Connect with us

Foreign Affairs

Trump went full Globalist First with Syria strikes

Published

on

President Trump should redirect aid to Guatemala from nations who voted against the Jerusalem move

Too often we find ourselves in emotive cycles. For instance, mass shootings are used by the anti-gun crowd as a means to motivate a legislative attack on our Second Amendment. Likewise, chemical weapon incidences in Syria are similarly used to create an emotionally based reason to use military action. We are quick to assume that the Assad regime was responsible for the previous high profile uses of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. This started under the Obama administration with his famous “Red Line” blunder in which he declared any use of chemical warfare unacceptable even if against the Al Qaeda affiliates or the JV team, ISIS. Trump, in contrast, followed through on Obama’s blunders, when the cycle repeated itself again.

A little over a year ago there was a chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, in a province most openly ruled by the rebrandings of Al Qaeda. This incident led to Trump ordering airstrikes on Syria betraying his campaign promise of staying out of Syria. This attack was carried out under false and premature pretenses. This is an instance where the intelligence community says one thing but evidence says another. But before you defend the intelligence community’s infallibility, look back to how they insisted the DNC was hacked despite the lack of evidence, specifically from the server, that a hack took place. And so the Russian Farce Began. Theodore Postol, a professor at MIT and former DoD scientific adviser pointed out the staged nature of the evidence regarding sarin gas attack in 2017. He ultimately showed that the crater and canister that is credited with the chemical weapons rocket was detonated from the ground, not the air. Read more about his findings here. The point is: the emotive response automatically assumes that the Assad regime carried out the attack. There have been many chemical weapons uses in the war, but only about three or four have gotten media notoriety. I don’t deny that the Syrian Arab Army has used chemical weapons ever, but I seriously doubt the nonstrategic use of chemical weapons that occurred in these notorious incidences. Though as described below, this incident had a strategic outcome.

With the most recent incidence, guilt has already been pointed at Assad restarting the cycle. I don’t care to defend Assad in this instance. I do however want to call Trump and his supporters out on their own support of globalism. So let’s assume Assad carried out this attack. Let’s assume Assad gassed Al Qaeda territories a day after launching a new offensive and because he did, the terrorists surrendered. Why should we care?

The easiest reason to dismiss is that striking Assad is beneficial to America’s Middle Eastern strategy. This would imply that there has been a strategy in the Middle East. But even if we soften strategy to “interests” striking Assad is counter to America’s interest. Al Qaeda has lost in Syria and is clinging to certain besieged areas. In the particular area of this incident the group that was beseiged was called the “Army of Islam”. How does weakening the army that has done more to fight Al Qaeda and ISIS than the US in the last decade benefit Americans or their interests? If Hezbollah, a terror organization sponsored and allied with Assad, were alleged to have been responsible, this would be a different story. But instead, we target the one belligerent in the Syrian Civil War that can actually stabilize the region, even if slowly.

You could then claim about civilian deaths which have been a constant theme in this war on all sides. Most recently, this year Turkey has taken to slaughtering Kurds in its land grab of Northern Syria, but Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care about the death toll there. Nor have other brutalities in Syria been enough for Trump or Obama, to act. Assad, along with every belligerent, has killed civilians in this war. Why are these deaths special? News flash they aren’t. A person is a person is a person. A person dies whether being shot, stabbed or gassed. The people who died in the gas attack were no more important than the people who died in gunfire or strategic bombing. Every person has a moral worth that is irrelevant to their cause of death. So this isn’t about civilian deaths. This is about chemical weapons in and of themselves.

So now that we established Trump attacked Syria because of chemical weapons, now lets dive in to why he’s a globalist for it. Trump wanted to send a message that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. But why is it unacceptable? What makes chemical weapons different than bullets and shells. Why is gas morally reprehensible and incendiary bombs permissible? There is no logical way to construct an argument that chemical weapons are impermissible while nuclear, radiological, and biological aren’t (though biological weapons are difficult if not impossible to control thus having little strategic use.) If we are to accept that weapons of mass destruction are morally wrong to ever use, then it would be inconsistent to not favor disarmament. Furthermore as Americans we would have to admit that the use of atomic bombs was a immoral decision if we do insist that the use of WMDs is morally impermissible.

I refuse to accept these premises and rewrite history in a globalist politically correct way. So why are chemical weapons such a big deal? The short answer is that the UN says they are a big deal. After World War 1, the League of Nations sought to outlaw chemical warfare and war in general. The ladder was ineffective. Though chemical weapons didn’t see as much light in World War 2, more extreme weapons did. Since its founding, the UN has sought to control what weapons a country can have. In addition to chemical weapons, there’s the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty. Article V of the NPT requires disarmament which nuclear nations have thus far refused. Some nuclear nations tolerate this treaty because they don’t want have-nots to get nukes. Others such as Israel, India, and Pakistan recognize that the UN wants to place limitations on their self defense capabilities. UN limitations on chemical weapons are similarly globalist schemes for the UN to encroach on a nation’s sovereignty. Chemical weapon use is wrong according to international law, not in and of themselves. As Ben Shapiro noted:

One of the arguments for intervention in Syria is that if we do nothing to reimpose the Obama red line in Syria, chemical weapons use will become more common. That’s probably true. But it’s also true that if someone attacked Americans with chemical weapons, we would end them. Furthermore, not all chemical weapons are the same: some are indeed weapons of mass destruction, but others are not as dangerous in scope as cluster bombs. Do the 500,000 dead in Syria’s civil war care whether they were killed by Russian cluster bombs or sarin gas?

So when Trump attacked Syria, he wasn’t responding to a threat nor can we really say it was about the people killed. He was upholding the UN’s power which Syria defied. This is where Trump goes full globalist. Never go full globalist. To repeat myself: he had the United State’s military attack another country because of a violation of international law! In the United States, international law has very little power here. This was established in Medellin v Texas. The globalist community cares not about American interests. Do we not remember when the UN condemned America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? It was allowed by Congress for decades. The UN would want nothing more than for America to relinquish its power.

Globalist First

All of Trump’s talk of nationalism is really a farce. He had our military act on a globalist cause, not “America First”. Trump may talk tough on tariffs, but globalism isn’t really about economics, its about sovereignty. Being “tough” on China doesn’t benefit America First. Instead these tariffs are now the biggest  threat to our economic security coming out of the Great Recession. Bombing Syria doesn’t benefit America first. It benefits Turkey and their terrorists. It benefits the UN. Trump wasted military resources doing the UN’s bidding instead of making America or its allies safer. Trump upheld UN norms instead of his lawful duties as defined by Congress and the US Constitution.

In an America First foreign policy, we would have seen if the President had gone through America first. Congress. Instead Trump relied on a thumbs up which he got from the globalist community.

Advertisement

0

Foreign Affairs

Avigdor Lieberman will pull Israel’s government to the center one way or the other

Published

on

Avigdor Lieberman will pull Israels government to the center one way or the other

As Israelis prepare to go to the polls next week, one man has emerged as the one who will reshape the government. It isn’t Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party. It isn’t Benny Gantz and his Blue and White Party. It’s Avigdor Lieberman, the former Israeli Defense and Foreign Minister who leads the Yisrael Beitenu Party.

Despite his party being much smaller than the two giants (Likud and Blue and White tied with 35 Knesset seats in April’s election compared to Yisrael Beitenu’s 5), Lieberman holds all the cards. Neither large party is projected to have enough sears to form a coalition government without Yisrael Beitenu just as Netanyahu needed their five seats in April. This election, polls indicate Lieberman’s party could hold as many as 11 seats, making any government practically impossible without their support.

This puts both Gantz and Netanyahu in precarious positions. Lieberman’s main policy points against Likud is their appeasement of the ultra-orthodox population that currently gets special privileges such as not having to serve in the military like all other Jewish Israelis. Lieberman is pushing hard against Judaism playing such a prominent role in political decisions, preferring secular solutions to the nation’s problems.

Likud has maintained power by forming conservative coalition governments, but if they win again as they did in April, Lieberman will likely force them to abandon a coalition with the far-right and add his centrist nationalist party as well as center-left Blue and White to the mix. This would pull the government to the center even with Netanyahu as Prime Minister.

But this doesn’t make for good news for Blue and White, either, as even with Yisrael Beitenu’s support, they would likely be unable to form a coalition government without Likud. One way or the other, Yisrael Beitenu will force the conservative, religious parties to lose power outside of the Knesset.

The only way for this to not happen is if Israelis give Likud and their conservative allies enough seats to not need Lieberman’s support. This is very unlikely. If Likud pulls off another victory, they will likely find their conservative wing diminished from where it was in April. Assuming that’s the case, Netanyahu would have to make concessions to Lieberman, concessions that will prohibit the far-right parties from participating in the coalition.

In other words, Netanyahu may not change, but his ability to continue enacting conservative policies will be decimated. He’ll be forced to withdraw protections for ultra-Orthodox Jews.

The most likely scenario has the two biggest parties working together to form a government with right-leaning parties and perhaps a couple of left-leaning small ones to fill out the 61 seats necessary to form a government.

The role of Prime Minister may be a battle between Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz, but the man who will determine the political fate of Israel is Avigdor Lieberman. Israel’s government hasn’t been in this much turmoil since their founding.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

9/11 families praise Attorney General’s transparency regarding Saudi Role in 9/11 attacks

Published

on

911 families praise Attorney Generals transparency regarding Saudi Role in 911 attacks

“This is a good result,” said Terry Strada, National Chair of the 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism

Washington, D.C. – The 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism, whose members are suing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its role in the September 11 Attacks, released the following statement after Attorney General Bill Barr refused to invoke “state secrets” to shield key evidence relating to the Saudi role. In particular, the Attorney General agreed to allow the court to see the name of the senior official who tasked two Saudi employees to give aid and support to the first-arriving hijackers.

“This is a good result,” said Terry Strada, National Chair of the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism. “The families are dedicated to getting to the truth, and we shouldn’t have to beg for this sort of basic information, or be kept in the dark, about the Saudi role in the attacks.”

“The Saudis are running out of rope,” said Don Migliori and Sean Carter, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the 9/11 litigation. “It was always clear that this information was not a ‘state secret’ and we’re pleased that the Attorney General agreed. We look forward to more disclosures in the weeks and months ahead.”

Don Migliori is a partner at Motley Rice LLC, and Sean Carter is a partner with Cozen O’Connor. They are co-chairs of the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee in the multi-district litigation against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pending in federal district court in New York.

BACKGROUND:

Since 2003, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has faced a civil lawsuit in the Southern District of New York (03 MDL 1570) alleging that the Kingdom aided and abetted and provided material support for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

After many years of legal wrangling regarding the scope of the law of sovereign immunity, Congress intervened decisively in September 2016 and passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). JASTA made clear that foreign sovereigns cannot evade accountability in U.S. courts when they aid and abet or provide material support to international terrorism on U.S. soil, such as the September 11 Attacks. JASTA’s passage was endorsed by then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign multiple times, with surrogates Reince Priebus and Rudy Giuliani, and Trump himself, favoring JASTA and the right of the 9/11 families to pursue their civil lawsuit against the Saudis.

In March of 2018, Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York rejected yet another attempt by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to dismiss the case. Judge Daniels then ordered discovery into the Saudi role in aiding and abetting the hijackers, including on matters relating to the activities of Saudi government officials Omar Ahmed al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Thumairy. Attorneys for the 9/11 families and related parties have been collecting information from the Saudis, the U.S government, and other parties throughout the world. Much of that information remains under seal, but it is extensive and probative to the case.

One of the issues relating to Thumairy and Bayoumi was a heavily redacted 2012 FBI Summary Report, which indicated that the FBI was investigating both them and an unnamed third party who “tasked” them to help the hijackers upon arrival. The 9/11 plaintiffs have demanded that the name of that third individual be released, but it appears that some elements in the U.S. government though that the name should be shielded from the families as a “state secret.” The Attorney General had the personal obligation to determine whether the identity of the unnamed “tasking” official should be treated in that fashion.

The public policy of the United States favors full disclosure of all details relating to the Saudi support for al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers. Congress made this clear by passing JASTA has continued to emphasize the need for full disclosure.

For example, on September 26, 2018, the U.S. Senate once again spoke to the importance of full disclosure, unanimously passing S. Res. 610 calling on the Department of Justice to declassify necessary information because “the survivors, the families of the victims, and the people of the United States deserve answers about the events and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States.” That effort was led by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and John Cornyn (R-TX).

Further, on March 8, 2019, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray to urge him to give the highest attention to the 9/11 families’ request for information, emphasizing, that “Congress has made clear its view that American interests would best be served by a full and fair inquiry into these matters.” (See March 8, 2019 letter from Senators John Cornyn, Charles Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Richard Blumenthal, and Kirsten Gillibrand to FBI Director Christopher Wray.) The Senators made clear that the “FBI should not withhold relevant information from the [9/11] victims or their families in these cases for any reason.”

The families will continue to press their case in order to uncover the truth regarding the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks. Today’s disclosure is helpful to that cause, but much more work must be done.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

What if Iran, not Afghanistan or North Korea, was the reason John Bolton left the White House?

Published

on

What if Iran not Afghanistan or North Korea was the reason John Bolton left the White House

Speculation over the divide that eventually turned into an irreparable chasm between President Trump and his former National Security Advisor John Bolton has been focused on two places: Afghanistan and North Korea. The former is conspicuous because of timing; the White House has been in negotiations with the Taliban and Afghani leaders and recently canceled a meeting at Camp David before declaring withdrawal negotiations “dead.” The latter was referenced today by the President, who noted that Bolton’s invocation of the “Libyan Model” was part of the reason talks broke down between the United States and North Korea.

But recent reports that the President is considering relieving sanctions, reengaging in the Iran Nuclear Deal, and offering Iran a $15 billion line of credit seems to be the most likely scenario behind Bolton’s unexpected departure.

Trump Flirts With $15 Billion Bailout for Iran, Sources Say

President Donald Trump has left the impression with foreign officials, members of his administration, and others involved in Iranian negotiations that he is actively considering a French plan to extend a $15 billion credit line to the Iranians if Tehran comes back into compliance with the Obama-era nuclear deal.

Trump has in recent weeks shown openness to entertaining President Emmanuel Macron’s plan, according to four sources with knowledge of Trump’s conversations with the French leader. Two of those sources said that State Department officials, including Secretary Mike Pompeo, are also open to weighing the French proposal, which would effectively ease the economic sanctions regime that the Trump administration has applied on Tehran for more than a year.

If this is the case and the President starts to bend on Iran in this manner, it’s a huge mistake and makes Bolton’s ouster much more understandable. Bolton, perhaps more than any other current or former White House official, is vehemently opposed to any relief for Iran. If anything, Bolton has likely been calling for strikes against Iran since joining the White House earlier this year. He’s a hawk – way too hawkish for me in most cases – but he also understands better than most that Iran represents a real threat to our interests and allies as well as the United States itself. Despite their economic hardships, they remain the world’s most prominent state sponsor of terrorism.

They want to destroy America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. They aren’t shy about these desires.

Now is not the time to be backing down to Iran’s demands. This is still in rumor stage, but if the White House does anything to help the Iranian government get back on its feet, it would be a tremendous mistake.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending