Category Archives: National Security

Posted on by

Susan Rice’s Farewell Email to her Staff

20130605-200814.jpg

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations sent this email to her staff at the U.S. mission this morning:

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

As you have likely now heard, this afternoon President Obama announced that he is appointing me his next National Security Advisor. I am deeply honored and excited to continue to serve our country in this new capacity.

But, in truth, I am very sad to leave the work and the people of the US Mission to the UN. Serving with you at USUN has been the best job I have ever had – challenging, fun, multifaceted and never, ever dull. The greatest part, however, has truly been the people. Every morning, no matter how tough or arcane the issue, I have awakened with a bounce in my step because I knew that whatever was coming at us, I would have the privilege of confronting it with the best team of people I have ever worked with. Your dedication, commitment, kindness, good humor and excellence have been unfailing.

So, above all, I am deeply grateful to each of you – from the UPOs whose smiling faces lift my spirits when I walk in the building to each officer and OMS, each driver, advisor and Ambassador, each DS agent, each military staff committee member, each IMO. Every single one of you has given me your best. It has been my greatest privilege to serve alongside you, the remarkable public servants at the lean and mean U.S. Mission to the UN.

I could not be prouder of you and of all that we have accomplished together. As a team, we have strengthened America’s relationships and advanced U.S. interests and values at the United Nations. None of this would have been possible without your professionalism and commitment.

I will begin to make this transition shortly, but my last day at USUN will be at the end of June. I am very excited that President Obama has nominated Samantha Power to be my successor. If confirmed, you all will love working with her, as many of you have already discovered. She is wicked smart, energetic, strong, principled and a truly lot of fun.

In the meantime, I am confident that USUN will continue to excel in all areas of the mission’s work, under the extremely able leadership of Ambassadors DiCarlo, DeLaurentis, Cousens and Torsella. I know I will leave the mission in excellent hands, and there will be a great deal of continuity.

I look forward to seeing you all and being able to thank you in person next week. I plan to honor you all at a Happy Hour in the near future.

I will greatly miss the USUN family. You are the best!

Susan

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

samantha power’s nomination is a disappointment

samatha power with rice obamaThe woman charged with the protection of global human rights for the White House for the last four years was promoted Tuesday to represent the United States at the United Nations.
Despite leading an embarrassing policy of inaction — during which 80,000 plus Syrians were killed by violence created by their own government, thousands of Sudanese were ethnically-cleansed in Darfur, and hundreds of thousands were murdered and displaced in the Congo — President Obama announced Tuesday that he has selected Samantha Power, an academic and 2008 Obama presidential campaign aide, as his next nominee to represent the United States as ambassador to the United Nations. Continue reading →

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

Senate Republicans take the Higher Ground with a vote on Hagel

I’m sure the media won’t report on the conciliatory move by Senate Republicans to give President Obama an up or down vote on his Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel. But it’s worth highlighting the olive branch extended to the President by the GOP. Continue reading →

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

Cutting the Ribbon in Burma, Ignoring Iran & Syria

Today, President Obama will be the first U.S. President to visit Burma. The unprecedented trip is a celebration for the second largest country in Southeast Asia. It’s also a remarkable achievement since Burma only recently held national elections in 2010 after holding the leader of the democratic opposition party, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest for 21 years. Continue reading →

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

bring home u.s. ambassador to syria robert ford

This week, United States Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford participated in a tour sponsored by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government in the Northwest province of Idlib.  The propaganda tour was organized to show the devastation caused by what government officials described as “foreign outlaws” and “radical Islamists”.  The excursion included Syrian officials who explained to Ford that Islamic extremists were responsible for the more than 1,500 deaths that have occurred since anti-government protests began on March 15.  Government officials also told Ford that there have been no peaceful freedom marches, as has been reported by the international media, only foreign radicals looking to destabilize Syria.  Ambassador Ford dutifully attended the government’s tour but has since failed to respond or react.

Ford’s silence dramatically contrasts with his tough talk during his confirmation hearing in March 2010 when he told Senators, “Unfiltered straight talk with the Syrian government will be my mission priority.”  We can only hope Ford’s public silence means he has been giving it to Assad privately.  But unfortunately there are press reports
indicating that Ford hasn’t been able to schedule a private meeting with any senior government officials.  So the U.S. Ambassador to Syria just sits and waits.

Ford’s stiff upper lip seems exactly what President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton want.  While they cling to the idea that Assad may still yet be a reformer, the
Obama team misses the opportunity to topple the Syrian dictator and blunt Iran’s influence in the region.  A review of Ford’s Embassy website shows a similar silence from Ford on the Syrian crackdown of the last three months.  With foreign journalists not allowed inside Syria, you might think the U.S. Embassy staff would be working overtime to tell the world and specifically the U.S. taxpayer just what is happening inside Assad’s world.  Shouldn’t Ford be calling attention to and showing the violence coming from Assad’s government?  How about demanding that the IAEA come in to inspect the Israeli-bombed suspected nuclear site Al Kibar?  Now seems like a good time to take advantage of a distracted dictator.  But our U.S. Embassy’s website is embarrassingly outdated and irrelevant.  On the home page there is a link to the text of Obama’s speech Wednesday on Afghanistan, a June 17th news summary from Washington’s Information Bureau quoting an unidentified official on Syria and an op/ed from Secretary Clinton dated June 17.  A closer look and you can find links to statements dated June 8th, June 4th and May 31 on HIV/AIDS and the internet.  There are also stories on Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and former astronaut Marsha Ivins.  But there is nothing from Ford on his reaction to the Syrian propaganda tour or the violent government crackdowns.

It’s time to end this charade and show Assad what the American government thinks of his phony excuses of “64,000 outlaws” and a “revolution by the Muslim Brotherhood who are agents of America and the West”.  Surely Ford must know Assad is not telling the truth and that Americans are not responsible for Assad’s troubles.  With 10,500 Syrians having fled into Turkey, Assad’s problem has become an issue of international peace
and security.  If U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice can’t show regional instability and thus an urgency for UN action then it’s time the U.S. act in other ways.  With more promises of reforms, new committees and conspiracy charges from Assad’s Damascus University speech on Monday, the time to do more is now.  Opposition forces need to know that the U.S. stands with them.  It’s also a chance to show the Iranian people what is possible.  Ford and Clinton look foolish doing nothing.  While some may say that the U.S. has little it can do outside of military action, Obama can still squeeze the Assad regime and isolate it further with these actions:

1. Order Ford home immediately, and shut down the Embassy.

2. Publicly call upon Assad to resign and ask other countries to do the same.

3. Call upon the Europeans and others to pull their Ambassadors from Damascus too.

4. Restrict the movement of the Syrian Ambassador to Washington and the Syrian Ambassador to the UN to a small radius around their offices.

5. Ask European capitals to restrict the movement of Syrian Ambassadors in their countries too.

6. Force the UN resolution on Syria to a vote and dare the Russians to veto it.

7. Move USAid employees into southern Turkey to care for the Syrian refugees arriving daily.

8. Schedule an Al Jazeera TV interview with President Obama to explain our actions and why Assad must go.

9. Demand the IAEA inspect Al Kibar and offer an immediate UN resolution authorizing it.

One sure way to ruin American credibility in the Arab world is to sit silently in Damascus and look like your part of the Assad show.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

obama’s silence on syria helps iran

It doesn’t seem like a gutsy call to put sanctions on a head of state who has jailed protesters and shot peaceful demonstrators since early March.  President Barack Obama’s overdue call to add Bashar al-Assad to a sanctions list restricting his travel outside of Syria is a slow start to one of the greatest U.S. foreign policy opportunities of our generation.  And today’s Middle East Speech did nothing more to push Assad.

The end of Assad’s regime would be a blow to Iran and help isolate Ahmedinejad’s government in the region by removing its main ally and partner in crime.  Isolating Iran, especially right now, could have profound consequences for Americans’ security, too, since the Iranian government announced it has mastered the technology needed to make a nuclear weapon.  The Iranian leader also said that Israel should be wiped off the map.

But the Obama team either believes it can charm Assad into ending his relationship with Iran or doesn’t see the strategic importance of ending the Assad-Iran partnership.  Obama’s engagement policy with Syria and his decision to send a U.S. Ambassador into Damascus normalized relations with a man Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called “a reformer.”  Assad responded to Obama’s overtures and acquiescence with more violence and terror and less reform.  But Obama is unfazed.  Syria has strengthened its ties with Iran and has continued to send and support terrorists into Iraq, Israel and Lebanon; And Obama can only muster enough outrage to say that Assad must stop using violence against his people.

Syria has allowed Iraqi Sunni insurgents to mobilize and plan attacks from its territory, has been accused by the United Nations of planning and assassinating Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and has supported Hezbollah and Hamas efforts to destabilize Israel and Lebanon.  The reluctance by Obama and Clinton to act decisively on the Syrian government’s brutal actions against its people allows Syria to maintain its position as a legitimate member of the international community.  Obama’s Middle East missteps have also encouraged neighbors like Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan to abandon his normally pro-western positions in favor of his comfortable relationship with Assad and Ahmedinejad.

Obama’s refusal to call for an end to the Assad regime is consistent with U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s trip in 2007 to Damascus to meet with the Syrian President despite pleas from the Bush Administration to not legitimize the dictator and Vice President Joe Biden’s refusal to call for Egypt’s Hosni Mubarrak to step down or characterize him as a dictator.

The recent evidence of brutality by Assad’s government is undeniable.  More than 10,000 people have been arrested, 800 protesters killed and 120 government security forces killed since the protests began.  Opposition forces are calling for an end to President Assad’s regime and an expansion of economic and civil liberties; a goal Obama should wholeheartedly support.

An April 4th crack-down by government forces was caught on tape and posted on YouTube showing Syrian protesters shot outside a mosque and lying in the street – some dying on camera:

(Warning: This video is very graphic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb8QgqeKeiI

Images like these have rallied hundreds of thousands of people throughout Syria to continue fighting for their rights.  These compelling stories have also prompted
human rights activists to call for more direct action from the White House.

For an Administration that criticized the international community’s slow response to Darfur and committed to utilize the United Nations more, little has been done to rally the world to support an obvious U.S. priority.  Obama and his Ambassador to
the UN Susan Rice haven’t forced a vote of the UN Security Council on Syria nor
put the UN members on record to either support the protesters or the dictators
in Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia.  While the Arab revolution has unfolded over the last several months, Rice has failed to even offer draft resolutions for discussion.
Instead, Rice has allowed Russia and China to dictate the non-agenda.

It’s clear from Obama’s Middle East speech today that he has sidelined the UN.  Team Obama should be applauded for realizing their previous commitments to utilize the UN for all international issues was a foolish campaign promise to look un-Bush (see also: Iraq pullout in one year, closing GITMO, enhanced interrogations, military tribunals).

Obama should speak more forcefully about Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and call for him to step down. He should also immediately withdraw the U.S. Ambassador from Damascus, kick out the Syrian Ambassador in Washington and call upon Europeans to do the same.  If Obama believes that the status quo is unsustainable then he should stop supporting it.  Timidity is exactly what Assad and Ahmedinejad are looking for.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

bring back the french fries!

So it turns out that French fries are really freedom fries after all. 

From the moment Moammar Gaddafi started his vicious military campaign against his people, French President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke of confronting the Libyan madman.  While President Obama thought about what to do, Sarkozy met with members of the Libyan opposition at the Elysee Palace on March 10 to support an overthrow of the Libyan leader.  Soon thereafter, France became the first country to formally recognize the Libyan opposition group “The Interim Transitional National Council.” 

Sarkozy’s government started planning for a No Fly Zone over Libya before the thought of a UN resolution or NATO endorsement was pushed upon the world stage. 

While the French were leading the world to confront Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi’s brutal air and ground attacks, the indecisive Obama Administration was “weighing their options and discussing the issue” as one official said. 

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were surprised when British Prime Minister David Cameron endorsed Sarkozy’s No Fly Zone on March 11.  And the White House had still not decided what to do about Libya when the Arab League endorsed the idea on March 12. 

America’s sidelined spectator status during a developing foreign policy crisis highlighted Obama’s strategy to make the United States equal among many and not unique within the international community.  Obama blinked and democracy seekers around the world have taken note of America’s timidity.  The U.S. inaction in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia will surely encourage despots and may even send the unfortunate message to human rights activists that America will not support their bravery.

Sarkozy and the Arab League took control of the world stage after watching the indecisive Obama Administration hem and haw over what to do about a madman shelling his people.  Obama met with his national security team multiple times only to disclose more meetings and deliberation.  Sarkozy had promised to formally establish diplomatic relations by exchanging ambassadors between Paris and Benghazi before Obama decided what to do.  And Britain’s Cameron seemingly left the United States out of his planning when he proclaimed, “It’s important that the countries of Europe show political will, show ambition and show unity in being clear that Col. Gaddafi must go.  His regime is illegitimate.”  World leaders were reading the clues coming from Washington and deciding to act without the U.S. 

By the time Obama decided to seek support from the United Nations, our Ambassador Susan Rice was left on the sidelines because the French, British and Arab League had already written a draft resolution.  When the votes were finally called in the Security Council, Susan Rice and the Obama team had failed to convince India, Germany and Brazil to support the No Fly Zone Resolution.  So much for an administration that had promised to lead the world.

“The turning point was really the Arab League statement on Saturday (March 12),” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on March 16. “That was an extraordinary statement in which the Arab League asked for Security Council action against one of its own members.”  But the Obama team had still not acted a full week after the Arab League statement.  State Department officials say Hillary Clinton was pushing President Obama to do something but was being told to slow down.  “S was frustrated and embarrassed” by the lack of U.S. action, one official told me using the lingo S for Secretary of State.

While some Obama supporters defend the President’s delay by saying that a President must “take their time and be deliberate” about military decision making of this magnitude, it was an uneasy President Obama that was left to read a teleprompter statement voicing support for the Libyan opposition a full 7 days after the Arab League had done it.  Unlike Obama’s base of support in the U.S., the French centre-left opposition is largely supportive of Sarkozy’s leadership on Libya.  Jake Tapper of ABC News tweeted that protesters were already gathering at the White House to demand that Obama stop any U.S. military involvement in Libya.

Obama’s indecisiveness and lack of resolve infuriated the right and his decision to follow the Europeans and the Arab League into a No Fly Zone has angered the left.  The President and his team must decide if they will retreat in the face of our international obligations or live up to his promise that “The U.S. will not sit idly by”.  The simple fact is that the U.S. did sit idly by while a madman attacked his people with military aircraft.  Obama either is strategically withdrawing America from the world stage or crippled with indecision.  Vacillation and fear are terrible messages to send to our enemies.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

any republican senator voting for START should get a primary challenger

Senator Jon Kyl

There are some issues that are too important to overlook on Election Day.  Defending our national security is one of them.  Voting to implement the new START treaty in its current form is not only dangerous for Americans’ security but will send a strong signal to President Obama that he can continue to dilute U.S. defense capabilities.  Make no mistake about it, Senators voting for the new START treaty give their support and acquiescence to President Obama’s weak national security policies.  Obama has shown a willingness to dismantle missile defense programs, weaken American consequences for rogue nations’ non compliances with international demands, decrease naval readiness and neglect developing international threats.  Republican Senators who vote to approve of President Obama’s weak negotiation strategies deserve to be challenged in a primary election and defend their inattentive national security votes.  Democratic Senators, too, should think long and hard about supporting a new START Treaty with Russia that is riddled with red-flags:

  1. With Iran and North Korea testing and building offensive capabilities, should the U.S. be limiting ours’?
  2. The U.S. and Russia already disagree about what the Treaty says about U.S. missile defense development.
  3. The Treaty’s pre-amble guarantees Russia a strong missile defense program.
  4. Russia seldom abides by its international commitments, see Iran sanctions, and so solid verification systems are crucial.
  5. Internal State Department memos highlight Obama’s proclivity for ending strong missile defense shields altogether.
  6. Russia’s Georgia example.
  7. No Treaty has ever been ratified in a lame duck session.
  8. Russia is financially broke; it can’t afford to build up its capabilities like it once could.
  9. Putin is already threatening the U.S.  if the treaty is not ratified – is this a “partner” we should deal with on nuclear issues?
  10. Obama failed to negotiate real verification methods to understand and ensure Russia’s compliance with the Treaty.

It is ironic that the same week that the Obama Administration has launched a public education program to instruct Americans to get indoors in the event of a nuclear weapons attack; they are also trying to push through a major reduction in American military capabilities.  Is the Obama Administration’s new emphasis on surviving a weapons attack a natural extension of his naïve and trusting nature? Senators voting to “rush and not verify” U.S. national security issues in a lame duck session of Congress during the week of Christmas should face harsh judgment from voters.  Democratic Senators will be defined by their Republican challengers as weak on national security and Republican Senators should be prepared to face a primary challenge from a more responsible and thoughtful candidate.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post