CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Obama finally breaks silence on violence in Libya

President Obama condemned the violence in Libya, dispatched Secretary of State Clinton to Geneva for talks aimed at stopping the bloodshed, and said he directed his administration to prepare a full range of options to respond.

Obama also said the suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and unacceptable.

Obama made these profound announcements Wednesday evening -- his first public comments on the violent unrest sweeping Libya.

After being asked several questions about Obama's silence on the violence in Libya, an exasperated Press Secretary Jay Carney finally stated it was a scheduling problem: 

MR. CARNEY:  Just one second.  This is just a scheduling issue.

That's right, because of "scheduling" Obama was not able to speak out on Libya. Not on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday nor Tuesday.

Egypt Post-Mubarak: Key Facts on the Military's Long-Standing Role

Via ProPublica

By Marian Wang ProPublica, Feb. 11, 2011, 2:09 p.m.

Hosni Mubarak resigned as of this morning, ending a 30-year rule as Egypt’s head of state and leaving control in the hands of Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

With Egypt’s military leaders now at the country’s helm, what the future of the reform movement will look like is anybody’s guess. But here’s a look back at what we’ve learned—and are still learning—about the Egyptian military, and what this could mean for where things are headed.

Who sits on Egypt’s now-ruling military council—and what might they do?

Al Jazeera has a look at a few of the key leaders on the council. Several were members of the cabinet Mubarak appointed in an early—and fruitless—attempt to appease the protesters. Among them are Vice President Omar Suleiman, who announced Mubarak’s resignation today, and Defense Minister Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the man described by some in the army as “Mubarak’s poodle.”

“There are two directions the Higher Military Council can go,” former army General Samah Seif El Yazal told the BBC. “The first is to ask the existing government to run the country for a transitional period of perhaps a year. The other option is for the military to run the country by committee. We are very anxious to hear from them about what they intend to do.”

Mohamed ElBaradei, one of the leading voices in the protests, told Foreign Policy yesterday that he does not have “any confidence”that Suleiman or the “bunch of military people” can be a steward of a democratic transition. “They don’t understand, let alone are willing to move Egypt into democracy, unless we keep kicking their behinds,” ElBaradei said.

The Egyptian military has long been a force behind the throne.

“Egypt’s government is not so much a Mubarak government as it is a military government,” Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Bloomberg last month, when the protests had only gone on for a week.

Let’s not forget, after all, that since the Egyptian military led a coup in 1952 and ended the country’s rule under the British monarchy, all three of the country’s presidents—including Mubarak—have been military men. (Hosni Mubarak’s son, Gamal Mubarak, had long been believed to be a potential successor to the presidency—an idea that top military officials hated. Gamal had no background in the military.)

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof cautioned that the new leadership—more or less the old leadership without Mubarak—may want to keep a “Mubarak-style government without Mubarak.”

The Egyptian military has internal rifts and divided loyalties.

As we noted earlier this week, U.S. embassy cables describe some of the military’s internal divisions, particularly between the mid-level officers and the organization’s leadership. Here’s what we wrote:

One cable describes mid-level army officers as “disgruntled” and particularly critical of Egyptian Defense Minister Mohamed Tantawi, whom they saw as too subservient to Mubarak’s regime. … Another cable, this one from 2008, describes Tantawi as opposed to “economic and political reforms that he perceives as eroding central government power.”

The Egyptian military has a substantial hold on the country’s economy—and its leaders have a financial in interest in preserving that.

Given that one of the protesters’ many grievances is the lack of economic reform and the country’s high unemployment, it’s surprising how little attention has been paid to the military’s entrenched role in Egypt’s current economy.

Very little is actually known about the military’s finances or precisely how its operates (apart, of course, from the fact that it gets $1.3 billion annually in U.S. aid.)

This U.S. embassy cable from 2008 gives a glimpse of the Egyptian military’s holdings:

Contacts told us that military-owned companies, often run by retired generals, are particularly active in the water, olive oil, cement, construction, hotel and gasoline industries. XXXXXXXXXXXX pointed out that military companies built the modern road to the Ain Souknah Red Sea resorts 90 minutes from Cairo and Cairo University's new annex. He noted the large amounts of land owned by the military in the Nile Delta and on the Red Sea coast, speculating that such property is a "fringe benefit" in exchange for the military ensuring regime stability and security. (Comment: We see the military's role in the economy as a force that generally stifles free market reform by increasing direct government involvement in the markets. End comment.)

The military “generally opposes economic reforms,” viewing privatization efforts “as a threat to its economic position,” the cable said.

Here’s Time Magazine explaining how the military came to be such a big business:

Military factories first sprang up in the 1820s to produce uniforms and small arms. Their role expanded with the state-led economy from the early 1950s and was consolidated when the military needed to place hundreds of thousands soldiers downsized after the peace agreement with Israel. (At that point, the active military had numbered about 900,000.)

… Another source of the military's untold wealth is its hold on one of this densely populated country's most precious commodities: public land, which is increasingly being converted into gated communities and resorts. The military has other advantages: it does not pay taxes and does not have to deal with the bureaucratic red tape that strangles the private sector.

Estimates vary as to how much of the Egyptian economy is run by the military—ranging from 5 percent to 40 percent, according to NPR. The commercial revenue has proved lucrative, and helped top military officers maintain a kind of lifestyle that includes “an extensive network of luxurious social clubs as well as comfortable retirements—all of which helps ensure officer loyalty,” Time noted.

“Upon retirement, senior officers are given hefty retirement packages and appointed as provincial governors or head of municipalities,” Egyptian author Moustafa El-Husseini told Bloomberg, citing Magdy Sharawi, a former Egyptian air force commander, as just one example. Sharawi is now Egypt’s ambassador to Switzerland.

The military played a role in the crackdown and arrest of protestors.

After days of reports that Egyptian soldiers had in many cases worked to suppress the pro-democracy protesters, the State Department finally acknowledged that “elements within the military” had taken part in the crackdown against journalists and activists. The U.S. also maintained that the “military did play a constructive role.”

The Guardian, meanwhile, explained the military’s involvement in the violence in far more concrete terms:

The Guardian has spoken to detainees who say they have suffered extensive beatings and other abuses at the hands of the military in what appears to be an organised campaign of intimidation. Human rights groups have documented the use of electric shocks on some of those held by the army.

One of those detained by the army was a 23-year-old man who would only give his first name, Ashraf, for fear of again being arrested. He was detained last Friday on the edge of Tahrir Square carrying a box of medical supplies intended for one of the makeshift clinics treating protesters attacked by pro-Mubarak forces.

"I was on a sidestreet and a soldier stopped me and asked me where I was going. I told him and he accused me of working for foreign enemies and other soldiers rushed over and they all started hitting me with their guns," he said.

Earlier this week, Human Rights Watch said it had documented at least 119 cases of arbitrary detention by the military.

U.N. Security Council fails to agree on North Korean rocket launch

What a surprise.

The Sunday emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, called to consider North Korea's launch of a ballistic missile, concluded without any official reaction to North Korea's provocation.

The U.N. will dither on like it did with Saddam and North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, and as the U.N. continues to do with Iran's nuclear program.

The U.S. says the "launch constituted a clear-cut violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718 (2006). Unfortunately, as predicted, China and Russia said they were not convinced that Pyongyang had violated any U.N. rules by trying to send a satellite into orbit.

China and Russia are grasping at straws to protect North Korea. Resolution 1718 states at paragraph numbered 2:

"2.  Demands that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile;"

The North Korean rocket launch presents a critical test of President Obama's leadership on a major foreign policy crisis, and of his new friendship with the leaders of China and Russia. Joe Biden warned us Obama would be tested.

Obama reacted with tough talk and insisted that North Korea face consequences for flagrantly violating Resolution 1718:

"Rules must be binding, violations must be punished. Words must mean something," Obama said. "The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons."

Reaction to Obama's tough talk was critical.

The Politico reports Obama's naive, John Lenon Imagine-like, call for "a world without nuclear weapons" looks unrealistic: "Hard-line critics say North Korea’s move makes the president’s no-nukes aspirations all the more unrealistic, even dangerous."

The Hill's Jeremy P. Jacobs reports Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Obama's nuclear weapons policy a "fantasy."

Wall Street Journal editorialized, "Kim has every reason to expect that he will eventually get what he wants -- more recognition, more money and energy supplies" and "his nukes and missiles too."

I'm afraid the Obama critics have it right. The North Koreans couldn't care less about world opinion. A fact the rogue state has made abundantly clear in the 60 years since it started the Korean War. Tough talk will not impress the North Koreans. To the contrary, if tough talk is not backed up by tough action it will be perceived as weakness and only encourage the North Koreans to see how much more they can get away with under President Obama. The American People understand this as evidenced by their support for a military response.

Hillary's 'smart power' -- just dumb

In January we noted that marketing professionals don't think much of Hillary's "smart power" -- her approach to diplomacy -- saying it is "just plain dumb."

Yesterday, Hillary demonstrated just how dumb.

She gave Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a gift that "represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is, 'We want to reset our relationship.'"

Apparently, President Obama's Secretary of State doesn't have anyone on staff that knows Russian.

The gift was a red button, which said "Reset" in English and "Peregruzka" in Russian. The problem was, "peregruzka" doesn't mean reset. It means overcharged, or overloaded. According to Fox News, the word implies hostility, rather than peacemaking. 

Lavrov called her out on it:

You got it wrong.

Watch the video:

Germany Now Supports Georgia NATO Membership

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday reversed course and said Georgia would join NATO:

"Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to -- and it does want to," she told reporters before talks with Saakashvili in Tbilisi.

It was one of the strongest statements yet of support for Georgia's NATO membership bid, which is fiercely opposed by Russia.

"We are on a clear road towards NATO membership (for Georgia)," she added at a later news conference.

Merkel is a day late and at least a dollar short. The United States strongly supports Georgia joining NATO, but misgivings from France and Germany have prevented Georgia being awarded full candidate status.

Putin Is Trying To Reestablish The Evil Empire

The following CNBC video explains why you should care that Russia has invaded U.S. ally Georgia. Bottom line -- Putin is trying to reestablish the evil empire.

McCain Wins Russian/Georgian Conflict 3:00 A.M. Moment

You remember Hillary's infamous 3:00 a.m. ad. Russia's invasion of Georgia presented Senators McCain and Obama with a true 3:00 a.m. moment.

Their responses to the crisis suggest dramatic differences in how each candidate would lead America during an international crisis.

McCain got it right from the start. In his initial statement, McCain sided clearly with America's ally, Georgia, took Russia to task for violating Georgia's sovereign territory, noted danger to Euro-Atlantic stability and security, called for diplomatic pressure on Russia, and a review of what NATO can do to stabilize the situation:

Today, news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally-recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences for Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave.

The government of Georgia has called for a cease-fire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course it has chosen. We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia's security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.

Obama blew it. According to Reuters, the Democrats' presumptuous nominee issued a statement that shows the worlds greatest celebrity is just an empty suit:

"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said in a statement. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected."

Obama called for direct talks among all sides and said the United States, U.N. Security Council and other parties should try to help bring about a peaceful resolution.

It took a day of watching Russia pound Georgia before the Obama got around to condemning Russia and nuancing his position to sound more like McCain's.

Watch the following video:

Obama's Carter-Like Naivety

On Sunday, Obama showed his Carter-like naivety when he said Iran poses no serious threat to us and suggested we might have common interests with the rouge state that is developing a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the map. Obama got it very wrong. Yes, Kennedy spoke with Khrushchev during his first year in office, just like Obama promises to do with the leaders of his "tiny" countries. The Kennedy/Khrushchev talks were a disaster. Some say the Soviets, based on the talks with Kennedy, believed they could get away with putting nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba.

It wasn't talking with the Soviet leaders that allowed us to win the cold war. It was our economic and military strength that enabled us to successfully confront and contain the Evil Empire.

When Obama claimed Iran poses no serious threat, he must have forgotten about the Marines killed in the 1983 Hezbollah terrorist bombing of the Marine Barracks, in Beirut, Lebanon. Until the September 11 terror attacks, Iran-sponsored Hezbollah was responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist organization.

Yes, Obama got it very wrong. So wrong, that after John McCain called Obama on making light of the threat "tiny" Iran poses to America and Western civilization and distributed the video of Obama’s pronouncement, Obama nuanced his Sunday position faster than Kerry. Obama now admits Iran is a grave threat:

“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust,” he said.”

Obama still doesn't get it.

When Obama says "Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba," Obama fails to mention that at the same time that Kennedy sent a private emissary to the Soviet Union and corresponded with Khrushchev via the teletype, Kennedy had already declared a naval quarantine of Cuba and threatened military force to destroy the missiles.

Obama also gets it wrong when he claims that Iran is the biggest beneficiary of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As Roger L. Simon wrote yesterday:

Well, maybe, maybe not. But let’s leave aside the obvious — that Iran and the US have had numerous contacts over the last few years to no avail — and consider some more basic issues around the Iranian Revolution about which Senator Obama, most of whose time has been consumed by running for President since arriving in the Senate, may not be fully aware. These issues have tremendous ramifications regarding the level of Iran’s threat.

To begin with, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a conventional state in the sense of France or even the former Soviet Union. Since the revolution on 1979, it has been a theocracy based on Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of a Shiite world under Allah.

[. . .]

In other words, Iran was not really a country per se, but a stepping stone in the eternal mission of global jihad. As demonstration, Khomeini almost immediately allowed millions to die in his 1980s war with Iraq, one of whose goals was to gain control of the holy cities of Kerbala and Najaf (the resting place of Shia’s Imam Ali) for Allah.

This goal was never truly abandoned as the Islamic Republic of Khomeini evolved into today’s IRI of Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I say evolved, but their belief system has remained essentially intact, with some minor diversions, since 1979.

These extreme tenets of Khomeinist Shia Islam can be argued to be more dangerous to our future and those of the West than Marxism-Leninism, which promoted itself as scientific socialism and therefore was governed to some extent by scientific evaluation. The IRI is governed by their version of faith in Allah. No science or fact can ever contradict the justice of their cause, which is to them God’s will. Their eschatology includes a belief under which global chaos will bring forth the “hidden imam” or Mahdi, the Shia messiah, who will bring peace to Earth, unified, of course, under Allah.

Consider the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of people who actually believe that. It’s unclear how many do, but Ahmadinejad obviously does, as do many others in their leadership, particularly in the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds Brigade.

Obama's naivety reminds me of the naivety shown by President Carter, who admitted he was shocked that the Soviet Union would invade Afghanistan after Carter negotiated a Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with Brezhnev.

Bhutto Assassination Renews Concern About Huckabee's Foreign Policy

Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's first reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was a diplomatic blunder. Huckabee expressed "our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan." After criticism, Huckabee's campaign said he meant to say "sympathies" not "apologies." In the same statement, Huckabee revealed that he was unaware that martial law was lifted in Pakistan about two weeks ago.

Huckabee is not any better at geography than he is with diplomacy:

And in a morning TV appearance, Huckabee said Bhutto's slaying brings "a new level of instability to the Middle East, and particularly to Pakistan."

Pakistan is in South Asia.

As if those gaffes weren't bad enough, Huckabee decided to tie Bhutto's assassination to illegal immigration in the U.S.:

On Thursday night he told reporters in Orlando, Fla.: “We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country.”

On Friday, in Pella, Iowa, he expanded on those remarks.

“When I say single them out I am making the observation that we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border,” he told reporters in Pella. “And in light of what is happening in Pakistan it ought to give us pause as to why are so many illegals coming across these borders.”

[. . .]

Asked how a border fence would help keep out Pakistani immigrants, Mr. Huckabee argued that airplane security was already strong, but that security at the southern United States border was dangerously weak.

“The fact is that the immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds, it’s about someone coming with a shoulder-fired missile,” he said.

The Associated Press reports that many more illegal immigrants living in the United States are from India, Korea, China and Vietnam than Pakistan:

Homeland Security officials say there are more people in the U.S. illegally from the Caribbean, China and Canada than from Pakistan. Officials deported 435 Pakistanis in the 2007 fiscal year, which ran from Oct. 1, 2006 to Sept. 30, 2007, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement statistics. During this time, 766 people from China were deported, as were 521 from the Philippines.

[. . .]

Homeland Security does not publicize the number of people from each country who are caught trying to enter illegally or are turned away at legal border crossings, said Customs and Border Protection spokesman Bill Anthony. But without providing specific details — because they are considered sensitive for law enforcement — Anthony said Pakistanis do not top the list after Latin American countries.

In fiscal 2007, about 600 Pakistanis were turned away at the border or arrested in between entry points.

A senior aide to Mike Huckabee admitted Friday that the former Arkansas governor had "no foreign policy credentials:"

This isn't the first time Huckabee has been caught unprepared on foreign policy/national security matters. Early this month, after the release of a National Intelligence Estimate concluding that had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Huckabee told journalists that he wasn't aware of the report, even though it had been widely reported in the news for more than 30 hours.

After the NIE gaffe we witnessed Huckabee do a Kerry on Cuba. Then there was the brouhaha over Huckabee's infamous "bunker mentality" quote, which earned him a rebuke from Bob Dole.

Huckabee is not ready for prime time when it comes to foreign affairs and national security. That's not acceptable with the nation at war.

Thanks to Justin Higgins at Stop The ACLU for the video.

Pelosi To Visit Syria

The Imperial Speakership - Chapter Three

Not satisfied with giving comfort to our enemies by legislating defeat in Iraq, Speaker Pelosi has decided to also provide comfort to one of the original state sponsors of terrorism and visit Syria.

Pelosi fails to acknowledge that, under the constitution, the president of the United States is the unitary head of our government, particularly in matters concerning foreign affairs.

The Imperial Speaker's visit will be made over the objections of the administration:

"We don't think it's a good idea," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders."

[. . .]

"I'm not sure what she's hoping to accomplish there, I know that Assad probably really loves people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him and have discussions about where they're coming from," Perino said, referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"But we do think it's a really bad idea," she said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also criticized Pelosi's visit to Syria, saying Damascus typically used such visits as proof to the rest of the world that nothing was wrong with its policies.

No good can possibly come Speaker Pelosi's visit to Syria. Syria supports Hezbollah, the terrorist organization which has killed more Americans than any other in history except for Al Qaeda. Syria is also complicit in helping supply rockets to Hezbollah which were recently used against Israel. In addition Syria allows foreign fighters through its borders into western Iraq. I guess all that doesn't bother Pelosi.

The Speaker's visit can only send a mixed message regarding U.S. policy. The message that America is divided, not united in fighting the war on terror.