Archive for Foreign Policy

Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy

Posted in Foreign Policy, Politics, Presidential Election with tags , , , , , , , on November 3, 2016 by authorcarloscardoso

hillary-what-difference-reuters

Hillary Clinton keeps trying to scare the American people on how dangerous Donald Trump would be to America because he would lead us into a world war. The truth is that the Obama and Clinton foreign policy have put this country in the most danger we have been in since before the beginning of World War Two. Their policies and actions in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and especially Syria have brought us closer to a serious confrontation that threatens the entire world than we’ve been since the Cuban missile embargo.

Hillary Clinton said in the presidential debate that she would impose a no-fly zone in Syria. This is the most irresponsible action that America could possibly take now. Obama put America’s reputation on the line and talked tough about attacking Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian government if they used chemical weapons, calling it a red line. They then backed down and reached out to Russia and opened the door to giving them influence in the Middle East which had been America’s unquestioned sphere of influence. Syria has remained a Russian ally since the cold war and was Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean Sea.

Fast forward to today and now Russia has committed not only airpower but ground troops as well to back their former ally. Turkey a NATO ally has already shot down a Russian fighter they claimed violated their airspace raising tensions to a higher level. Meanwhile American airpower is being used to fight ISIS and back the rebels fighting Assad’s regime while the Russians are bombing the rebels we are backing. Trump has said he would meet with Putin which is more of an example of a statesman who would enter into diplomacy than our former Secretary of State.

A no-fly zone over a country in defiance of the long standing government historically backed by Russia would be a provocation that we would not tolerate given a similar situation. What are the chances that at some point American and Russian jets would engage and a shooting war would begin? Putin has been modernizing his nuclear capability while we have not. He has been testing American and NATO defenses with nuclear bombers and buzzing our naval vessels in international waters with no response from this administration. While we have shown weakness, Putin has threatened nuclear war if provoked.

That is the type of poor decisions that Hillary Clinton makes. She touts her experience as Secretary of State as an advantage over Trump yet when pressed to name a single accomplishment in her tenure she is at a loss to name one. In fact her tenure and legacy are a disaster. When she ran against Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries she had a commercial with a phone ringing and the question was asked if there was an emergency at 3:00 AM who would you want to be on the other end of the line? Now looking back at her record I would say I wouldn’t want it to be either Obama or her.

When that actual call did come on September 11, 2012 from Benghazi, Libya neither bothered to take the call or even consider the consequences important. They sent an unarmed drone to watch as brave Americans risked their lives fighting against overwhelming odds for 13 hours waiting for help that never came. No one to this day has come up with a straight answer as to why nothing was done to help once the attack started or why the State Department ignored their calls for added security when everyone else had evacuated Benghazi.

Obama flew to a fundraiser in Las Vegas being held the next morning where his only comments were,” Yesterday we had a pretty rough day”. Hillary who was the Secretary of State when an American ambassador was killed for the first time in 30 years lied to the families and sent a surrogate in Susan Rice to make the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to lie to the American people. We know she lied because it has come to light that she emailed her daughter and told her it was a terrorist attack.

Yet the most compelling part of this story was her response during the congressional hearings. Her answer should tell you all you need to know about the woman who says she’s fighting for you. When asked about the attack she said, “at this point what difference does it make”. The difference it should make in the minds of American voters is here is a woman who didn’t care about those Americans who died heroically in Libya protecting other Americans waiting for help that never came. To her it made no difference that these people were killed by terrorists while she watched and did nothing. Why should we believe there would be a difference in her caring about us?

President Obama’s Syrian Quandary

Posted in Foreign Policy, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 1, 2013 by authorcarloscardoso

The President has been hesitant to get involved in the Syrian civil war from the beginning. However during the heat of his re-election campaign in trying to sound strong on foreign policy he made an unnecessary blunder and declared that if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons it would be a “red line” that if crossed would draw United States military intervention. This statement along with his use of the same “red line” description for not allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons puts the credibility of the United States in question both with our friends and foes alike at a very dangerous time in the region. To do nothing makes us seem weak and to do something ineffectual or worse leading to unintended consequences such as starting a broader war in the region could be catastrophic.

The fact is that we have not intervened in the over two year civil war and to do so now would not be in our national security interests. Syria has been supported by the Soviet Union throughout the cold war and still is, as Russia has sent them arms to use in the fight against the insurgents. The facts are that our limited intervention as outlined by the White House will not change the strategic balance in the war. Assad’s forces have gained the upper hand after insurgent gains made by mostly Islamic militant fighters aligned and led by elements of Al Qaeda. This means that we would be facing a historically Russian ally with ties to Iran while supporting an Al Qaeda Islamist group, neither of which is in our interests.

The Syrian regime is financed by Iran and spreads arms to terrorist organizations in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories to Hezbollah and Hamas.  This has been true for many years and if we had been able to put together a coalition of moderate Syrian forces looking to bring liberty and arm them in the infancy of the insurgency then we may have been able to make a difference. We missed our opportunity and are left with no viable options outside of an all out invasion taking out the current regime, securing the weapons of mass destruction and trying to build a national consensus government in an area with no such history. The Middle East as it stands today is the haphazard partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after World War One which was the final defeat of the Muslim jihad that began in around 600 BC and led to the establishing of an Islamic Caliphate that spread from the Middle East to Africa and across most of Europe into Spain. What we are seeing now is the rise of Islamic power trying to once again conquer the lost lands and ultimately the whole world.

Our dilemma is if we do nothing we lose face in front of the whole world, emboldening our enemies and frightening our allies. However, given our current fiscal problems to launch a limited attack as outlined by the President with no reason to do so other than to save the President’s and the United States’ reputation is going to be a tough sell to the American people. The President knows there is nothing to be gained by his planned military action strategically and even more importantly politically here at home. His speech on Saturday seeking Congressional approval for a much more limited action than he began in Libya without seeking it then is nothing more than seeking political cover for his foreign policy failure. We should not be in this position where there is nothing to be gained and much could possibly be lost. It is another example of this President’s failed leadership.

The Congress will debate and vote on whether or not to authorize the limited use of force the President has planned. If they vote to not authorize the use of force the President said he still feels he has the authority to do so but the consequences will be his and his alone. If he fails to act America’s reputation will be irreparably harmed and the rise of radical Islam will be emboldened and Israel will be left feeling that they will have to strike at Iran alone before they can become a nuclear power. If they do authorize it and it turns out bad the President has political cover for the fallout if it leads to all out war in the Middle East.

 Unfortunately it will be up to the brave men and women of our Armed forces and the American taxpayers who are going to have to pay the consequences. The real national security issues would be if Syria was to fall and their weapons were to fall into the wrong hands, or Syria began smuggling chemical weapons and or advanced weaponry to Hamas and Hezbollah. The other is will Iran be allowed to become a nuclear power. Now with the specter of Iran on the horizon this situation grows exponentially in importance. None of this would have been necessary if it weren’t for the President’s political posturing and poor choice of words putting America’s reputation on the line when no national security interests were at stake

 

Foreign Policy Debate

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 14, 2011 by authorcarloscardoso

” title=”Republican Debate on Foreign Policy”>

The Republican debate on foreign policy showed a clear distinction between Barack Obama’s policies and the candidates’ approach. All point out the President’s weakness on the world stage and failed approaches to mitigating the threat to the United States and our allies. Speaker Gingrich set the tone admirably when he refused to attack his fellow candidates and instead focused on the differences between the candidates and the current President. I urge all American’s to view the debate and choose a candidate on vision, leadership and knowledge of the complexity of the current world situation we find ourselves in. I also invite the American people to find out for themselves what UN Agenda 21 is that the Speaker mentioned and the implications on our way of life and national sovereingty.