LFTC - Letter From The Capitol

S. KOREA: OUR ALBATROSS?

Why South Korea is our Asian Achilles' heel....

Strategist Edward Luttwak explains why South Korea's security & economic policies undercut America's efforts to contain North Korea:

To feed the palace system, North Korea must also extract payoffs from the outside world: some from enabling NGOs (food aid from which allows domestic food production to be used for army rations), some from the United States and Japan in exchange for Pyongyang's nuclear promises (never kept), but most from the fellow Koreans of the South (whose payoffs are won by sheer intimidation). South Korean President Kim Dae-jung won the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his unprecedented reconciliation summit with Kim Jong Il, a moment when peace and even unification seemed imminent. Only later did the truth leak out: The summit had been purchased for $100 million in cash. Unsurprisingly, it led to nothing.

Unwilling to deter North Korea -- which would require a readiness to retaliate for its occasionally bloody attacks and constant provocations, thereby troubling business and roiling the Seoul stock market -- South Korea has instead preferred to pay off the regime with periodic injections of fuel and food aid, but most consistently by way of the North-South Kaesong industrial zone, in which some 80,000 North Korean workers are paid relatively good wages by South Korean corporations. The workers themselves receive very little of their salaries, of course, the majority of which gets funneled back to Pyongyang and makes up the North's largest consistent source of foreign currency. Even under supposedly "hard-line" South Korean presidents, the Kaesong transfer has continued. It was not shut down when the North sunk South Korea's Cheonan warship, killing 46 sailors; nor when the North opened artillery fire on a South Korean island, killing two soldiers and two civilians; nor when the North tested a nuclear device and launched a long-range ballistic missile. Even as the present crisis has unfolded, it was the paying South that feared an interruption of production at Kaesong, not the North, which reaps the benefits. And when media in South Korea noted with much relief that Kaesong was still open, the North Koreans promptly shut it down.

Having successfully extracted payoffs so consistently through threats and occasional attacks, the North is naturally at it again. Even though another nuclear test and the threatened launch of a mobile long-range ballistic missile appear imminent, a payoff from the South, not war on the Korean Peninsula, is the likely outcome. And Pyongyang knows this.

Meanwhile, South Korea has matched the North's bellicosity with its own strategic perversity: It remains obsessed with an utterly unthreatening Japan and has been purchasing air power to contend with imagined threats from Tokyo as opposed to the real ones just north of the demilitarized zone. Seoul is simply unwilling to acquire military strength to match its vastly superior economy. Instead, it spends billions of dollars to develop its proudly "indigenous" T-50 jet fighters, Surion helicopters, and coastal defense frigates -- alternatives for which could be much better, and cheaper, imported from the United States. Meanwhile, gaping holes remain in South Korean defenses (and thus we see the ridiculous spectacle of last-minute scrambling for missing equipment and munitions in the present crisis). And the cycle continues: Because the South allows itself to remain so vulnerable, it cannot react effectively against North Korea's perpetual threats and periodic attacks. Instead, Seoul checks its bank account and gets ready for the next payoff.

Luttwak calls upon the US to press South Korea to adopt a stronger defense policy, to close the joint industry project & end financial subsidies of any kind to Pyongyang.  A Wall Street Journal editorial details how the Kaesong project underwrites the North's aggression....

BENGHAZI UNRAVELS

House GOP report shows rank deception, deceit....

On April 23 House Republicans released a 43-page interim progress report on the Benghazi debacle, with more House hearings on Benghazi in the works.  Michael Barone excerpts key points. He notes as well that while partisanship plays a role in all single-party reports, the Democrats declined to issue one of their own, suggesting they'd rather the issue went away.  Jed Babbin sees a Benghazi + Syria + Boston link, that being Team Obama's resolute denial that Islamist terror is alive & all too well--despite a president supposedly iconic to Muslims around the world.

Here is the executive summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An ongoing Congressional investigation across five House Committees concerning the events surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya has made several determinations to date, including:

•  Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

•  In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.

•  Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior Administration officials.

  These preliminary findings illustrate the need for continued examination and oversight by the five House Committees. The Committees will continue to review who exactly was responsible for the failure to respond to the repeated requests for more security and for the effort to cover up the nature of the attacks, so that appropriate officials will be held accountable.

And here are the report's specific findings & policy considerations, well worth a read:

Findings

This progress report reveals a fundamental lack of understanding at the highest levels of the State Department as to the dangers presented in Benghazi, Libya, as well as a concerted attempt to insulate the Department of State from blame following the terrorist attacks. The Committees’ majority staff summarizes findings to date as follows:

Before the Attacks:

•  After the U.S.-backed Libyan revolution ended the Gadhafi regime, the U.S. government did not deploy sufficient U.S. security elements to protect U.S. interests and personnel that remained on the ground.

•  Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the Department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel.

•  Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

•  The attacks were not the result of a failure by the Intelligence Community (IC) to recognize or communicate the threat. The IC collected considerable information about the threats in the region, and disseminated regular assessments to senior U.S. officials warning of the deteriorating security environment in Benghazi, which included threats to American interests, facilities, and personnel.

•  The President, as Commander-in-Chief, failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense. Defense Department assets were correctly positioned for the general threat across the region, but the assets were not authorized at an alert posture to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense, and were provided no notice to defend diplomatic facilities.

  During the Attacks:

•  On the evening of September 11, 2012, U.S. security teams on the ground in Benghazi exhibited extreme bravery responding the attacks by al-Qa’ida-affiliated groups against the U.S. mission.

•  Department of Defense officials and military personnel reacted quickly to the attacks in Benghazi. The effectiveness of their response was hindered on account of U.S. military forces not being properly postured to address the growing threats in northern Africa or to respond to a brief, high-intensity attack on U.S. personnel or interests across much of Africa.

After the Attacks:

•  The Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video. U.S. officials on the ground reported – and video evidence confirms – that demonstrations outside the Benghazi Mission did not occur and that the incident began with an armed attack on the facility. Senior Administration officials knowingly minimized the role played by al-Qa’ida-affiliated entities and other associated groups in the attacks, and decided to exclude from the discussion the previous attempts by extremists to attack U.S. persons or facilities in Libya.

•  Administration officials crafted and continued to rely on incomplete and misleading talking points. Specifically, after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks. The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi. Senior State Department officials requested – and the White House approved – that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attacks, and previous warnings be removed to insulate the Department from criticism that it ignored the threat environment in Benghazi.

•  Evidence rebuts Administration claims that the talking points were modified to protect classified information or to protect an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Email exchanges during the interagency process do not reveal any concern with protecting classified information. Additionally, the Bureau itself approved a version of the talking points with significantly more information about the attacks and previous threats than the version that the State Department requested. Thus, the claim that the State Department’s edits were made solely to protect that investigation is not credible.

•  The Administration deflected responsibility by blaming the IC for the information it communicated to the public in both the talking points and the subsequent narrative it perpetuated. Had Administration spokesmen performed even limited due diligence inquiries into the intelligence behind the talking points or requested reports from personnel on the ground, they would have quickly understood that the situation was more complex than the narrative provided by Ambassador Susan Rice and others in the Administration.

•  The Administration’s decision to respond to the Benghazi attacks with an FBI investigation, rather than military or other intelligence resources, contributed to the government’s lack of candor about the nature of the attack.

•  Responding to the attacks with an FBI investigation significantly delayed U.S. access to key witnesses and evidence and undermined the government’s ability to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice in a timely manner.

Policy Considerations

•  The events in Benghazi reflect the Administration’s lack of a comprehensive national security strategy or a credible national security posture in the region. The United States continues to maintain an inadequate defensive posture in North Africa and the Middle East as a result of the Administration’s under-appreciation of the threat that al-Qa’ida and related terrorist groups pose in the region.

•  This singular event will be repeated unless the United States recognizes and responds to the threats we face around the world, and properly postures resources and security assets to counter and respond to those threats. Until that time, the United States will remain in a reactionary mode and should expect more catastrophes like Benghazi, in which U.S. personnel on the ground perform bravely, but are not provided with the resources for an effective response. As those opposed to U.S. interests will continue to take advantage of perceived U.S. weaknesses, the United States will continue to lose credibility with its allies and face the worst of all possible outcomes in strategically important locations around the world.

•  Congress must maintain pressure on the Administration to ensure the United States takes all necessary steps to find the Benghazi attackers. It has been more than seven months since the FBI investigation began, and there is very little progress. The risks of treating the Benghazi terrorist attacks as a law enforcement matter rather than a military matter are becoming increasingly clear. The failure to respond more assertively to the attacks and to impose meaningful consequences on those who planned and perpetrated them has contributed to a perception of U.S. weakness and retreat. Al-Qa’ida grew emboldened when the U.S. failed to respond forcibly and effectively to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (1993), U.S. Embassies in East Africa (1998), and the U.S.S. Cole (2000). Active terrorist organizations and potential recruits will also be emboldened to attack U.S. interests if the U.S. fails to hold those responsible for this attack accountable.

•  Congress must also provide an effective counterweight to the Administration’s failure to adequately communicate the nature and the extent of the threats our country faces today. The Administration must do more to develop a coherent and robust national security strategy, and Congress must hold it accountable to do so.

So the administration effectively ran out the pre-election & post-election clocks, by asking the FBI to begin a lengthy investigation, and claiming it therefore could not comment.  Such by itself is not a bad way to go as to the full picture, provided readily available information about administration handling during the election campaign were not held up.  Info was in fact held back, protecting the presidential narrative as to the president being on top of things, and the attack coming virtually without any advance warning signs, and so on.

Bottom Line.  Team Obama punted the Benghazi affair far enough down the road--now, 7-1/2 months & counting--that political fallout from this report will be minimal to non-existent.  And that, fans, was precisely Team Obama's goal.  Or, as George W. Bush might have said, "Mission accomplished."

Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, Foreign Policy, National Security, Terrorism, Conservative Politics

MARGARET THATCHER, R.I.P.

A great friend of freedom passes on....

I met the formidable figure that Mikhail Gorbachev dubbed the "Iron Lady" once, at a reception & lunch in 1993.  Contrary to MG's description, the Baroness Thatcher proved warm & gracious in person.  Then again, I had not been head of what Ronald Reagan called the "Evil Empire."  America had no better friend.  She stands alongside such legendary friends of America as the Marquis de Lafayette & her illustrious mid-century predecessor as prime minister, Winston Churchill.

For Churchill his affection for the former Thirteen Colonies was, however, partly familial lineage: his mother, Jennie Jerome, was American, daughter of an American tycoon.  The grocer's daughter who studied chemistry had wartime memory of America as staunch World War II ally, but no direct familial connection.  As prime minister she disagreed at times with President Reagan, usually in private, as even the best of friends at times do.  But when the chips were down we could count on her--even though during the Falklands War, when she sought undiluted American support, the Reagan administration was divided, and thus a tepid supporter at best.  She prevailed anyway.

When in April 1986 President Reagan sought bases in Europe to launch an air attack against Libya's Gaddafi, in retaliation for Libya's sponsoring a Berlin terror bombing that killed American soldiers, among our NATO allies only Lady Thatcher responded.  Though her decision was far from popular at home she went ahead anyway, because she knew it was the right thing to do.

Among countless tributes, here are some stellar ones from those who knew her best: historian Paul Johnson, publisher Conrad Black and journalist & former top aide John O'Sullivan.  Claire Berlinski, author of a book about Thatcher, explodes five myths about her.  Polish hero labor leader Lech Walesa says in this remarkable 1989 Gdansk video (4:36) that without Thatcher's 1989 visit there would have been no triumph for the Solidarity movement.

And get a grand laugh at Lady Thatcher's refusal to jump--yes, jump--during a TV interview (h/t Peggy Noonan).  What passes for the idea behind the request was for her to demonstrate "another side" to her personality--which she (correctly) took as a kiddie side adults should not indulge in public.  Gorbachev fell for it as, apparently, had many other interviewees.

As America slides into the socialist, multicultural swamp that she tried without success to prevent a foolish Europe from sliding into, and as America withdraws from the world in a policy choice she would have counseled against, I can only wish she were reincarnated as America's current president.

Alas, we will not be that lucky.  And we will not see her like again.

Bottom Line.  Those who lived through the Thatcher Era can savor the memory of her greatness displayed on the world stage.  And even those not fortunate enough to witness her epic prime ministerial run should lament the lack of comparably great leaders, urgently needed to meet today's daunting challenges imperiling the free world at home and abroad.

Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, National Security, Foreign Policy, Economy, Conservative Politics

BAGHDAD'S MODERN BIRTH

In 1932, 81 years ago, Baghdad looked like this....

From the Library of Congress Matson collection, 23 photos of a post-Empire Baghdad from 1932, the year the post-Ottoman British protectorate become an independent nation.  The hope that Iraq would join the community of advanced nations was dashed for two generations by the radical revolutions of July 14, 1958 that installed Baathist tyrannies in Syria & Iraq.  The ousting of pro-British governance was accomplished by a claque including a young Saddam Hussein.

Saddam's rise to power culminated in his seizing the reins of the regime in 1976, in a bloody coup & aftermath that earned Saddam the nickname "Butcher of Baghdad."  Saddam established a hyper-brutal Stalinist dictatorship.  In 1980 he invaded Iran, triggering an 8-year war that claimed one million lives.  He used chemical weapons against his Kurdish subjects in 1988.

Which brings us to the nuclear story....

MIDEAST: JIHADI RISING

One huge win for Israel as storm clouds gather....

ISRAEL.  President Obama's visit last week signaled one major shift above all, flagged by Mideast expert Daniel Pipes: for the first time Obama insisted that Arabs recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.  In his Jerusalem speech the president said: "Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state."

True, as Charles Krauthammer noted in his column, Obama remains confused, having said in Israel: “I honestly believe that if any Israeli parent sat down with those [Palestinian] kids, they’d say, ‘I want these kids to succeed.’ ”  CK tartly asked if the president would tell Palestinians to want Israeli kids to succeed, instead of trying to kill them by the carload.  But Joseph Shattan at TAS sees O's charm offensive as designed to prevent an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

On the economic front there is more good news for Israel: Israel's new Tamar offshore natural gas field will begin supplying energy to Israel.  Since the Arab Spring began in 2011, Israel's Egyptian gas pipelines have been the target of serial sabotage.

JORDAN.  President Obama is ignoring warnings from Jordan's King Addullah, probably the most pro-US Arab leader in the Mideast.  Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed King Abdullah recently.  Beset by rising domestic discontent, and buffeted in the stormy winds of the Arab Spring, Abdullah spoke of how he would handle mass demonstrations:

IRAN & THE OBAMA DOCTRINE

So where does our Iran policy stand now?....

IRAN AUGURIES.  President Obama's leak that US intel sees Iran within one year of a nuclear bomb, if true, informs Iran of our intel status.  Jeffrey Goldberg predicts Obama will press Bibi hard over Iran, to derail a possible Israeli strike, by promising an American strike (a promise utterly unenforceable). Israel feels that the West offered too many concessions to Iran in current talks.  A "shadow war" between Israel's Mossad & Iran is raising hackles at the CIA.

Two security experts see Obama courting "Finlandization" of allied Gulf states (sub. only) due to our Iran policy:

GAZA TIFF; SYRIA WHIFF

Mideast burns anew, Obama dithers again....

EGYPT/GAZA: FAMILY TIFF.  Mideast Kramer (Muslim Bros.) v. Kramer (Hamas).  Barry Rubin reports on a new Mideast feud: Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood regime and Gaza's Hamas regime are at loggerheads, with Egypt continuing the practice of blocking tunnels at the border, and thus impeding the trans-shipment of arms to the Palestinians:

CHINA'S CYBER-SPY COLD WAR

What to do about China's massive cyber-thefts....

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published my article, Chinese "hackers" Is a Misnomer: They're Spies.

My piece explains why China's activities are akin to those of Soviet spies during the Cold War, and that using "hackers" as a term can lead to policy confusion between garden-variety crimes versus acts of war by a foreign power.  China's cyberwar is cold now, but also potentially preparatory for a hot one later.  I propose strong steps that the administration should take to address China's cyber-security threat.

Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, National Security, Homeland Security, Foreign Policy, Conservative Politics

DRONES: A STRATEGIST'S VIEW

The retired commander of drone operations speaks....

As Rand Paul ends his filibuster (1:04) of John Brennan's CIA nomination over his role in the possible use of drones inside US territory, raising moral & constitutional issues, a position concisely rebutted by legal ace John Yoo, ex-Gen. Dave Deptula explains why drone warfare is a vital solution for many military situations:

The media like to use it because it is only one word and they don't have to explain what a "Remotely Piloted Aircraft" is. But the word "drone" connotes a degree of autonomy that RPAs simply do not possess. It takes over 200 people to operate a MQ-1 Predator or MQ-9 Reaper RPA orbit for 24 hours. This little-known fact among the RPA naysayers is one of the reasons that the use of "drones" allows for more ethical oversight than any other weapon. Drones allow us significantly greater control, oversight, and review before a shot is fired than occurs using manned aircraft or other operations conducted by soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines.

The persistence, situational awareness, and degree of control possible with an RPA allows for the immediate suspension of lethal engagement if circumstances change or questions emerge - even after a weapon has been released or launched. RPA are networked aircraft and their data can reach any spot on earth in less than two seconds.

Hence, in addition to the hundreds of operational, maintenance, and intelligence personnel, many lawyers and senior leadership are directly involved with RPA lethal engagements. That kind of oversight is rarely, if ever, the case with the use of manned aircraft or with boots on the ground or sailors at sea. The power of our intelligence networks allows RPA essentially to carry around their own command and analysis center and legal counsel as an integral part of their payload....

VENEZUELA AFTER CHAVEZ

Chavez dies; will Chavismo die with him?....

Hugo Chavez's ferocious fight to live ends--fittingly, on the 60th anniversary of the death of Soviet tyrant Josef Stalin, whose personality cult Chavez adopted (via Fidel Castro, Hurricane Hugo's mentor)--but will his considerable national, regional--even, in some measure, global--geopolitical influence survive?....

MIDEAST I: US, IRAN, SYRIA

Iran, Syria, US update, mostly bad....

Iran. Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Guide, has contemptuously rebuffed Team Obama's plea for more diplomatic negotiations, and warned his subjects as well:

I’m not a diplomat; I’m a revolutionary, and speak frankly and directly.  If anyone wants the return of U.S. dominance here, people will grab his throat.

Khamenei is sole custodian of Iran's nuclear program.  The WSJ editors offer historical narrative to document repeated Iranian refusals to bargain over its nuclear ambitions.  Iran shopped in China for "ring magnets"--critical for operating high-speed uranium enrichment centrifuges.  Iran's leaders played "good cop/bad cop" again this weekend, promising to go civilian if only its "rights" are protected.  Another deception: Iran recently unveiled a "stealth jet"--in reality, a mock-up model with a possible drone version flight; Iran even Photoshopped the "plane" ostensibly flying above snow-capped mountains.

Recently SecState John Kerry warned Iran that “prepared to do whatever is necessary” to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  But why should the Iranians believe this, given a president who has moved "red lines" as Iran progresses?...

NORTH KOREA: NUKE TEST 3

Ominous evidence of progress....

Pyongyang's third nuclear test was twice as powerful as its second (2009--the first, in 2006, is generally believed to have been a partial fizzle).  But that is the least of it.  This design was apparently lighter and more compact than the earlier ones--signs of work towards building a small but powerful warhead that can be placed atop a ballistic missile.

The 2006 test yielded less than one kiloton; the 2009 test yielded around 6 to 7 kilotons.  The latest test's yield was about twice 2009's, by some estimates (newly TV-reported U.S. intel estimate: 6+ kilotons).  If true this would place its yield at the level of the Hiroshima bomb (2/3 that for the Nagasaki bomb).  All three tests used plutonium, a fuel that requires a sophisticated "implosion" trigger to symmetrically compress the plutonium fuel to a super-critical mass in nanoseconds to achieve design yield.  Pyongyang is also working on a uranium enrichment route to a bomb, but there has been no uranium bomb test to date....

BRENNAN IN THE DOCK

CIA Director John Brennan's hearing....

Days before the hearing, Team Obama released a 16-page Justice Dept. Law of Drones memo, spelling out the legal justifications for allowing the administration to target Americans overseas if they are suspected of helping al-Qaeda.  Restraints are minimal & collateral casualties are permissible.  Three criteria are given: (1) the target is part of an "imminent" plot to harm Americans; (2) there is "undue risk" to US personnel if capture is attempted instead; (3) calls are applied within traditional law of war principles--re collateral damage, proportionality, necessity, etc.

Ron Radosh presents an impassioned case against Obama's drone policy.  He makes three arguments which, although well-stated, are all flawed: (1)"imminent" means a specific plot about to be executed; (2) "undue risk" of capture equates to a license to kill at will; (3) collateral damage principles are being violated.  ALL ARE WRONG.  Here's why....

NOMINEE HAGEL IMPLODES

SecDef nominee Chuck Hagel unravels....

Thursday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing was a very bad-hair day for the nominee.

Begin, however, with Hagel's best defense (scroll down to second video clip, 0:58), noting that during his two Senate terms he had cast over 3,000 votes, hundreds of committee votes, given hundreds of speeches, interviews & written a book.  No one quote, Hagel said, defines him.  Fair enough....

Now view this grilling (6:37) from freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).  Hagel apparently did not supply the committee with much requested documentation--only 4 of some 100 speeches in the past five years.   Cruz showed video of Hagel accepting that Israel in 2006 was guilty of war crimes in fighting Hezbollah.  Cruz concluded with a clip showing Hagel accepting an al-Jazeera accusation that the US is the world's bully.  Hagel denied the obvious evidence of the videos--which, according to Cruz, were presented with quotes in context.

And there is more....

OBAMA 2.0: DEFENSE POLICY

Will the US deploy forces sufficient to meet threats?....

As Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearing unfolds today, what issues should be raised, beyond those already raised as to Hagel's own fitness (or lack of same) to serve as Secretary of Defense?

Overall Security Posture.  Michael Ledeen tells Ginni Thomas (17:54) why US policy is in a shambles: (a) we fail to integrate the global Islamist threat; (b) we fail to punish our enemies sufficiently to cow adversaries; (c) Obama's world view sees US power & policy as the problem, not the solution, and hence America is in worldwide retreat; (d) Obama is slashing the military budget.  Illustrating Obama's perverse worldview (& Hillary's too) is "O" telling "60 Minutes" on Sunday that the Islamist Morsi regime in Egypt is an example of his leadership.  One day later the US closed its embassy due to turmoil in Cairo.  The crackdown may have been partly induced by Team Obama's F-16 shipment last week, which signaled Morsi that the US regards him as an ally.  In the emerging struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood regime and secular Egyptian youth, in which the regime may well unravel, whose side will Hagel take?  A Foreign Policy article punctures Western illusions about Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood--all eagerly embraced by Team Obama.

For its part, Israel has had close military cooperation with US re military technology under Hagel's predecessors, such as the new "David's Sling" system.  Will Hagel support this?  Does Hagel understand that Israel's recent election turned on domestic issues (economy, obligations of Orthodox Jews) and not on foreign affairs?  Jennifer Rubin eviscerates a 2009 Hagel Mideast speech that shows a nominee simply wrong on everything--facts, judgments, quixotic goals--re the Mideast.  And what might Hagel say of Israel's Wednesday strike destroying Russian SA-17 missiles (and, say Syrian rebels, a chemical weapons research center as well)?  The SA-17 is deadly against low-flying high-end jets, and were taken before Syria could activate them.

Former senior official John Bolton aptly summarizes Obama's feckless national security policies & what likely lies ahead, in a recent interview:

OBAMA 2.0: FOREIGN POLICY II

Outside the Mideast, also a grim outlook....

KERRY'S WORLD.  But begin first with the views of incoming SecState John Kerry.  Barry Rubin ably dissects Kerry's confirmation testimony:

Unfortunately, Kerry subscribes — as is so fashionable today in the Obama administration and academia — to what I’ll call the “abusive relationship approach” to foreign policy.

If another country supports you and is good for your interests, you take that country’s good will for granted and mistreat it. If another regime — say, Turkey, Pakistan, Venezuela, Egypt, and, at times in the recent past, Syria and Iran — walks all over you, then you chase after it all the more passionately and shower it with presents.

In the hands of a good realpolitik statesman, this balance would be managed well. For example: former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger would have kept the Egyptian government off-balance and made it understand that Washington was doing it a favor by providing aid. In other words, leverage would be used.

But in Kerry’s hands, leverage is tossed away. He is so afraid of using power or being tough that he throws away leverage, believing there can be no risk of problems. The recipient must not be intimidated or pressed to change, but instead shown that America is its friend — not the imperialist bully that people like Kerry and President Barack Obama see when they look back at U.S. history.

Kerry, long a proponent of engagement with Syrian thug Bashir Assad, will serve a president stumped as to what to do in Syria....

PASSING OF A HERO FRIEND

A great Canadian friend passes on....

THE BOMB: WHAT WE FORGOT

Americans' ostrich view of The Bomb....

GROWING NUCLEAR DANGERS

What we need to relearn to avoid catastrophe....

GAZA: PHILADELPHI STORY

The only way to secure the Egypt-Gaza border....

IRAN's NEW NUKE THREAT

Is Iran laying ground for a weapons breakout?....

MITT DOES FOREIGN POLICY

Romney's VMI speech scores....

What 9/11/01 & 9/11/12 Prove

Islamists' choice of 9/11 reveals the war we face....

Russia Resets, Obama Sleeps

Sage Mike Ledeen on Russia v. USA.  Scary.

Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, Foreign Policy, National Security, Conservative Politics

Hijacking Egypt's Revolution

Islamists are taking over Egypt's democracy....

London Games End

17 days and gone, what should we remember?....

Assad's "Civilized" Exit???

Another gem from our Russian reset partner....

Syria's Seismic Shock

The final Syrian phase unfolds....

Syria: A Case Against Intervention

Henry Kissinger states the realist case against....

Israel's Forever Front

Why Palestinians may never make peace....

North Korea's Stink-Bomb Double

Is the North planning an ICBM/Nuke Double?

Israel--Alone v. Iran

Will Israel attack Iran?  Should it do so?

Obama's Islam Outreach in Ruins

The One has a special touch for the Mideast?....

Iran, Syria Dangers

Politics takes a break, but not war....

Whither North Korea?

Tyrant dies, what next?....

The Bomb for Burma?

Asian nuclear developments continue to unfold....

Korean Nuclear Rumblings

The North Korean Godzilla stirs, again....

New Egypt: Bye-Bye Camp David

Islamist Egypt is good for ... fence-builders....

My Asia Nukes Article

Human Events posted my article Monday....

Mideast Convulsions

Mideast wars coming to a screen near you....

CHINA's NUCLEAR SHADOWS

How many nukes does China have?

Pakistani Nukes: How Secure?

Might Pakistan's nukes be compromised?....

The Perils of American Impatience

Obama vacating Afghanistan, Iraq....

Gaddafi Going, Going, Gone!....

Summary execution of a tyrant, now what?....

"Roots" of Anti-Israel Rage

Why is Israel so hated?

War, Crime and Terrorists

At last, Obama forges a consensus....

Israel, Land and Peace

The Palestinian game, perfectly captured....

Killing Charismatics

Third time charm--now, al-Awlaki as a martyr....

Israel's Diplomatic Wins

Israel gets help from France & Spain....

Palestinian Lies, Israeli Truths

Last week's UN sideshow is not the Main Event....