Foreign Policy Journal: Paul Craig Roberts: The Neoconservative Threat to International Order

Source:Foreign Policy Journal- Paul C. Roberts. 

Source:The New Democrat

This is going to sound somewhat partisan at least from a Neoconservative’s perspective and if that is the case you’re more than welcome to way in on this and attempt to contradict me. But then I’ll get to Europe where I believe there is a lot of common ground on both the Left and Right when it comes to foreign policy and national security.

The reason why we are dealing with all of these independent terrorists groups now that are free to flow everywhere in Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia is because of the 2003 War in Iraq. ISIS didn’t exist pre-Iraq and yes the War in Afghanistan was something we had to do because the Taliban in Afghanistan were subsidizing and protecting the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. And even though it has taken a long time thanks to the War in Iraq and Afghan corruption that mission is starting to finally pay off. As that country is finally stabilizing and their economy is finally moving.

The Middle East was a fairly stable area pre-War in Iraq. And as horrible as the Saddam Regime was there and most people including myself are glad he’s no longer running that country and even dead, you didn’t have terrorists in Iraq killing Americans before the war. And you didn’t have terrorists occupying Northern Iraq and Northern Syria. Which would be ISIS today because the central government’s in both countries were strong enough to secure their countries even if they were horrible to their people.

You also didn’t have a jealous Vladimir Putin as President of Russia thinking who needed to make his own power play because of what America was doing to countries that were close to Russia. Part of President Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine has been that he doesn’t believe America should be the sole power in the world that can act unilaterally even in their own interests. The world was a much safer place in 2002 pre-Iraq when our main security threat was Al-Qaeda, a nuclear armed North Korea that still can’t even feed its people. And a potential terrorist state in Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Now where there I believe there is bipartisan agreement, lets look at Europe. Part of the rise of Russia has to do with the fall, or at least steep decline in Europe. Where only Germany as far as a large country in Europe has a healthy economy. But Europe is falling in population and young people and gaining in older people. Because they don’t take in many immigrants each year unlike America and as a result their social democratic economic systems are collapsing. Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Greece all drowning in high debt, and deficits, unemployment. Greece having to take a bailout package that is actually larger than their national economy to stay afloat. And have just elected a new socialist government that’s against austerity.

But if that is not bad enough for Europe, as their populations and economies continue to decline, so does their militaries. Where NATO is essentially just made up of America now as far as real military threat. And to a certain degree Britain, France and Germany to some extent. Europe is more than capable of responding to Russia in any way themselves at least as far as resources, but has chosen not to. Wouldn’t be great to go back to 2002 and far as the security situations for the Western world, but subtract George W. Bush for Al Gore and only be dealing with Afghanistan right now. But we of course can’t go back in time.
Source:Secular Talk

RAND: Christopher S. Chivvis: Libya, The Somalia on The Mediterranean?

Source: RAND Corporation-

Source:The New Democrat

Unlike the War in Iraq, America and Europe went into the Libya and knocked out the Gadaffi Regime and let the Libyan rebels take over to try to build their own government and society for the people. Iraq of course is much different where America by itself went in and knocked out the Hussein Regime and tried to establish a new state itself and then brought in the Iraqi people. The thing about Libya is that new government wasn’t prepared to govern and defend their own country. Plus the new government had Islamists authoritarian ties that moderate Libyans didn’t want to be part of and as a result a new civil war has broken out.

Libya as a failed state is not in the best interest of the United States, United Kingdom and European Union. Especially in that part of the world where ISIS is already in Libya. That country with only six-million people, but with a lot of land the size of Algeria and Saudi Arabia, a large country would be disaster for the Democratic West if it were allowed to become a terrorist state. Which means America, Europe and the Arab League should step up and try to reestablish order in that country and allow for the Libyan people to go in and try to establish a new state that will represent the Libyan people as a whole. Not just the Islamists or the Democrats, but the whole country.

Which is why I would be in favor of an international force involving the United States with NATO, the European Union and Arab League to go into that country with a peacekeeping force while Libyans with democratic and responsible intentions go in and either work with current Libyan Government in Tripoli and build a new Libyan state that can govern and defend the entire country, or replace the current regime with a more democratic oriented that will work to bring peace to the country. Instead of trying to eliminate the opposition. And you could send in people from the United Nations, European Union, Arab League and even U.S. Foreign Service to help Libya develop a government and state that represents and governs the whole country.
Source:RT

RAND Corporation: Brian Michael Jenkins: Iraq Observations

Source: Rand Corporation-

Source:The New Democrat 

I posted this a few days ago on this blog about then Senator Joe Biden proposing back in 2007-08 to partition Iraq which of course the Iraqi people would have to approve themselves. And how that may of seem radical then and even a few months ago when Iraq still look fairly stable. But now with the chaos going on in Iraq that 3-4 state solution inside of a Federal Republic of Iraq with a federalist system. Which each state having autonomy over their own domestic affairs now looks like a very reasonable approach.

It wouldn't make much sense to propose that now especially in an ongoing civil war in Iraq. Some level of security would have to be retained first that leaves the country as one. Without the North breaking away from Baghdad and the South and West remaining part of the Federal Republic as well. But assuming the Federal Government and Iraq with their military can regain control of the country at least to the point that the country is still officially one country, then maybe the partition idea would make a lot of sense.

The partition idea would have to have a responsible government in the Province of Baghdad where Baghdad City is also located which in the Central West of the country. A responsible government in the West where the Sunnis would govern. A responsible government in the North where the Kurds would govern. And a responsible government in the South where the Shia would government. Meaning the terrorists in each of these areas would have to be defeated first. Which is no small order considering the current Federal Government in Iraq.
Source:CNN

Chicago Tribune: Charles Krauthammer- 'Why We Give Foreign Aid'

Source:The Washington Post- U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Muhammad Morsi: President of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

"Sequestration is not the best time to be doling out foreign aid, surely the most unpopular item in the federal budget. Especially when the recipient is President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt.

Morsi is intent on getting the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman (the blind sheik), serving a life sentence for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center attack that killed six and wounded more than a thousand. Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood is openly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and otherwise prolifically intolerant. Just three years ago, Morsi called on Egyptians to nurse their children and grandchildren on hatred for Jews, whom he has called "the descendants of apes and pigs."

From the Chicago Tribune

As Charles Krauthammer argued in his column this is probably not the best time to be blogging about foreign aid, because it's the most unpopular part of the Federal budget, perhaps more unpopular than corporate welfare or pork barrel projects, money for favors, bridges to nowhere, that sort of thing. But foreign aid is important and it only represents around 2% of the entire Federal budget (or twenty billion dollars a year for all of you non- math wizards) and is not something that should be cut to shrink the Federal budget. Because there's not a lot of money there and it would cost us more in the future had we not cut it at all.

I look at foreign aid as I look at public assistance, as an investment in people and in human capital. Not charity which is completely something else, but when done and invested right foreign aid benefits American taxpayers because it prevents authoritarians from taking over third world countries. And builds a larger middle class in those countries so they have the resources to not only buy domestic products in their countries, but also able to purchase American products. Which is good for American companies as well as consumers.

If foreign aid is invested in things like infrastructure, education, health care, things that all countries need to be successful economically, as well as security and not invested in things like crony capitalists or funding terrorists or funding authoritarian regimes that have no interest in developing their countries, but simply use that money to stay in power, foreign aid should be looked at as loans or investments. And when invested well they payoff for the countries giving it.

The Fiscal Times: Patrick Smith: 'Will America Be Aced Out of A New Asian Alliance?'

Source:The Fiscal Times- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton, meeting with Asian leaders.

"America’s closest allies in Asia are wasting no time establishing new economic and political alliances that can diminish the role of the U.S. in that region. Both Japan and South Korea are setting their own courses to an extent long considered beyond their reach. If you accept the popular premise of a “post–American era,” this is what it looks like when it arrives."

From The Fiscal Times

It's good news for both America that Japan and Korea that the two largest it not only democratic states in the Far East, are looking to expand their influence and power in Asia and in the world. Especially as China, India and Russia, are on the rise in Asia because there's a limit to what America can do for these countries on our own, in the long-term.

If these countries in the Far East want to be secure then they need to be able and defend themselves to make that happen. Which would not only benefit the United States economy because it would allow us to be able to bring down our debt and deficit, but would also benefit the Korean and Japanese economies by allowing them to have strong vibrant defense industries. 

We are talking about two of the largest economies in the world in America and Japan. And Korea as well as two developed nations that both have the resources to defend themselves, it's just a matter of them spending those resources instead of relying on a country on the other side of the world and their taxpayers to do that for them. And put those resources and more of their people to work.

Japan a country of 130M people with an economy of over 4T$ thats also a large country physically as well. That thanks to the fact that their economy being in recession or stagnation the last twenty years now has the third largest economy in the world behind America and China doesn't have to continue down that road and watch other countries past them economically as well as in influence around the world.

So Japan having a military that could defend itself against anyone in the world as well as be a player in world affairs not just in the Orient or Asia, but around the world. And have more of say about problems that come out around the world, that would benefit them and their economy. 

This wouldn't be a cure to all of their economic problems where they simply aren't growing. But would allow them to put more people back to work and would boost their economic growth and create brand new private industries. In this large developed country thats been stagnating.

America can no longer defend every allied country around the world, especially countries that have the resources to defend themselves. And Japan and Korea especially with the new President of the Communist Republic of Korea saying that he wants better relations with the Democratic Republic and now believes it's time for economic reform. Which in translation means giving North Koreans economic freedom, this is the perfect time for Japan and Korea to step up and become world powers.