuclear weapons would pose any major threat to Israel. The Soviet Union had hundreds of nuclear missiles aimed at the United States during the Cold War, yet no nuclear exchange ever occurred. One could even argue that “mutually assured destruction” provided a balance that prevented a conventional World War III from breaking out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations. A similar balance of power has also likely prevented large scale wars between India and Pakistan. The sense of security that comes from possessing nuclear weapons for national defense could also prompt Iran and other Islamic nations in the region to be more willing to seek peaceful solutions to its problems with Israel. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain are oil producing nations that are more than capable of defending themselves against Iranian aggression. Furthermore, Iran has never shown a desire for fascistic expansion.  

5. The Middle East remains an essential source of energy for the United States and the world. Iran's military posture has led to increases in arms purchases by its neighbors. A nuclear-armed Iran would likely spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would further destabilize this volatile and vital region.

While a nuclear arms race in the Middle East would not be desirable, there are clearly positive consequences that could result. Just as a balance of nuclear power might stabilize relations between Iran and Israel, such a balance could provide a balance between Sunni and Shiite nations. Nuclear armed nations in the Middle East would also not be good targets for neoconservative American wars of occupation which seek “regime change.” This situation could encourage a more noninterventionist American foreign policy in the Middle East. This would help the American economy and would decrease the possibility of future blowback caused by American military intervention in the region. With war in the Middle East less of a possibility, the United States and petroleum producing nations in the region could concentrate on trade instead of war.