The ironic effect of the President’s foreign policy…the recolonization of Africa

Fraser Nelson (Telegraph) notes an irony few in America are noticing…and few in Europe can believe:

In his inauguration speech last week, Barack Obama assured America that “a decade of war is now ending”. Just three hours earlier, the Prime Minister had told the Commons that a “generational struggle” against the jihadis was only just beginning. British and US foreign policy has indeed become detached – but not in the way most people expected.

Nelson goes into greater detail about Prime Minister Cameron’s surprising turn towards a more active foreign policy, not only in Libya, but also in Mali, where an Algerian terrorist group that signed up with al Qaeda is battling a military regime that, in theory, will return the country to democracy.

In both Libya and Mali, Britain and France worked together to defeat Qaddafi and al Qaeda, respectively. In Mali itself, I should note, the fight is far from over. That said, Britain’s geopolitical ambitions are, if anything, growing (Spectator Coffee House):

On the Sunday Politics, William Hague confirmed that the greatest terrorist threat to the British homeland come from Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. But he argued that without intervention, the Sahel could become as dangerous to Britain.

Please note that Mali is in the Sahel region of Africa.

What is remarkable about all of this is how quickly Great Britain and France moved into the void Washington was creating. Given that France ejected Nicolas Sarkozy (who provided the greatest push for the Libya operation) in favor of Socialist Francois Hollande, France’s continuing involvement is a tremendous surprise.

However, France and Britain have long, colonial histories in Africa, histories that were largely ended due to heavy American influence after World War II. By withdrawing that influence, President Obama has unwittingly invited the colonial powers back into Africa in order to protect their own homelands from an al Qaeda threat to their south.

The fact that the president who enabled the de facto recolonization of Africa is himself the first American leader of African descent makes it all the more painfully ironic.

Two cheers for Marco Rubio

The junior Senator from Florida slapped up a post in The Corner on Iranian influence in the Western Hemisphere. All in all, it wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t perfect either.

Specifically (and hardly of general consequence), I’m not sure I’d call Daniel Ortega a Chavez puppet – Ortega predated Chavez by over a decade, so odds are he still has a direct line to the Castro dynasty in Cuba.

More generally (and worryingly), Rubio acts as if the mullahcracy is doing this all on its own, without any backing. That I find very hard to believe. Tehran’s Khomeinists have had one firm ally over the last three decades – the Chinese Communist Party. Diplomatically, economically, and militarily, Zhongnanhai has supported the mullahs when no one else would.

The CCP has a long histoty of backing America’s enemies and hoping Americans don’t notice. Given the mullahs’ eagerness to take full “responsibility” for what they’re doing, the CCP-Khomeinist axis has been a huge success. In fact, only one prominent American politician has warned of the CCP building a global anti-American alliance (and that’s why I’m backing him for President).

So, while I’m glad to see Rubio is sounding the alarm on the Khomeinists, he shouldn’t ignore their allies in Beijing.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon and the China e-Lobby

Elections matter – even in 2012

The Washington Post is writing in public what most conservatives have heard from some of their brethren in private (except in George Will’s case, where he also went public): better to write off the presidential election this November and move on to 2016. Granted what Will says publicly (focus on flipping the Senate and holding the House) and what the unnamed sources are telling Chris Cillizza privately (better to crash and burn now for a complete rebuild later) are not quite the same things, but I would humbly submit that neither should be entertained.

Both Will and insert-consultants-bending-Cillizza’s-ear-here cite the election of 1964, which has been stunningly rewritten as a “victorious defeat” reminiscent of the Republicans’ first ever effort to win the presidency (1856). The consultants see the ’64 race as a time when the party just hit rock-bottom and then . . .

Four years later, Republicans — showing their lesson learned — nominated establishment favorite and political pragmatist Richard Nixon. (Nixon had been defeated by John Kennedy in 1960 and declined to run in 1964.) Nixon ended eight years of Democratic control of the White House when he beat Vice President Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 election.

This analogy has so many problems that I can only assume none of Cillizza’s sources actually lived through the 1960s. Admittedly, I didn’t either, but I have reviewed the accounts of several who did, and it tells a very different story of 1968.

For one, the “pragmatic” moderates and liberals in the GOP did not want Richard Nixon as their candidate. Nelson Rockefeller was their man, without question. It was the conservatives in the party (John Tower, Strom Thurmond, and others) who pushed for Nixon to come out of his self-induced, post-1962 retirement. The 1960s equivalent of the consultants whispering in Cillizza’s ear were terrified of Nixon being nominated (he had, after all, lost the nearly unlosable election for Governor of California in 1962). We remember Ronald Reagan as the conservatives’ choice in 1968, but Reagan was a “favorite son” of California until the day the convention opened. For much of the campaign, it was the Nixon and the conservatives against Rockefeller and the moderates.

Secondly, Richard Nixon hardly helped the Republican recovery – and probably damaged it. With the exception of Zachary Taylor, no president-elect in American history ever provided less support to his fellow party nominees in the year he won. Nixon’s 1968 vote (43%) was the lowest of any president-elect in over a century. Even as he won his 1972 re-election in a massive landslide, he became the only president to never deliver even one house of Congress to his party. By the time his second term expired (without him) in 1977, the Republicans were in worse shape than they were in 1968.

Finally, the Democrats used Johnson’s full term to dramatically expand government. Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965, two-thirds of the entitlement monster that threatens to devour us (while the former has become the Democrats’ “model” for their health care end-state). This dovetails with Will’s assertion that the right might be better off letting the White House go in 2012. Johnson’s 1964 campaign made little mention of the massive expansion of government he was planning, but that didn’t stop him from doing it anyway.

Now, one could say that Obama – faced with a GOP Congress – could do less damage. However, two of the biggest government encroachments of the “aughts” – in campaign finance and Medicare Part D – began as talking points used by Clinton to brow-beat Republican Congressional majorities.

All of this is just in the domestic realm. We have said nothing of the foreign policy consequences. After romping to victory in 1964, Johnson moved forward on Vietnam in a manner so confusing, limited, and hamstrung that the entire GOP was united against him (even Rockefeller was more hawkish than LBJ). Meanwhile, as the 1970s progressed toward the event that in Will’s mind supposedly justified the ’64 drubbing (the election of 1980), Vietnam fell to the Communists, Cambodia was bled white by Pol Pot, Central America was sucked into the Cold War (with devastating consequences), and long-time ally Iran was abandoned by the Carter Administration and seized by a radical Shiite cleric who imprisoned his own people and built a regime that is still the scourge of the region.

Is that really the model we want to follow?

I understand the frustration so many on the right have with the current field. It was one of the reasons I waited so long to make a decision myself. However, just because the nominee won’t be perfect, or the campaign may become difficult, doesn’t mean you discount the importance of an election. An elected President Ford might have made the history of Iran – and by extension, the rest of the Middle East - very different. A re-elected President Bush the Elder might have put more focus on Afghanistan as the Taliban first stretched its muscles. President McCain would have reacted very differently to the 2009 Iranian protests and Hamid Karzai’s blatant election theft that same year; dramatically rewriting recent history in both places.

So, as fashionable as it may be to think or say otherwise, elections always matter. If they didn’t, no one would miss them.

This one matters, too.

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

Why I still support Mitt Romney

The Santorum surge has radically altered the state of the Republican presidential race – at least as of today. Whether Santorum has the strength to defeat Mitt Romney is an open question; we shall see over the next few months. However, many of my friends are heavily leaning (or have fallen over) in Santorum’s direction. When I decided my choice for president, Santorum had hardly caught any fire; however, I am sticking with Romney.

I have three main reasons for doing so:

First and foremost: only one candidate has raised the alarm on the Chinese Communist Party – and that candidate is Mitt Romney: He has been alone in raising concern over the regime’s theft of intellectual property from foreign dupes investors far and wide. He is the first candidate for president ever to take note of the CCP’s desire to build a global network of tyrants to challenge the free world (not even Duncan Hunter mentioned that in 2008). He has continued to sound the alarm on them despite being attacked for it by the other candidates – including none other than Rick Santorum. For the uninitiated, just about every enemy of America or threat to the same (the mullahcracy of Iran, Saddam Hussein before he was deposed, the Taliban, al Qaeda, North Korea, the Syrian regime, even Qaddafi) has been backed or is backed by the Chinese Communist Party (for the latest on the Tehran-Beijing axis, see the National Post). We need a president who recognizes this danger – and Mitt Romney alone makes the cut.

Second, Romney has the private sector experience that is needed: Just to be clear, private sector experience itself, while certainly valuable, is not per se what I mean. It is Romney’s experience in taking on bloated companies that are bleeding money with antiquated business plans that got my attention – especially given that the new president will take over an executive branch bleeding over $1T a year with far too large a bureaucracy and service systems (e.g. entitlements) stuck in 1969. None of the other candidates have experience in paring down overloaded personnel and modernizing a wheezing entity.

Finally, I consider Romney’s conversion on life to be sincere: I’ve given this one a lot of thought over the last few months, and for good reason. The abortion issue being what it is, many politicians have held to one view throughout. Some have shifted, once, based on intellectual pondering, a dramatic personal story, or, well, crass political considerations. Romney is the only politician I know who has double-backed on this issue. Initially, in 1994, Romney had his personal story (if memory serves, a distant relative had died from an illegal abortion), and that seemed that.

Then the embryonic stem-cell research debate hit Boston.

Normally, views on ESCR are driven by views on unborn life in general. Defenders of the latter by and large can’t stand the former, although a few do. Almost no one who defines themselves as pro-choice opposes ESCR. So one can imagine the surprise when Romney himself tried to stop the creation (and destruction) of research-only embroys. It just doesn’t make sense. After a while, it didn’t make sense to Romney either, and he realized that if you can’t tolerate the death of one embryo, you can’t tolerate the death of any of them.

It’s an unusual journey on the issue, of that there is no doubt. But Mitt Romney is more an empirical politician than a philosophical one; he builds his views from what he sees in front of him – and in this case, what he saw in front of him was so horrifying it overrode the loss of his relative.

These are the reasons I still support Romney. I do not think his nomination is inevitable. Nor do I think he would automatically be a better general election candidate than Rick Santorum – each has their own potential path to victory.

I do think Romney will be better at reducing the size and scope of government, identifying our enemies around the world, and standing up to said enemies. In short, I think he would be a better president than anyone else in the field.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

America’s defense strategy: the good, the bad, and the ugly

While much of the focus on the president’s defense strategy has centered on the reduction to the Army and to the Marine Corps, the overarching strategy changes America’s defense position across several dimensions. Not all of them are uniformly negative.

I will not get into the discussion of overall military spending. Like any other federal bureaucracy, the Department of Defense can be made more efficient. Unlike many of the others, DoD has been focused on efficiencies for many years, and more to the point, cutting the wrong thing can be exceedingly dangerous. However, this should not prevent us from cutting the right thing.

So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at the good, the bad, and the ugly in the new defense strategy.

The good: One can only imagine what it feels like in Zhongnanhai, knowing that the CCP is the only force that will see more of the American military in their midst. In fact, the president has repeatedly shown an unexpected, unadvertised, and thus largely unknown determination to protect and preserve our interests in southeast Asia (in northeast Asia, he hasn’t been much better than his predecessors, but not much worse either). The greater emphasis on our allies in the Pacific received far more attention outside the U.S. than anything else (BBC, twice). For the first time, the United States is making it clear it has concern about the “peaceful rise” of the Chinese Communist regime, and it is prepared to put resources in place to address that concern. That is a change, and a good one.

The bad: Unfortunately, the concern the Administration has about the CCP is only a regional one. The idea that the regime would seek to build its power and prestige outside East Asia is surprisingly absent here. Given that Zhongnanhai has already established alliances with the mullahcracy of Iran, numerous tyrants in Africa, and the Pakistani military (and through them, the Taliban), Washington’s newfound concern for the CCP is thus dangerously limited. Or, as Nadia Schadlow put it in the Weekly Standard:

This geostrategic pivot toward Asia, accompanied by an emphasis on high technology Sino-centric warfare, fails to account for the character of conflict in most of the rest of the disordered world.

One can be certain that the CCP will not “fail to account” for the rest of the world. This leads us to . . .

The ugly: The overall weakening of the American military will make it that much harder to actually achieve the excellent goal of holding the CCP, its tyrannical allies, and its terrorist proxies in check. While Zhongnanhai may find things more difficult in Asia, the regime will likely find eroding American power easier in the rest of the world.

The question then becomes this: will America then weaken itself in Asia to face those other threats abroad? Or will she swallow hard and reverse the manpower and strength reductions that are part of the newly current strategy? This is the question the president, his would-be Republican opponents, and the American people must address – preferably this year.

Cross-posted to the China e-Lobby and Bearing Drift

Mitt Romney for President

This post was originally published in Bearing Drift, under a different title. I am reposting here because it provides the best explanation of my decision regarding the vote I will cast on March 6. For those curious, Communist China as an issue and the performance of the candidates were what led me to Mitt Romney even when candidates not named Ron Paul were options.

This is a post that has been brewing in my brain for some time, but was finally pushed through to my fingers by my friend Shaun Kenney’s post on Ron Paul. Shaun, forced by the utter incomptence of the other campaigns to choose between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, made his case for the latter. Given the choice in front of us, my preferences lean heavily toward the former, and I can’t think of a better place to explain why than here at BD .

I will not discuss the various character and association issues that critics of Paul have raised, mainly for two reasons: first, Ken Falkenstein did it already; second, those who still support or are considering supporting Paul have already discounted much or all of that on the assumption that he represents the best chance to advance limited government. It is that assumption I will challenge in this post.

Let’s go right to the heart of the problem most conservatives have with Romney (including myself): Health Care. Just about everyone knows of Mitt Romney’s support for the individual mandate in Massachusetts and nationwide. However, it takes more than a mandate to bring about socialized medicine (in fact, a mandate might not even be necessary – Barack Obama vehemently opposed one in 2008). It also requires a willingness to use the government’s monopoly/monopsony power in the market to regulate prices and deny services. This is the great danger of single-payer systems such as the British or Canadian examples; this is the concept that led to Obamacare’s “death panels”; this is the danger that in my view is far greater than the mandate discussion (although the mandate is no small potatoes).

Which candidate has supported using the American government’s monopsony power to distort the market in such a fashion? Not Mitt Romney

Moving on, let’s look at social issues. Ron Paul repeatedly refers to himself as “pro-life,” but it would be more accurate to say he has a “popular sovereignty” view on the matter (i.e., it is purely a state issue). That would certainly be an improvement over the status quo, but it hardly means much given that the only way that scenario occurs is an overturn of Roe v. Wade. While I am fairly certain Dr. Paul would do his best to find Justices that would bring that about, the endorsement of Mitt Romney by none other than Robert Bork tells me I can trust either man on this point. Beyond that, Romney’s admittedly unusual travels on this issue (many move one way or the other; he is one of the very few to double back to the pro-life position) are largely irrelevant for now. If Roe were overturned, there may – stress may – be some space between the two, but I’d be happy to see that bridge in my lifetime, let alone cross it.

Shaun also mentioned gun rights, and I’d be a fool to say Romney is better than Paul (or even equal to him) on this; but a Republican presidential victory in November will mean a fully Republican Congress (the Democrats have to defend nearly two dozen Senate seats next year), and if a Republican Congress passes restrictions on gun rights, we have much bigger problems than Mitt Romney or Ron Paul.

Finally, it might be a good idea to take a look at Romney’s budget record, which involved erasing a large shortfall without a general tax increase despite a hostile legislature – something for which many conservatives have praised Bob McDonnell for two years now. Personally, I’m not comfortable with either Governors’ over-reliance on revenue-generating fees or the closing of tax “loopholes,” but I’ve been deep in the minority on that opinion for a good while now. What’s good from Richmond (for those who think it is) should be just as good from Boston.

Paul, by contrast, has greatly over-leveraged his old reputation as “Dr. No.” Lest we forget, the man who repeatedly talks about the proper role of constitutional government sponsored legislation that would have created an insurance moral hazard and could have partially reflated the housing bubble. He even had this to say about it:

Providing tax relief to first-time homebuyers and to those affected by natural disasters should be one of Congress’ top priorities.

I don’t remember that priority coming out of Philadelphia in 1787.

This leads me to a greater problem with Dr. Paul: his limited government mantra disappears when microeconomics are involved. From a macroeconomic perspective, Paul checks all the boxes on limited government; move to the micro-level and he becomes much more comfortable with economic distortions than his supporters like to admit. As a Congressman, that problem can be manageable, as a President, it can lead to the “targeted tax-cuts” fiasco of the Clinton years, or the above monopsony issue. Compared to this, Mitt Romney’s economic record, while hardly sterling (see above), holds up quite well.

Of course, there is foreign policy: perceived to be Paul’s greatest weakness. Even Shaun admits he has a problem with it (so I’d advise you to just read what he has to say on the matter first), but I would also add two other points. First, unlike any of the other candidates, Romney clearly perceives the economic danger from the Chinese Communist Party – both in their currency distortions and their lack of respect for intellectual property rights. In fact, Romney is the only presidential candidate I have seen focused on the intellectual theft issue. In response, his opponents have sneered at him for daring to spike the “engagement” Kool-Aid. Secondly, but just as importantly, Dr. Paul completely fails to understand the importance of a vigorous foreign policy in aiding limited government. Jefferson suffered from a similar lapse in his Administration, and he found himself caught between the French and British Empires. The result was the Embargo Act fiasco – the closest that 19th century America ever came to a police state – and the catastrophic War of 1812.

Romney, for all his faults, understands the threats to America and the havoc they can wreak. While this election season has focused far less on foreign policy than it should, we cannot forget it.

I would add one more item to my list of reasons why Romney deserves a second look in the Old Dominion: he has been the best performing candidate, by far, of any in the field. As the other candidates have moved from gaffe to gaffe (Bachmann on vaccines, Paul on foreign policy and the supposed bigotry of his opponents, Cain on foreign policy, Gingrich on judges, Perry on just about everything, and Santorum on whining about debate time), Romney has been near-perfect. The only thing that comes close to a slip-up was his attempt to goad Perry into a $10,000 wager.

I am loath to mention general election polling, in part because only Romney has been consistently polled against Obama, but it is telling that despite the turbulent reaction from Republican voters, the general electorate has nearly always put him ahead of Obama or in a statistical tie with him. Clearly voters are seeing something they like, or can at least entertain seriously, in November 2012.

Virginia Republicans and conservatives are faced with a choice between two men who are far from perfect; both have admirable qualities, to be sure. However, a thorough and detailed examination of the choices reveals that Romney is better on the critical matters in front of us than he appears, while Paul is a good deal worse than he appears on these same matters. I can understand why my good friend Shaun would lean Paul’s way, but for the reasons above, I can not agree with him.

An open letter to John Bolton

Dear Ambassador Bolton,

I do not know if you saw the Republican presidential debate last night (just in case you did not, here is the transcript via Politisite). I am all but certain the debate will leave or has left you as disappointed as I am at our current crop of Republican candidates for the Oval Office. Yet this was merely the latest in a string of debates that made clear that there is a yawning and dangerous vacuum in the field – one that only you can fill.

Many will say that it is difficult to discern the candidates’ views on foreign policy because it is so infrequently discussed. Many more believe foreign affairs are too frequently discussed as it is. Both are symptoms of a growing myopia both within the party and the nation on the global threats to the world from Palestine to Pakistan to the People’s Liberation Army. Yet no candidate is willing to even attempt to shift the debate and the campaign to a badly needed discussion of the threats will we face and how we must defeat them.

Can you not see that it was a mistake to decline to run for President? Is it not obvious how badly needed your voice is on that stage?

I know at the time you were under the impression that it would be difficult to win the nomination. Surely recent events have shown that belief – understandable at the time – to be mistaken. The remarkable fluidity in national and state Republican polls have propelled Herman Cain – the only current candidate who was never elected to office – into the lead. Republican voters are desperate for an alternative to Mitt Romney, and have gone through nearly everyone in the current field to find that alternative.

Moreover, last night made clear just why an alternative is so necessary. Mr. Romney’s comments on foreign policy were of a frightening ignorance matched only by a cavalier dismissiveness. He actually implied that it would be better for the Chinese Communist Party to backfill our foreign aid, essentially inviting that dangerous element to enlarge its current geopolitical offensive (this is not to say that foreign aid is the best way to counter or prevent said offensive; far from it in fact, but you knew that already). He then listed Pakistan as a logistical ally, rather than a two-faced, duplicitous regime. Is it really a wonder the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are seeking someone else?

Sadly, on the international crises that await us (and face us already) no one has the strength, intelligence, experience,  or wherewithal to be that alternative to Romney (and Obama, for that matter).

Yet you have all of them.

Please, sir, if you are reading this (and I hope you do read it soon), reconsider. Take one more look at the field, and realize that it has a place for you.

You can run, you can win.

You must run; you must win.

Cross-posted to John Bolton for President and the China e-Lobby

Why Iran’s plan to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador is about more than just Iran

The Tehran regime was caught trying to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States. The mullahcracyhad hoped to hire out a Mexican drug cartel (!) to set off a bomb at a restaurant, killing the Ambassador and a whole slew of Americans who would have been eating there, too.

Lest anyone think this was just a weird one-off, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made clear some of what’s at stake (Weekly Standard, emphasis in original):

Here is what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to say during an interview with NBC’s Today Show about the Iranian plot to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S.

Clinton believes that the alleged plot by the Iranian government to kill a Saudi official, which she called a “dangerous escalation,” came from the highest levels.  

“We think that this was conceived and directed from Tehran,’’ Clinton said. “We know that it goes to a certain level within the Quds Force, which is part of the Revolutionary Guard, which is the military wing of the Iranian government. And we know that this was in the making, and there was a lot of communication between the defendants and others in Tehran.

“So we’re going to let the evidence unfold. But the important point to make is that this just is in violation of international norms. It is a state-sponsored act of terror, and the world needs to speak out strongly against it.’’

Naturally, much of the reaction has centered on what action will or should be taken against the Tehran regime (Weekly Standard), although the U.S.-Mexican border has been a topic (NRO and WS), as well as American energy policy (NRO).

Yet something continues to be missing: any talk of repercussions for Tehran’s strongest ally and arms supplier – the Chinese Communist Party.

Few Americans (let alone citizens of the rest of the democratic world) think much about Zhongnanhai’s continued support for the mullahs in Iran – and that’s just how the cadres want it. For years, they have sought out opponents of America who were both willing to attack us and shield the CCP from any responsibility. Terror sponsors in the Middle East and Central Asia, for their own reasons, almost always fit the bill. That’s why the Iranian mullahcracy, al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and Stalinist North Korea have all found favor with the cadres since the Tiananmen Square massacre forced a reset of the Party’s geopolitical priorities.

Now, the first of that bunch (the mullahs) are taking the battle to American soil – and once again, the Chinese Communists are getting off scot free.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, our Pakistani “allies” have once again sided with the Taliban and al Qaeda against us (first WS link), while openly boasting of their friendship with Beijing; no consequences have hit the latter.

This cannot go on.

When Cuba decided it wanted a nuclear weapons program, no one in Washington tried to separate Fidel Castro from his weapons suppliers in Moscow. In fact, no Soviet satellite actions were considered to be free of Soviet influence – or unworthy of counteraction against the Soviets themselves by the free world.

The Chinese Communist Party needs a similar understanding of its attachment to its allies and beneficiaries. Washington should make it clear in no uncertain terms that Zhongnanhai will be held responsible for actions taken by their allies in Tehran, or Islamabad, or Damascus, or Pyongyang, or anywhere else on the globe.

This need not necessarily mean a military reaction. There are plenty of diplomatic and economic levers than can be used against the Communists and their allies. Acceleration and increase of arms sales to Taiwan, greater military cooperation with the CCP’s rivals in Southeast Asia (to be fair, the current Administration has already made moves on this front), encouragement of Japan’s remilitarization, threats of a retaliatory strike against China if Iran detonates a nuclear weapon by itself or throught its terrorist proxies (and yes, I do mean a nuclear retaliation), a public alliance with India, all of these should be considered and adopted (as well as my favorite, counterproliferation).

These policies (and the list is not exhaustive) would make it abundantly clear to the Chinese Communist Party that its actions have consequences, and force the regime to understand that being a superpower has grave responsibilities. The cadres in Zhongnanhai have been spared that lesson so far. It is time to teach them, good and hard if need be.

Cross-posted to the China e-Lobby

Bad news for the bad guys in Afghanistan

Hamid Karzai has had enough of Pakistan meddling in his country; so he went to the first nation on anyone’s how-to-put-Pakistan-in-its-place list: India.

In the process, he made things a lot more difficult for the Taliban and al-Qaeda elements along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Here are the details in the “strategic partnership” between Afghanistan and India (CNN): “a wide range of political, trade and person-to-person links” including “train(-ing) Afghan security forces.” In other words, when we’re gone in three years, the folks responsible for helping Afghan forces defeat the Taliban will be the one nation on the planet who hates the terrorist crew more than we do.

Speaking of the Taliban, their former-best-friend-in-Kabul had this to say about them (Washington Examiner): “Karzai had said over the weekend he was giving up on negotiating with the Taliban directly, and accused Pakistan of doing little to help rein in terrorists.” Lest we forget, Karzai was supposed to re-integrate the Taliban and welcome the return of Pakistan’s long shadow over his country, not ask its mortal enemy to train the Afghan army.

The signers of the deal tried to downplay the significance, but I’m all but certain the Taliban and al Qaeda noticed. After waiting out the Americans for over a decade, they’re seeing who will replace us as the Afghanistan’s sponsor – and India will never give up this fight.

I almost wish Osama and al-Awlaki were still alive to see it.

Almost.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

I have decided whom to support for President

I just have to convince him to run.