Tag Archives: Syria

by | September 9, 2013 · 10:54 am

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS – ADVISOR 74

greendoorWHAT THE RUSSIANS WANT

The Advisor had done some research in the history of Russia’s struggle to compete with British seapower and later the United States. The czars as well as Mr. Putin, who believes he is a czar, understand the need for the Russian fleet to have a warm water port. Without an all-weather port the Russians cannot extend their power much beyond their own borders. The Advisor thought, it is precisely this kind of knowledge the President does not have. Nothing in his background prepared him to understand the real world which is that nations act in their own interest. If you don’t understand this central reality, your foreign policy is composed of reactions to events you really don’t understand. Like it or not, his mission required him to educate as well as advise President Obama.

The Advisor knew the President seldom took his advice but he was enough of a scholar to listen thoughtfully and enough of an ideologue to follow his collectivist doctrine. The President would be down here within the next hour. I’ll ask him if he will allow me to present my research. Right on schedule, the ancient steel clad door opened and the President strode in. “Good evening Mr. President. The coffee is ready. Take what ever seat you want. I did some research this week and, if you will permit, I will give you the bottom lines.”

“Well, I thought your advice was just the result of your eight decades of life. I’m intrigued that you include research. So go ahead.”

“Thank you. Why are the Russians so hard to work with in the disaster we call Syria? Russia has no common border with Syria.  Syria has no supply of oil or minerals. They have no exports Russia wants or needs. Yet Russia is sending game-changing weapons to Syria and, if their past behavior is any guide, they have or will also send technicians and weapons specialists to Syria. Putin knows there is no one to stop him. Certainly not any Arab or Persian State. Israel can’t without our help. The Euro powers are too focused on themselves to risk capital and blood for anyone else. I have no special insight to U.S. Russian policy but I do remember you whispering to President Medvedev before Putin took the presidency again, asking him to tell Putin you would have more flexibility after the election. Putin is a Czar. He only understands strength. Your secret message to Medvedev told Putin you were in a weak position. In Syria he believes you will not oppose Russia’s historical push to have a warm water port.

“Without a warm water port their fleet is frozen in, bottled up in the Black Sea or cruising far beyond their supply base for many months of each year. Again there is no proof I know of but the Soviet push into Afghanistan in the 1980s was another step in their bumbling efforts dating back to the Czars to gain a corridor to warm water. Syria has dangled a warm water port in the Mediterranean called Tartous.  The Russians have already done significant development projects in this port. They really don’t much care who rules Syria as long as Tartous is firmly in Russian control. The Russians will do whatever is necessary to ensure they do not lose control of this port. They have never been so close in recent history to the  control of a warm water port. A Syrian regime friendly to the United States that would exercise real control over Tartous is not acceptable. Putin, today, has no respect for America. He only understands strength and has no use for words that are mere rhetoric.

“There is more at stake in Syria than the ousting of President Bashar al-Assad from Syria. I don’t think your Administration understands the historical power that motivates Putin to capture an all-weather port. That single feat will mark him  as the greatest of all Russia’s Czars. A warm water port at no cost in blood or treasure. A remarkable achievement.”

“You’re telling me Russia’s end game in Syria is for a seaport?”

“Yes. Of course, they don’t mind throwing all Western powers out of the Middle East.”

“No one on my team will believe your analysis.”

“Try some military scholars. They will tell you the same thing,” The Advisor said, as the President was getting up to leave. “Mr. President, maybe you need some different people on your team.”

The author has 27 years of Government service, including two years serving President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s as an

Meeting with President Reagan, Vice President Bush, Deputy National Security Adviser Frank Carlucci and General Colin Powell in the Oval Office.

Meeting with President Reagan, Vice President Bush, Deputy National Security Adviser Frank Carlucci and General Colin Powell in the Oval Office.

advisor. Considering today’s volatile political situation, you are encouraged to share this on Facebook and to click the “like” button below. Comments and dialogue are welcome and helpful. Find and connect with the author on Goodreads.

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, foreign policy, Intelligence & Politics, Medvedev, Obama, Putin, Russia

Tagged as , , ,

by | September 2, 2013 · 2:25 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 73-ADVISOR

SYRIA

Safe in the Shadows

It was after midnight when the Advisor answered his red line phone and heard the codeword indicating the President was on his way. Minutes later, the President opened the steel door off the tunnel between the White House and the Treasury. As soon as he stepped in, he said, “I need a cup of your special coffee and a cigarette.”

“It’s poured and waiting for you. It’s late and you must be tired. Do you want to sit at the table or in my little conversation nook?”

“Lead me to the softest chair. I am beat. This Syrian thing has gotten out of control. All my advisors have spoken with their usual, on the one hand or the other comments they think are helpful advice. I decided to come and see you. I seldom like what you tell me but you make me think and clear up the fog of political chatter.”

“Thank you, Mr. President. You by now know that I like to start from the beginning. The Syrian problem was out of control during your first term with people from your Cabinet and key Progressive congressional figures rushing out to Syria and coming back with stories like the message Secretary Clinton brought back about President Assad being a reformer your administration could work with. As you understand, Mrs. Clinton is out of her element in the demanding nature of international diplomacy. She represented you and left you with a mess. A mess that now has little chance of turning out well for the nation and your presidency.”

“I understand and agree with you, but the decision I have to make is simply whether I should authorize a limited strike against Assad and under what conditions.”

“With all respect, Mr. President that is not the decision confronting you. It is much deeper and more complicated. The time when limited support to the opposition would have made a difference was at least two years ago. That window is now closed. Don’t think Syria. Think Iran and Russia. Syria is a weak arm of Iranian power in the Middle East. Syria’s role for Iran is primarily as a conduit for supplies to Hezbollah. Without that safe passageway for Iranian aid to Hezbollah, the ability of Hezbollah to control Lebanon and threaten Israel would vanish. On the Russian side, their primary interest is in securing a warm water port for their fleet. Ostensibly they now have one in Syria that is even now supporting a Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean. For that reason Russia will not allow you to get UN support for any military action in Syria.”

“The Russians must know I’m not going to invade Syria. I’m only planning on a limited strike.”

“Again with respect, Mr. President, there is no such thing as a limited strike. You can order a limited strike, but your opponents, understanding the lack of enthusiasm for another war in the Arab world resulting in a flood of body bags and an outflow of our treasure, can respond in a way to expand the conflict. Then you will feel a response is necessary. For example, if one or two of our ships are attacked and sunk, you will have to respond in self-defense. This will not be a Ben Ghazi where you can do nothing. Your choices are limited. You can do nothing. You can do a limited cruise missile strike and hope for the best or you can destroy Assad’s air power and punish Syria for using chemical weapons and give the rebels a much better chance to overthrow Assad. Whatever you decide, the power position of the United States in the Middle East has been seriously eroded.

“There is one other option. Take the problem to the Congress and blame them for whatever happens. They can be made to be at fault, no matter what they decide to do. This is an  Alinsky-ite dream. The issue is never the issue. Use all issues to destroy the obstacles preventing you from seizing total power. Your former Secretary of State who wants to replace you will be pleased. Your decision can damage your influence in the Progressive Party. If Secretary Kerry had any thoughts of seceding you as President, you have destroyed that possibility for him. He took the bait and now looks like the man who turned on his country in the Vietnam War.”

“It amazes me that you can sit down here in a modern cave and have so many insights. You even understand  my anti-colonial bias. I do not like to use American military power to restore western power in the Middle East. I can’t bring myself to attack Syria with only the French, with their legacy of subjugating Syria in the Colonial period, as an ally. What would you do in my place?”

“That is too hypothetical even for me. When in doubt, doing nothing is often the best choice. Remember the sarin gas killed approximately a thousand people in a terrible agony that was captured by the cameras. Assad’s forces killed a hundred times that many prior to the chemical attack. My last comment is where did Assad get that quantity of chemical weapons? He certainly didn’t produce them in Syria. Do you think a large part of them came from Iraq? The country that had no weapons of mass destruction even though they used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Shias. Mr. President, my best advice is to surround yourself with people who live in the real world, not in some virtual world they can control with propaganda and an endless mantra of untruths chanted in unison to the American people.”

By the author of the Jack Brandon novels. The author has 27 years of Government service,

Meeting with President Reagan, Vice President Bush, Deputy National Security Adviser Frank Carlucci and General Colin Powell in the Oval Office.including two years serving President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s as an advisor. Considering today’s volatile political situation, you are encouraged to share this on Facebook and to click the “like” button below. Comments and dialogue are welcome and helpful. Find and connect with the author on Goodreads.

Related articles:

3 Comments

Filed under Eight Decades of Insights, foreign policy, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, political solutions, Progressives

Tagged as , ,

by | February 19, 2013 · 4:09 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 36

PLAYING THE ISSUES

If you have been following my recent blogs, you know I believe President Obama is following the guidance of Saul Alinsky, a brilliant radical tactician. The core of Alinky’s teaching is that “the issue is never the issue.” The only goal is the destruction of the existing order and replacing it with the Progressive (socialist/communist) blueprint for a new and better world where everyone gets a fair shot and everyone pays their fair share. Under this political social philosophy, even a discussion of ends justifying the means is meaningless. If you are striving for power, the means are always morally justified. This strategical approach gives anyone using it incredible flexibility. They can change sides at any time it appears advantageous. The first step in creating a new world is to destroy the current order.

English: Barack Obama delivering his electoral...

English: Barack Obama delivering his electoral victory speech on Election Night ´08, in Grant Park, Chicago. (Wikipedia)

Now for some complexity. All issues are not the same and cannot be treated the same by the Progressives. For our purposes, I will put issues into three categories: The first category is issues that have been with us for several decades. Under this category live issues such as immigration, states rights, taxation, gun control, energy development, abortion, and solvency of our social programs. The second category are those that have been created recently. Here, I put climate control, sequestration, cabinet appointments, the role and size of the federal government, right to work issues, and government spending. Granted, some of these issues could fit under one of the two other categories. The third category contains those issues that appear to be spontaneous such as Benghazi, Syria, Muslim radicalism, international debt problems, unemployment, and job creation.

The flexibility Alinsky believers have somewhat depends on what category the issue is in. Take immigration as an issue. Obama cannot come out against immigration and he doesn’t have to put forward an effective bi-partisan solution. In fact he will not. Published plans, budgets, position papers are not part of Alinsky tactics as they limit changing sides or conditions abruptly. Instead, the immigration issue will be used to damage the Republican Party, the only party that stands in the way of the establishment of a Progressive dictatorship. This president does not want the Democrats and Republicans to come together to pass bipartisan immigration legislation. Instead, he will present obstacles and deal killers.

Since this is a blog and not a book, I’ll deal in this piece with only a few of the many possible issues. Energy policy is a perfect issue. Does any sane person believe America can be energy self-sufficient without the primary use of fossil fuels for several more decades? Yes. A constant search for alternative power sources is good as long as we are focused on creating an energy program in America that creates thousands of jobs and energy self-sufficiency. Windmills, algae, corn, solar panels just are not economically viable nor credible. How can any president not welcome the Canadian pipeline? It is a no-brainer unless your real objective is to create chaos, high unemployment, angry union workers, and blow off a good neighbor. Only Alinksy followers can applaud Obama’s lethargic non-action. Don’t fall for the Progressives blaming the increasing cost of gasoline on Big Oil. They aren’t boy scouts but the price goes up when the Federal Reserve, which is a private company, prints obscene billions of dollars each month that weaken the dollar. Arabs sell oil for dollars. The weaker the dollar, the more dollars it takes to buy a barrel of oil. Keep in mind few transformations ever occur in a country with an sound  economy, near full employment, and a promising future.

One last issue, Benghazi. Could the president have anticipated this crisis? No. But his staff and Cabinet should have. This issue just popped up. The president didn’t know what to do. So he did nothing. Well, he did create confusion. To have this shameful crisis be centered around who created what “talking points” is a mark of Beltway mentally. Fix the blame. Not the problem. Not even Alinsky or Axelrod would have recommended he not call  the Pentagon for action or fail to convene his National Security Council, or travel the next day to Las Vegas to attend a fundraiser, or throw Susan Rice under the bus, or the bumbling concealment of information. In keeping with Obama-type transparency he has even kept the names and whereabouts of the Benghazi survivors secret, in spite of requests from Congress. On the Benghazi issue, the president  damaged himself as well as the nation. Using every issue as a means to attack your opposition often diminishes all of us. Just ask the surviving family members what they think about the issue is never the issue as a principle for presidential leadership.

By the author of the Jack Brandon thriller series.      www.factsandfictions.com

Related articles

3 Comments

Filed under Alexrod, Alinsky, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, foreign policy, General, global warming, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, political solutions, Progressives

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | July 13, 2012 · 1:12 pm

Eight Decades of Insights – 12

Every civilization is built on a foundation of words. Words are (or were) the measure of a person. As I was growing up in small mill town in Western Pennsylvania, I learned you judged people by how good their “word” was. Wealth, talent, strength, the car you drove, and the girls you dated were important, but nothing was as valuable as the reliability of your word. Your reputation in all fields depended upon the integrity of your word. Once that was gone, it was nearly impossible to get it back. I submit that it is the same with nations, political parties, politicians, and leaders.

I don’t believe that modern-day politicians value the integrity of the words they speak and print. This is dangerous; without truth and honesty, our freedom is at risk. The end does not justify the means. Administrations based on the principles espoused by Lenin, Goebbels, or Alinsky have not lasted. On the extreme right, we find dictatorship of the oligarchies; on the extreme left we find equally ugly dictatorships. Both use words or propaganda to further their goals. The truth does not matter to them. It is good to distort the truth as long as the lies promote the end. The end in political terms is the goal of creating a just and fair society where the rulers know what the people need and use whatever means are necessary to achieve and protect their utopia.

History has seen many examples of a few believing they – not the people – know best. How did that work for the Nazis, the various communist regimes, experiments in socialism and  Islam,  and for several other ancient empires? They did not leave much behind, except fading memories of ugly repression. None of them could stand the truth. They all used words to further their causes and beliefs. The theory that “the end justifies the means” reigned supreme. Freedom is the final casualty when words are only a means to an end. How can you believe anyone, especially a politician struggling to hold on to power, who doesn’t care or even think about the consistency of his word?

The word of the leaders of a great nation, like the United States, both in domestic areas and foreign affairs must carry the weight of truth and conviction. When leaders change positions, not because of a changed conviction, but merely to support a more expedient political policy, the power of their word is lost. Their conviction is suspect. Foreign powers study the words of our leaders. When they see no consistency or willingness to back words and convictions with action, they will disregard the words of our leaders. Our friends will no longer trust us.  The possible examples are nearly unlimited but here are a few.

Remember our secretary of state saving she viewed Assad of Syria as a reformer and only months later was calling for him to abdicate? Remember the president changing words, without a believable change in conviction, over tax issues, war strategy, medical care, and budget issues?

The end justifying the means is the most probable explanation. What does their word mean?  Can you trust it?  Reading the words of Saul Alinsky, a radical revolutionary writer and former Community Organizer in Chicago, will help you understand. Both our president and secretary of state are familiar with Mr. Alinsksy’s writing. Maybe you should be also.

Leave a comment

Filed under Alinsky, General, Intelligence & Politics, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,