April 21, 2010

Brzezinski, Obama and Foreign Policy Reconceptualization

by Herbert I. London, Family Security Matters

In the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs Zbigniew Brzezinski outlines the ambitious efforts of the Obama administration to redefine the foreign policy of the United States and, as he puts it, “reconnect the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century.” According to Mr. Brzezinski, President Obama has done this remarkably well reconceptiualizing foreign policy in several areas which he outlines:

    * Islam is not an enemy, and the “global war on terror” does not define the United States’ current role in the world;
    * The United States will be a fair-minded and assertive mediator when it comes to attaining lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
    * The United States ought to pursue serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, as well as other issues;
    * The counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan should be part of a larger political undertaking, rather than a predominantly military one;
    * The United States should respect Latin America’s cultural and historical sensitivities and expand its contacts with Cuba;
    * The United States ought to energize its commitment to significantly reducing its nuclear arsenal and embrace the eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons;
    * In coping with global problems, China should be treated not only as an economic partner but also as a geopolitical one;
    * Improving U.S.-Russian relations is in the obvious interest of both sides, although this must be done in a manner that accepts, rather than seeks to undo, post-Cold War geopolitical realities;
    * A truly collegial transatlantic partnership should be given deeper meaning, particularly in order to heal the rifts caused by the destructive controversies of the past few years.”

For all of this, Brzezinski adds, Obama did deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, the erstwhile national security advisor does not point out that he heaps praise on a policy he helped to shape. That observation might well detract from his presumptive objectivity. But in almost all respects the reconceptualization attributed to Obama is either wrong, misguided or based on a set of false assumptions.

Let me cite the ways. The global war on terror is a war against a radical strain of Islam that has imperial goals and a jihadist tactical temperament. The U.S. may avert its gaze or ignore the magnitude of the threat, but the threat remains and weakness as a response only makes it more threatening;

Second, the U.S. was a fair-minded mediator in the Israel-Palestinian issue as the evolution of the two state solution suggests. By “fair-minded” Brzezinski means tilting in favor of the Palestinians whatever objections the Israelis may have;

Third, serious negotiations have been on-going with the Iranians through back channels and the Europeans for years. Yet despite blandishments and mild threats, they have not had the slightest influence in defusing the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. From the Iranian perspective, nothing the U.S. offers can compare to the regional influence nuclear weapons can confer;

Fourth, counterinsurgency, according to the General McChrystal plan, was conceptualized long before the Obama presidency and, relies on securing strongholds in Afghanistan’s urban areas. It is both a confidence building strategy and a military plan;

Fifth, respect for President Chavez and Fidel Castro has not yielded reciprocal reactions from these leaders. On the contrary, they are intent on spreading their brand of socialist revolution throughout Latin America and have done their utmost to undermine President Uribe, a true democratic leader, of Colombia;

Sixth, by agreeing to equalize its delivery capacity with Russia, the U.S. has accorded Putin and company a unique advantage. Since the U.S. nuclear umbrella protects Japan, Taiwan, etc. we require delivery expansiveness and secondly, much of the Russian decrease in capacity is composed of planes and subs that were scheduled for mothballing in any case;

Seventh, China is not an ally and not yet a foe. However, with a blue water navy and patrols in the Sea of Japan, it is engaged in sabre rattling that bears careful observation. It is hard to think of China as a partner when it provided the advanced technology for the Pakistani nuclear arsenal;

Eighth, surely acceptance of post-Cold War geopolitical realities should be recognized by the Russians, but Putin’s strategic vision is predicated on the reacquisition of the near-abroad as recent actions and doctrine indicate;

Ninth, a transatlantic partnership should be recognized and encouraged. But it should be noted that the U.S. has assumed a disproportionate share of NATO expenses and the Europeans, who have grown to love freedom and prosperity, do not yet know how to defend these cherished concepts.

Alas, what Brzezinski provides is a cliché-driven set of propositions that have little if anything to do with real world conditions. In the aggregate these positions make the U.S. look weak and ineffectual in my opinion.

In the end, however, it is not what drives this reconceptualization of policy, but whether or not it is successful. So far, this effort has been a failure, but President Obama has several years to recover from missteps. Perhaps one way to begin is by not taking Brzezinski’s proposals too seriously.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:51 pm | 46 Comments »

46 Responses to Brzezinski, Obama and Foreign Policy Reconceptualization

  1. ayn reagan says:

    * Islam is not an enemy, and the “global war on terror” does not define the United States’ current role in the world;
    * The United States will be a fair-minded and assertive mediator when it comes to attaining lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
    * The United States ought to pursue serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, as well as other issues;
    * The counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan should be part of a larger political undertaking, rather than a predominantly military one;
    * The United States should respect Latin America’s cultural and historical sensitivities and expand its contacts with Cuba;
    * The United States ought to energize its commitment to significantly reducing its nuclear arsenal and embrace the eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons;
    * In coping with global problems, China should be treated not only as an economic partner but also as a geopolitical one;
    * Improving U.S.-Russian relations is in the obvious interest of both sides, although this must be done in a manner that accepts, rather than seeks to undo, post-Cold War geopolitical realities;
    * A truly collegial transatlantic partnership should be given deeper meaning, particularly in order to heal the rifts caused by the destructive controversies of the past few years.”

    From the feeble mind of the man who advocated the Ayatollah Khomeini’s return to Iran.

    Brzezinski and Carter.

    The Midwives Of International Islamic Terrorism.

    But being a member of the foreign policy establishment means never having to say you’re sorry.

    The more these guys screw up – the more havoc and tragedy they wreak – the more valued their advice becomes.

    In a just world, Zbig would suffer the fate of Iranian women who are accused of adultery.

  2. Shy Guy says:

    In a just world, Zbig would suffer the fate of Iranian women who are accused of adultery.

    Comment by ayn reagan — April 21, 2010 @ 7:03 pm

    Serving suggestion

  3. ayn reagan says:

    I am “Forbidden” from viewing Shy’s link, so I choose to visualize it as being this.

    Or this.

    Or this.

  4. Shy Guy says:

    I am “Forbidden” from viewing Shy’s link

    Comment by ayn reagan — April 21, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

    Retry

    so I choose to visualize it as being this.

    Sucks to be you.

  5. ayn reagan says:

    Retry

    It is as though a faith healer has just bopped me on the forehead.

    I can see!

    I can see!!

    Sucks to be you.

  6. yamit82 says:

    I also am “Forbidden” from viewing Shy’s link, so I choose to visualize it as being this.

    Or this.

    Or this.

  7. Shy Guy says:

    It is as though a faith healer has just bopped me on the forehead.

    I can see!

    I can see!!

    Comment by ayn reagan — April 21, 2010 @ 8:02 pm

    Too much bop

  8. yamit82 says:

    I sound like a parrot I too can see now

  9. ayn reagan says:

    Which word would the Palestinians use most if I were prime minister?

    Answer

    Not to be obsequious, but Shy Guy is one of those rare people who looks good in any hairstyle.

    The fleas are another matter.

  10. yamit82 says:

    Too much bop

  11. Shy Guy says:

    Answer

    Comment by ayn reagan — April 21, 2010 @ 8:24 pm

    Server down

    Not to be obsequious, but Shy Guy is one of those rare people who looks good in any hairstyle.

    The fleas are another matter.

    I’m covered with ‘em.

  12. RandyTexas says:

    back to serious discussion, I need to learn something today.

  13. Shy Guy says:

    Shy is more like this

    Comment by yamit82 — April 21, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

    What did you expect?! Sefirah beard.

  14. ayn reagan says:

    back to serious discussion, I need to learn something today.

    If you want to understand what Obama intends to do in the Middle East, review the public statements made by Brzezinski over the last three decades…culminating with this one:

    “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast. Brzezinski, who served in the Carter administration from 1977 to 1981, is currently a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Maryland.

    “We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.’” Israel mistakenly attacked the American Liberty ship during the Six-Day War in 1967.

    Note the obligatory anti-Semitic reference to the Liberty, which is the causa belli of Jew haters in America.

    This White House is infested with Jew haters, starting with the one at the top.

  15. ayn reagan says:

    Would the U.S. Shoot Down an Israeli Jet? Adm. Mullen Won’t Say

    An interesting question was asked of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen by a young airman..twice:

    In a town hall on the campus of the University of West Virginia, a young airman asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen to respond to a “rumor.” If Israel decided to attack Iran, the speculation went, those jet would need to fly through Iraqi airspace to reach their targets. That airspace is considered a “no-fly” zone by the American military. So might U.S. troops shoot down the Israeli jets, the airmen asked the chairman, if they breached that airspace?

    Mullen tried to sidestep the question. “We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.”

    The airmen followed-up: “Would an airmen like me ever be ordered to fire on an Israeli – aircraft or personnel?”

    Mullen’s second answer was much the same as his first. “Again, I wouldn’t move out into the future very far from here. They’re an extraordinarily close ally, have been for a long time, and will be in the future,” the admiral said.

    http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2010/04/would-us-shoot-down-israeli-jet-adm.html

  16. yamit82 says:

    “We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.’” Israel mistakenly attacked the American Liberty ship during the Six-Day War in 1967.

    What arrogance. Why does he believe that in such an eventuality it would be America downing Israeli aircraft? Last time at Top gun (TailHook) Israel downed American aircraft 50-0. Result never publicly announced so as not to embarrass our good friend and ally.

    I suppose he figures either way Israel loses.

  17. ayn reagan says:

    Polls Suggest Israel Support Is Becoming Dangerously Politicized
    April 16, 2010 04:07 PM ET | Brandon Greife

    By Brandon Greife, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

    Republicans and Democrats have plenty to argue about. From the impact of the healthcare bill to the parameters of financial regulatory reform, there is no shortage of outlets for spirited debate. But I fear that we have stoked the partisan fire beyond our ability to extinguish it. The bipartisan pro-Israel stance might be the first casualty. What has been one of the parties’ greatest areas of agreement is fast becoming another wedge issue in a heated election season.

    Not all hope is lost. Unfortunately, watching the news recently you might have felt otherwise. Media coverage was slavishly devoted to covering every angle of the public disagreement between Israeli Prime Minister
    Binyamin Netanyahu and President Obama over a new Jewish housing development in East Jerusalem. Headlines spanned everything from “Obama Criticizes Israel Over Settlement Building” to “Democrats Begin to Criticize Obama on Israel.” What fell by the news-cycle wayside was the bipartisan letter, signed by 333 Congressmen, reaffirming “the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel.”

    Being pro-Israel remains a strongly bipartisan position in government. The letter was cosigned by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Republican Whip Eric Cantor, Congressmen who are all too often vocal critics of one another. The recent pro-Israel policy conference sponsored by AIPAC featured Sens. Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham as speakers, two names that are rarely on the same side of any issue. Nevertheless, there are cracks in the nation’s unified stance toward Israel.

    Two new Gallup polls suggest that while Congress remains in near unanimous agreement, the American public is becoming increasingly divided on its view of Israel. One poll finds that 85 percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Democrats support Israelis more than Palestinians–a 37 percent partisan gap. A separate Gallup poll finds that while Israel’s favorability ratings remain high (67 percent) in the aggregate, when broken down by party 80 percent of Republicans and 53 percent of Democrats hold a favorable view. Each of these polls represents an alarming change from the traditionally bipartisan norm.

    As the political process plays out, elected officials will inevitably begin to reflect voters’ views on the issue. The pace of the change will only be hastened if Israel becomes a partisan voting cue. Beyond the recent political posturing over President Obama’s rebuke, there are reasons to suggest that it will be increasingly used in elections. For instance, a surprising new McLaughlin poll finds that a plurality of Jewish voters would consider voting for someone other than Barack Obama for President. Given that Obama
    won Jewish voters by an overwhelming 78 percent to 21 percent margin, this represents an incredible coup for Republicans.

    The trick for both parties is to not fall into the partisan trap suggested by each of these polls. Republicans must be careful not to create public controversy where none exists solely because they believe it is a winning issue with their own voters and a chance to appeal to traditionally Democratic Jewish voters. Likewise, Democrats would be foolish to waiver from their pro-Israel stance in order to induce concessions from Prime Minister Netanyahu in Palestinian bargaining talks. In an era when peace is at a premium, in the halls of Congress and in the Middle East, both parties would be wise to remember their agreement over Israel.

    Israel is not a wedge issue. Israel is a friend in a region where we have few. Israel is an outpost of democracy in a region of instability. Israel is, as President Harry Truman said, the “embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.” What a great waste it would be if it were simply another voting cue.

    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/brandon-greife/2010/04/16/polls-suggest-israel-support-is-becoming-dangerously-politicized.html

  18. Shy Guy says:

    Would the U.S. Shoot Down an Israeli Jet? Adm. Mullen Won’t Say

    Comment by ayn reagan — April 21, 2010 @ 9:10 pm

    Oooh, I feel dirty.

  19. RandyTexas says:

    It would just be wonderful for the US to protect Iranian nukes from attack. It would show the world we care and love even those who would blow us to pieces so much, we would kill our friends to protect them, no matter how evil they are.

    I think Obama is gay S&M. I seriously doubt the US will survive what he is doing without mega-catastrophe.

  20. ayn reagan says:

    Israel is more popular than Iran and Pakistan and North Korea.

    Only ranked fourth in the coveted “most hated” category.

    Geez, and after killing the Son of God and harvesting every Palestinian organ.

    What’s a country gotta do to attain top status?

    World poll: Only 19% see Israel in positive light

    Survey conducted in 28 countries on 29,000 respondents reveals that only Iran, Pakistan, North Korea have more negative perception than Israel. Most ‘loved’ country is Germany. ‘Obama effect’ has resulted in improvement in relations towards US for first time since 2005

    Only Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan are viewed in a more negative light than Israel, according to a poll conducted in 28 countries and published Tuesday by the BBC.

    The poll shows that just 19% of the 29,000 respondents questioned view Israel positively versus 50% who perceive the country in a negative light. Together with Israel at the bottom of the list are Iran (15% positive, 56% negative), Pakistan (16% positive, 51% negative), and North Korea (17% positive, 48% negative).

    The poll also showed that world perceptions of the US are improving with 46% of respondents viewing the country favorably and 34% viewing the country negatively. Only two countries saw a decrease in the perception of the world’s number one superpower – Turkey and India.

    Topping the list of “America haters” are Turkey, with 70% of its respondents viewing the US unfavorable, and Pakistan, with 52% viewing the US negatively. Support for the US dropped surprisingly in India, from 43% to 39%.

    “People around the world today view the United States more positively than at any time since the second Iraq war,” said Doug Miller, chairman of international polling firm GlobeScan, which carried out the poll with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (Pipa) at the University of Maryland. He noted that the “Obama effect” apparently is a real thing.

    Pipa director Steven Kull noted: “After a year, it appears the ‘Obama effect’ is real.

    According to the poll, the most favorable viewed countries are Germany (59%), Japan (53%), Britain (52%), Canada (51%), and France (49%).

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3878518,00.html

  21. ayn reagan says:

    Israel’s defense community is divided on the importance of securing U.S. backing for an independent Israeli military strike on Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, April 20).

    Israeli defense specialists were split on whether Jerusalem must obtain Washington’s approval before taking unilateral military action against Iran.

    The United States has given some signals that it could allow an Iranian nuclear arsenal, but Israel has made clear it would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, high-level Israeli government sources said. Jerusalem and Washington as well as several European governments suspect Iran’s nuclear program is geared toward producing weapons, but Tehran has insisted its nuclear program has no military component.

    Israeli officials have suggested Iran could become capable within a year of building a nuclear weapon that could hit their nation; independent analysts have questioned that assertion.

    Some members of the Israeli government believe their country’s interests would be harmed more by a potential rift with the United States resulting from unilateral military action than by an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Obama administration has discouraged an independent Israeli attack on Iran, but concerns have lingered in Washington about the possibility of Jerusalem taking unilateral action, one high-level U.S. official said.

    http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100421_9183.php

    Israel will never secure Obama’s blessing to preempt an Iranian attack.

    The “some members” who value the illusion of friendship with America over survival include Barak, who is an endless curse upon Israel.

    It is ominous that the Israeli government is still counting on Obama.

    Unless corrected soon, this miscalculation will prove fatal.

  22. ayn reagan says:

    Israel’s defense community is divided on the importance of securing U.S. backing for an independent Israeli military strike on Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, April 20).

    Israeli defense specialists were split on whether Jerusalem must obtain Washington’s approval before taking unilateral military action against Iran.

    The United States has given some signals that it could allow an Iranian nuclear arsenal, but Israel has made clear it would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, high-level Israeli government sources said. Jerusalem and Washington as well as several European governments suspect Iran’s nuclear program is geared toward producing weapons, but Tehran has insisted its nuclear program has no military component.

    Israeli officials have suggested Iran could become capable within a year of building a nuclear weapon that could hit their nation; independent analysts have questioned that assertion.

    Some members of the Israeli government believe their country’s interests would be harmed more by a potential rift with the United States resulting from unilateral military action than by an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Obama administration has discouraged an independent Israeli attack on Iran, but concerns have lingered in Washington about the possibility of Jerusalem taking unilateral action, one high-level U.S. official said.

    http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100421_9183.php

    Israel will never secure Obama’s blessing to preempt an Iranian attack.

    The “some members” who value the illusion of friendship with America over survival include Barak, who is an endless curse upon Israel.

    It is ominous that the Israeli government is still counting on Obama.

    Unless corrected soon, this miscalculation will prove fatal.

  23. yamit82 says:

    Published: 04/20/10, 11:26 AM
    Surrendering an Ally
    by Wesley Pruden

    Surrendering an ally is no strategy at all, says this columnist. He also finds insights into Obama’s view of the world–and its results.

    Barack Obama has come up with an interesting strategy for dealing with the evildoers of the world. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Surrender your friends, if necessary.

    He wants to make Israel, our oldest and only reliable friend in the Middle East, the guinea pig to see whether the strategy works. What appeared to be a minor flap between old friends only a fortnight ago now looks like an exploitable opportunity for the man who learned about who’s evil in the world from a crazy Jew-baiting preacher in
    He wants to make Israel, our oldest and only reliable friend in the Middle East, the guinea pig to see whether his strategy works
    Chicago.

    The public scolding of Israel and the warning that it must make nice with those determined to “wipe it off the map” are now revealed to be tactics in the plan to make the Middle East over in a way to please the Islamic radicals. The observant among us have seen this coming. America’s true friends – Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Norway and Poland in addition to Israel – have been getting the back of Mr. Obama’s hand from the day he took his oath. The commitment to constitutional government and the ancient traditions of intellectual freedom that make up the cultural heritage of the West have been snubbed when not ignored, the natural allies of America lectured to when not insulted.

    We’re told that it’s not nice, and maybe even racist, to notice that Michelle Obama, the elegant first lady who does so many things well, has cultivated her husband’s talent for strategic snobbery. She once conceded that she only became proud of America when her husband got to the brink of the presidency, and in a remarkable video of a 2008 appearance that surfaced only this spring, she told of their visiting “his home country in Kenya.” Unless she was conceding that she, too, is a “birther,” she meant that Kenya is his ancestral and cultural home. This could explain a lot, and it certainly offers insights now into his determination to discard the Israelis in the affections of Americans and replace them with nations alien to the affections of most Americans. Why retain an emotional attachment to the sources of American law and literature when you could bow to the Saudi king and court the leaders of Iran, Syria and Venezuela?

    Nothing would please the enemies and adversaries of America – the “outliers,” in the trendy term of the moment – like putting the Jews in their place. Mr. Obama and some of his wise men, particularly in the State Department, which has traditionally looked for occasions to lend a hand to the Arab tormentors of Israel, now see their opportunity to impose a “settlement” of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. Mr. Obama finally put his game in play this week when he told a press conference that resolving the conflict was “a vital national security interest of the United States.” Describing the conflict in these not-so-vague terms gives him the opportunity to prescribe any solution, however malignant or fanciful, just that way. The president, any president, must put the
    If only the Germans had not been so hostile, the Americans and the British could have had a day at the beach on D-Day.
    “vital national security interest” of the United States first and foremost. Who could argue with that?

    Presidents before him, Democrat and Republican, have regarded Israel’s right to survive as unquestioned and inviolate, bound up with America’s own traditions of democratic government, and Mr. Obama continues to pay lip service to the American vow to defend Israel’s right to survive. But lip service is not much defense against rockets, gunfire and suicide bombs and the contempt of the despots of the world. Conflicts like the continuing small-bore war in the Middle East end up, the president says, “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.” Anyone can see where that argument goes.

    This is of a piece with the remarks of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, to Congress that “the lack of progress” in the Middle East creates a “hostile environment” for the United States. True enough, and the general’s frustration is understandable (and shared). Wars have always been dangerous places to be, which is exactly why we send soldiers to such places. If only the Germans had not been so hostile, the Americans and the British could have had a day at the beach on D-Day. Alas, hostile the environment was, and there was no picnic. But the civilized world can be glad it never occurred to President Roosevelt to surrender France.

  24. yamit82 says:

    UH OH: CNN POLL: 73% OF AMERICANS WILL BE UPSET IF OBAMA NOMINATES A LIBERAL TO REPLACE STEVENS

    CNN:

    only a quarter of those questioned said the president should nominate a liberal, with 37 percent saying they want Obama to name a moderate and 36 percent pulling for a conservative candidate.

    THAT’S A WHOPPING 73% IN FAVOR OF A MODERATE OR CONSERVATIVE.

    AWESOME: A LIBERAL NOMINEE WILL BE AS POPULAR AS OBAMACARE.

    BWAHAHA!

    AND PROBABLY HELP KEEP US TEA PARTIERS MOTIVATED.

    IT’S ANOTHER WIN-WIN FOR THE RIGHT:

    * IF OBAMA NOMINATES A LIB, THEN HE UPSETS 73% AND WE WIN!
    * IF HE NOMINATES A CONSERVATIVE HE PISSES OFF HIS BASE AND … ER, UM… WE WIN!

    BWAHAHAHAHA!

  25. Laura says:

    * Islam is not an enemy, and the “global war on terror” does not define the United States’ current role in the world;
    * The United States will be a fair-minded and assertive mediator when it comes to attaining lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
    * The United States ought to pursue serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, as well as other issues;
    * The counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan should be part of a larger political undertaking, rather than a predominantly military one;
    * The United States should respect Latin America’s cultural and historical sensitivities and expand its contacts with Cuba;
    * The United States ought to energize its commitment to significantly reducing its nuclear arsenal and embrace the eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons;
    * In coping with global problems, China should be treated not only as an economic partner but also as a geopolitical one;
    * Improving U.S.-Russian relations is in the obvious interest of both sides, although this must be done in a manner that accepts, rather than seeks to undo, post-Cold War geopolitical realities;
    * A truly collegial transatlantic partnership should be given deeper meaning, particularly in order to heal the rifts caused by the destructive controversies of the past few years.”

    brzezinski is not someone who’s foreign policy recommendations should be taken seriously.

  26. ayn reagan says:

    “They’re Coming To Take Me Away”

    I haven’t heard that song since the days of Doctor Demento.

    I remember another of his favorites: “Let Me Hang My Balls On Your Christmas Tree”.

    Very touching holiday fare.

  27. yamit82 says:

    Israel imposes partial arms embargo on Turkey
    April 19, 2010 – 17:11 AMT 12:11 GMT

    GOOD!!!

    PanARMENIAN.Net – Israel will temporarily freeze sales of advanced military platforms to Turkey over concerns about the perceived mounting anti-Israel rhetoric from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, according to UK-based Jane’s Defense Weekly.

    Israel’s defense assistance and export organization, SIBAT, has decided to evaluate Turkish requests on a case-by-case basis; one case under review is a Turkish request for Israeli-made electronic warfare systems. Turkey has also expressed interest in Rafael’s Spike non-line-of-sight (NLOS) anti-tank guided weapon as well as Israel Aerospace Industries’ (IAI’s) Barak 8 theatre-defense missile system for its navy and the Namer heavy infantry fighting vehicle, Today’s Zaman reported.

    “Ties with Turkey will never be the way they once were,” a defense source said. “We are being very careful which systems we sell them due to the growing Islamic trends in the country.”

  28. yamit82 says:

    JAMES TARANTO: Why The Left Needs Racism: It Serves A Political Purpose.

    The political left claims to love racial diversity, but it bitterly opposes such diversity on the political right.

    This is an obvious matter of political self-interest: Since 1964, blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. If Republicans were able to attract black votes, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party.

    Even in 2008, the Democrats’ best presidential year since ‘64, if the black vote had been evenly split between the parties (and holding the nonblack vote constant), Barack Obama would have gotten about 48% of the vote and John McCain would be president.

    THE MARGIN OF VICTORY FOR OBAMA WAS THE BLACK VOTE;

    REPEAT: THE MARGIN OF VICTORY FOR OBAMA WAS THE BLACK VOTE.

    AND IT WASN’T AN ACCIDENT; POLITICO – 10/6/08, JUST A MONTH BEFORE THE ELECTION:

  29. yamit82 says:

    THE TOP TEN REASONS YOU SHOULD VOTE DEMOCRAT


    10.You should vote Democrat if you believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

    9. You should vote Democrat if you believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

    8. You should vote Democrat if you believe Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

    7. You should vote Democrat if you believe you’re way too irresponsible to own a gun, and feel that anybody needs are the local to protect you from murderers and thieves and terrorists.

    6. You should vote Democrat if you believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if everyone doesn’t start driving a Prius.

    5. You should vote Democrat if you believe the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion is okay, but that we should keep all death row inmates alive.

    4. You should vote Democrat if you believe illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

    3. You should vote Democrat if you believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They just need to break even and should give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

    2. You should vote Democrat if you believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

    1. You should vote Democrat if your head is so firmly planted up my ass it’s unlikely that you’ll ever have another point of view.

  30. ayn reagan says:

    JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak voiced concern on Monday over a deep rift with the United States over settlement policy and said Israel should do more to try to achieve peace with the Palestinians.

    “The alienation that is developing with the United States is not good for Israel,” said Barak, head of the center-left Labour Party in right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition.

    In an interview with Israel Radio on the country’s annual memorial day for its soldiers, Barak called for a “far-reaching Israeli diplomatic initiative” on peace, including talks with the Palestinians on core issues of the Middle East conflict.

    “We have strong ties with the United States, a bond, long-term friendship and strategic partnership. We receive three billion dollars from them each year, we get the best planes in the world from them,” he said.

    “For all these reasons we must act to change things,” Barak said, while voicing doubts Netanyahu would soon enjoy the same warm ties with the White House as his predecessors did when President George W. Bush was in office.

    The American equivalent of Barak?

    John Kerry.

    They each exist in vacuum, unfettered by reality and oblivious to the consequences of their feckless approach to life.

    If I were prime minister and intended to bomb Iran, I would find a way to make sure Barak was out of the loop…lest Obama learn what was about to happen in time to stop it.

    Barak is a menace.

    If not for Arafat’s pathological Jew hatred, old Ehud would have succeeded in surrendering Judea and Samaria.

    The Qassam rockets would be flying into Israel from the West Bank.

    Yet like Brzezinski, Barak rarely pays a price for always being wrong.

    And like Brzezinski, Barak is always wrong in a way that disadvantages his own nation.

    Neither of these guys ever err on the side of patriotism.

  31. ayn reagan says:

    According to Obama, when Muslims kill Americans it is the fault of the Jews.

    But whose fault is it when Muslims kill Pakistanis?

    Or Russians?

    Or Nigerians?

    Or Indians?

    Or Spaniards?

    When those evil Jews build housing in Jerusalem, are they responsible for Muslims killing Germans?

    Or Brits?

    Or Swedes?

    Or the French?

    Someone should ask Obama.

    Are Muslim jihadists throughout Asia and Africa killing Gentiles in retribution for Hebrews constructing apartments?

    When will someone belatedly confront the pathetic anti-Semites who blame Jews for Muslims killing American soldiers?

    Why hasn’t anyone of prominence vilified Obama and Petraeus and the rest of the craven reprobates who scapegoat Jews?

    Tell it as it is, with no sugar coating.

    Obama is a Jew-hating bigot, and collectively pretending that the emperor is wearing the finest silk doesn’t change the fact that he is actually bareass naked.

  32. ayn reagan says:

    Say what you will about Zbig…the man has a physique like none other.

  33. ayn reagan says:

    yamit,

    I have been negligent by not congratulating you on your professorial tone, which you employ in lieu of muscle tone.

  34. jerrylaury says:

    Why all this blather about Obama and his plans? We knew from the start that he was born a Muslim from a radical, hippy mother. Who his father was is still a matter of conjecture and we knew who his friends and mentors were and are. If it’s born of a duck, walks like a duck, etc. etc. Case closed. Only an idiot could believe that Obama has any sympathy for either Israel or the Jews.

  35. ayn reagan says:

    Why all this blather about Obama and his plans? We knew from the start that he was born a Muslim from a radical, hippy mother. Who his father was is still a matter of conjecture and we knew who his friends and mentors were and are. If it’s born of a duck, walks like a duck, etc. etc. Case closed. Only an idiot could believe that Obama has any sympathy for either Israel or the Jews.

    Well said.

    Only an idiot could believe that Obama has any sympathy for either Israel or the Jews.

    Only an idiot or a liberal Jew, whose problem is emotional rather than intellectual.

  36. Shy Guy says:

    I keep on telling you: Obama is not the problem. He is much worse.