ConservativeHome's The Republican

Ambassador Robert Ford attacked in Syria

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As the Syrian government continues it's violent crack down against anti-regime protesters, Assad loyalists are also turning their aggression to US Ambassador Robert Ford. 

Despite repeated calls from Republican lawmakers urging Ford's recall, Politico reports:

The U.S. Ambassador to Syria - who has repeatedly demonstrated his support for anti-government protestors - was attacked in Damascus last week by a supporter of President Bashal al-Assad, a new video shows.

A video broadcast by Syrian television pictures pro-Assad protestors following Ambassador Robert Ford and chanting slogans. One protestor then approaches Ford from behind and tries to wrap him in a poster featuring a picture of the Syrian president.

Ford’s security team, which was already rushing him to a waiting car, pushed the Ambassador into the vehicle.

Tensions have been heating up between the Syria and the United States over the last several months.

US official: Al Qaeda no. 2 killed In Pakistan

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

In another major blow to Al Qaeda, a senior US official says the terrorist group's second-in-command (Atiyah Abd al-Rahman) has been killed in Pakistan. CBS News reports:

Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, has been killed in Pakistan, delivering another big blow to a terrorist group that the U.S. believes to be on the verge of defeat, a senior Obama administration official said Saturday.

The Libyan national who was the network's former operational leader rose to al Qaeda's No. 2 spot after the U.S. killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden during a raid on his Pakistan compound in May.

Al-Rahman was killed Aug. 22 in the lawless Pakistani tribal region of Waziristan, according to the official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss intelligence issues.

As the eyes of the world turn to the Middle East we must not forget Cuba's Ladies in White

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

With little attention given (both by the media and the Obama Administration) to the Castro regime's repeated attacks against the non-violent Ladies in White this summer, amid the ongoing (and widely watched) events in the Middle East and North Africa this week, House Foreign Affairs Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen urged Americans to also remember those bravely fighting tyranny in Cuba :

Once again, agents of the Cuban regime assaulted the Ladies in White as they peacefully marched in support of freedom and human rights in Cuba. Regime violence against women, including the Ladies in White, is on the rise and demonstrates the depths to which the dictatorship will sink to suppress and silence the Cuban people’s cries for liberty.

As the eyes of the world are on developments in the Middle East and North Africa, we must not forget about the people of Cuba and the brutal attacks that they endure at the hands of the tyrannical Castro regime. Yesterday’s attack by Cuban security forces on the Ladies in White is the most recent example of this repression.

At any hint of dissent, even by grieving mothers, sisters and wives of political prisoners, the Cuban regime responds violently. Just as free, democratic nations are rightly expressing their solidarity with those rising up against dictators in the Middle East and North Africa, so too must responsible nations support the democratic opposition in Cuba.

The Obama Administration has recently taken a strong stance against the Syrian regime by increasing U.S. sanctions against Damascus and its repressive leaders. I urge the Administration to show the same resolve against the Cuban tyranny and immediately reverse its easing of regulations targeting the Castro regime.

Rebels take control of Gadhafi compound: "Strategically, this means that Tripoli has fallen"

According to NBC News:

Rebel forces gained "full control" over Moammar Gadhafi's fortified Bab al-Aziziya compound in Libya's capital Tuesday.

The compound, which was heavily damaged by NATO airstrikes, had emerged as one of the last centers of government resistance.

"Strategically, this means that Tripoli has fallen," NBC's Richard Engel said from inside the compound.

An Associated Press reporter at the scene said the compound's green gates were blasted open, allowing hundreds of rebels poured into the complex, some driving golf carts as the area resounded with celebratory gunfire.

It was not immediately clear whether Gadhafi or members of his immediate family were in the compound when it was breached by the rebels, but the ferocity of the battle led many to speculate that the maverick leader may have been inside.

Reflections from Peter Feaver and Walter Russell Mead on Libya and the comparisons between Obama and Bush

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Peter Feaver gives five reasons today at Shadow Government why it's premature for Obama and his supporters to declare mission accomplished (which George W. Bush's critics love to remember) on his "lead-from-behind" strategy in Libya:

1. Leading from behind wasn't actually what worked. Things tipped only when NATO (and especially U.S.) military operations stepped up.
2. Leading from behind was part and parcel with the late entry into the conflict, which has delayed the whole thing. It's not obvious that Obama's strategy was somehow better than decisive, more forceful action earlier.
3. The international coalition is fraying and tired, which leaves little energy for whatever will come next...which could require a lot of the international community.
4. Obama's rationale to commit troops - to prevent a bloodbath - cuts against his claim that Libyans will be responsible for their own security post-Quaddafy.
5. The real test of Obama's commitment will play out after Quaddafy, so it's too premature to declare anything.

I have paraphrased the five points. The whole thing is here.

The parallels with G.W. Bush go beyond wanting to declare "mission accomplished" too soon, according to Walter Russell Mead, who has an essay on his blog that, as usual, is worth reading in full.

[Obama's] defenders must also squirm; in general, President Obama succeeds where he adopts or modifies the policies of the Bush administration.  Where (as on Israel) he has tried to deviate, his troubles begin...President Obama is pushing a democracy agenda in the Middle East that is as aggressive as President Bush’s; he adopts regime change by violence if necessary as a core component of his regional approach and, to put it mildly, he is not afraid to bomb.  But where President Bush’s tough guy posture (“Bring ‘Em On!”) alienated opinion abroad and among liberals at home, President Obama’s reluctant warrior stance makes it easier for others to work with him...In many ways we are living through George W. Bush’s third term in the Middle East, and neither President Obama’s friends nor his enemies want to admit it.  President Obama, in his own way and with his own twists, continues to follow the core Bush policy of nudging and sometimes pushing nasty regimes out of power, aligning the US with the wave of popular discontent in the region even as that popular sentiment continues to dislike, suspect and reject many aspects of American power and society.

As ever, Mead is brimming with insight and great historical analysis.

And yet something is missing in this commentary. It's true that Obama is continuing Bush's policies as, in Mead's words, a "reluctant warrior," and hence less threatening to some of our allies than George W. Bush was. But Bush was more than a "Bring 'Em On" commander in chief. He was also a vocal proponent of every human being's legitimate claim to their God-given liberty. He was also unafraid to declare that the United States has a special role to play protecting that legitimate claim around the world.

This is where Obama has been different. He has not sent signals to defenders of freedom and democracy worldwide that they can count on the U.S., and his "lead from behind" strategy, despite whatever aggressive actions Obama has pursued elsewhere, sends mixed signals about whether we're "all in" to keep our enemies at bay and our friends close. It's hard to imagine political prisoners in Iran or North Korea quietly sending words of hope to one another as those prisoners in the Gulag were doing when Reagan loudly confronted the regime that had imprisoned them.

House Foreign Affairs Committee chair urges the immediate recall of the US envoy to Syria

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Joining the growing wave of voices demanding that the White House to get serious about the current situation in Syria, House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen this morning issued a stern statement calling for the immediate recall of the US Ambassador to Syria, an action the Obama administration should have initiated long before today.

A vocal advocate of the protection of freedom and human rights, here's a look at what the Congresswoman had to say:

The recess appointment of an Ambassador to Syria was an ill-advised overture to the Syrian regime by the Administration. The Administration should reverse this mistake by recalling the Ambassador immediately.

Ambassador Ford’s recent participation in a regime-organized tour of northern Syria provided legitimacy to a ploy aimed at covering up the regime’s violence against the Syrian people. It compromised U.S. credibility with freedom and pro-democracy advocates within Syria at a critical time. 

The regime has made it clear though its brutal actions and through the refusal of senior officials to meet with the Ambassador that it is not interested in diplomacy. Any continued presence of a U.S. Ambassador will either be used by the regime for propaganda purposes or just plain ignored

"Now is the time for Congress to exhibit moral leadership (on Libya) despite political pressures to do otherwise"

The Foreign Policy Initiative has published the letter today that it circulated over the weekend with the signatories attached (see below).

The letter is urging House Republicans to stand firm on Libya and resist the political temptation to turn criticism of Obama into a position that is contrary to American interests.

We at ConservativeHome support this effort.

The letter reads:

An Open Letter to House Republicans

We thank you for your leadership as Congress exercises its Constitutional responsibilities on the issue of America's military actions in Libya.  We are gravely concerned, however, by news reports that Congress may consider reducing or cutting funding for U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military operations against the oppressive regime of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi.  Such a decision would be an abdication of our responsibilities as an ally and as the leader of the Western alliance.  It would result in the perpetuation in power of a ruthless dictator who has ordered terrorist attacks on the United States in the past, has pursued nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and who can be expected to return to these activities should he survive.  To cut off funding for current efforts would, in short, be profoundly contrary to American interests.

We share the concerns of many in Congress about the way in which the Obama administration has conducted and justified this operation.  The problem is not that the President has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power.  The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies.  We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support.  We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.

What would be even worse, however, would be for the United States to become one of those irresolute allies.  The United States must see this effort in Libya through to its conclusion.  Success is profoundly in our interests and in keeping with our principles as a nation.  The success of NATO’s operations will influence how other Middle Eastern regimes respond to the demands of their people for more political rights and freedoms.  For the United States and NATO to be defeated by Muammar al-Qaddafi would suggest that American leadership and resolution were now gravely in doubt—a conclusion that would undermine American influence and embolden our nation’s enemies.

In Speaker Boehner’s June 14, 2011, letter to President Obama, he wrote that he believes “in the moral leadership our country can and should exhibit, especially during such a transformational time in the Middle East.”  We share that belief, and feel that now is the time for Congress to exhibit that moral leadership despite political pressures to do otherwise.

Sincerely,


Elliott Abrams   

Bruce Pitcairn Jackson   

Danielle Pletka

Gary Bauer   

Ash Jain   

John Podhoretz

Max Boot   

Frederick Kagan   

Stephen G. Rademaker

Ellen Bork   

Robert Kagan   

Karl Rove

Scott Carpenter   

Lawrence Kaplan   

Randy Scheunemann

Liz Cheney   

William Kristol   

Gary Schmitt

Seth Cropsey   

Robert Lieber   

Dan Senor

Thomas Donnelly   

Tod Lindberg   

Michael Singh

Eric Edelman   

Michael Makovsky   

Henry D. Sokolski

Jamie Fly   

Ann Marlowe   

Marc Thiessen

Reuel Marc Gerecht   

Clifford D. May   

Kenneth Weinstein

John Hannah   

Joshua Muravchik   

Paul Wolfowitz

William Inboden   

Martin Peretz   

R. James Woolsey

For the first time in a decade as many Republicans as Democrats say the US "should mind its own business" when it comes to global affairs

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As opposition grows in Washington over US action in Libya, a recent Pew research poll reveals that when it comes to global engagement, nearly half of GOP voters feel the US should "mind it's own business":

[F]or the first time in a decade, as many Republicans (45%) as Democrats (43%) said the United States “should mind its own business internationally.” In three surveys conducted between 2002 and 2005, only about half as many Republicans as Democrats expressed this view.

Overall, "majorites in every partisan group –including 55% of conservative Republicans – said the U.S. 'should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home.'"

While this change is attitude is not entirely surprising considering current criticism coming from lawmakers and 2012 contenders, it is still troubling. As Senator John McCain commented earlier today on ABC's This Week:

The fact is, our interests are our values. And our values are that we don't want people needlessly slaughtered by the thousands if we can prevent such activity

Abrams, Kagan, Kristol: "Don't cut and run in Libya"

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

In response to recent efforts by lawmakers to slash funding for operations in Libya, Elliott Abrams, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan are circulating a letter for signature to conservative foreign policy experts, arguing the pressing need for continued action against the Gadhafi regime.

Addressed to House Republicans, here's a look at what the trio (and the signatories) had to say:

We thank you for your leadership as Congress exercises its Constitutional responsibilities on the issue of America's military actions in Libya. We are gravely concerned, however, by news reports that Congress may consider reducing or cutting funding for U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military operations against the oppressive regime of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi.  Such a decision would be an abdication of our responsibilities as an ally and as the leader of the Western alliance.  It would result in the perpetuation in power of a ruthless dictator who has ordered terrorist attacks on the United States in the past, has pursued nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and who can be expected to return to these activities should he survive.  To cut off funding for current efforts would, in short, be profoundly contrary to American interests.

We share the concerns of many in Congress about the way in which the Obama administration has conducted and justified this operation. The problem is not that he has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power.  The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies.  We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support.  We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.

The full letter is available to view here.

Where have all the hawks gone? It’s time for one of the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls to show some foreign policy leadership

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

In a taped interview with Christine Amanpour to air today on “This Week,” John McCain said:

I was…concerned about what the candidates in New Hampshire the other night said. This is isolationism. There's always been an … isolation strain on the Republican Party -- that Pat Buchanan wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak. … If we had not intervened, Gadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi. He said he was going to go house to house to kill everybody. That's a city of 700,000 people. What would be saying now if we had allowed for that to happen?

When Amanpour asked him what Reagan would be saying today if he were to hear Michele Bachmann or Mitt Romney talk about our engagements abroad, McCain responded:

He would be saying: That's not the Republican Party of the 20th century, and now the 21st Century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people for all over the world, whether it be in Grenada -- that Ronald Reagan had a quick operation about -- or whether it be in our enduring commitment to countering the Soviet Union.

Everyone knows that the candidates are playing to primary voters’ fatigue with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Public opinion is not on the side of the hawks these days.

Peggy Noonan, in her latest WSJ column cited just about every recent poll on Afghanistan, all of which show that Americans are just plain tired of the war.

There aren’t too many political points to be scored on a bold freedom agenda these days.

But public opinion on foreign policy follows what public leaders are or are not saying and doing. No one has provided much leadership in this arena for a long time. It’s not exactly surprising that the polls show what they do.

My former colleague, Will Inboden, who writes regularly at Shadow Government, made a good point in an email exchange today:

Emerging Republican leaders Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio have in the last couple weeks both given excellent speeches laying out a bold and principled vision for American leadership in the world.  And neither of them suffered at all for it politically with the Republican base. GOP presidential hopefuls in 2012 should take heart from their examples. At the very least, even while GOP presidential candidates find much to justifiably criticize in the Obama Administration's foreign policy, on our conflicts in Afghanistan and Libya the candidates should make the point that “America is not in the business of losing wars, period.” Doing so would show commendable resolve and, when put in those terms, likely be well-received by GOP voters.

Good words.

The question is whether any 2012 GOP hopefuls will be daring and enterprising enough to repeat them.