THE FISHBEIN REPORT

[thefishbeinreport]

Defeating the Islamic State: The 9 Step Program

The world is on fire right now. Russia is, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, seeking to dramatically redraw the map of Europe. Israel and the Palestinians' latest tit-for-tat escalation threatens to engulf their neighbors and the fragile relative peace in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. Iran continues to slowly, but steadily, develop nuclear weapons, or at the very least, gain the know-how to rapidly "break out" and become a nuclear-armed state. Bashar Assad continues his brutal assault on his own people, at last count contributing to the death of roughly 200,000 and the displacement of a quarter of the Syrian population. Ebola represents, in the words of the United Nations, a "catastrophe" and an "apocalypse", the global response to which seems to be wholly insufficient. And North Korea once again makes deciphering its next moves by the international community nearly impossible. All of these flare-ups represent a threat to the United States, either directly or indirectly, and greatly complicate both our foreign policy and our ability to influence events around the world. However, none of these rise to the level of absolute calamity. That, I'm afraid, is reserved for the Islamic State (or, depending on who you ask, ISIS or ISIL).

For those who have been living under a rock for the past several weeks, or who have, in the interest of preserving their sanity, tuned out from CNN and other news sites, the Islamic State is a terrorist group that now controls more territory, has more money, and possesses greater weapons of war than any terrorist organization in modern times. They are brutal, efficient, battle-tested, and, worst of all, winning. Confronting, containing, and defeating the Islamic State must be the immediate number one priority of US foreign policy. Here are the nine steps the Obama administration needs to take to help ensure that the fight against the Islamic State doesn't take place on the streets of an American city in the near future.

1. Public relations. The American people are, rightfully, war-weary. The US has spent the last 13 years fighting overseas, at great cost in terms of both blood and treasure, with seemingly very little to show for this sacrifice. Therefore, it is essential that President Obama take some time out of his golf game and fundraising blitz to completely and accurately explain the threat posed by the Islamic State, laying out the case for intervention. The Islamic State is the most barbaric terrorist group we have seen in recent memory. Their brutality is so egregious that Al-Qaeda refuses to partner with them. In recent weeks, the Islamic State has captured and enslaved hundreds of women, murdered en masse thousands of men of fighting age, and forcibly converted Christians to Islam. They have beheaded children and put their heads on stakes. And they have surrounded minority groups, such as the Yazidis, cutting off food and water to them. The Islamic State is, by many accounts, preparing an assault on the Mosul Dam, which, if destroyed, could threaten the livelihood and lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Add to this the fact that the Islamic State has captured large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq, commandeered technologically-advanced weaponry supplied by the United States to the Iraqi military, and has stated, emphatically, that they plan on establishing a caliphate throughout the Middle East and attacking Western interests in Europe and America. Judging by their successes in recent weeks and months, this is not an idle threat. It is up to President Obama to explain this to the American people and make it clear that defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria will prevent future bloodshed and terror closer to home.

2. Arm the Kurds. The Peshmerga, though not perfect, have shown a proficiency in fighting the Islamic State that is sorely missing from the US-trained Iraqi military. The Kurds are fierce, loyal, and sitting on some of the most strategically important oil fields, that, if fell into the hands of the Islamic State, could cause a shock to the already unstable global economy. They are defending the Yazidis as best they can, but they are running low on weapons and ammunition. The US Congress should immediately vote to resupply the Kurds not only with small arms ammunition, but with heavy weaponry - anti-tank missiles to combat the Islamic State's captured APCs and Humvees, and armored vehicles so that they can more easily cover a wider area.

3. A more active Congress. The legislative branch of government has been absent for several years, incapable of accomplishing much of anything in the highly politicized and politically-divided environment that is US politics today. However, it is time to relearn the mantra that politics end at the water's edge. Congress, both democrats and republicans, need to support President Obama's efforts to destroy the Islamic State or provide coherent, non-politically-motivated rationales for their opposition. This is not a zero-sum game where giving the President any support undermines one's own political standing. This is about war, terrorism, and quite simply, genocide on a scale not seen since the Holocaust. It is time to unite as a country and defeat this enemy, putting politics aside.

4. Engage with Iran. A common Middle East saying is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is true that Iran is not an ally of the United States. It is also true that Iran complicates American interests at nearly every turn. And it is true that Iran is pursuing the capability to possess the world's most dangerous weapons. However, Iran is vehemently opposed to the Islamic State, in part because it represents a threat to Shiite interests regionally, and, longer-term, to the Iranian regime. Much like the US and the USSR working together on issues of shared importance during the Cold War, the United States needs to work with Iran to combat the Islamic State. They are physically closer to the scene, and have an even greater interest in Iraq's Shiite population. And their special forces are already on the ground in Baghdad. Working with them will not be easy, nor can we completely trust them. But this much is true - Both Iran and the United States benefit from a destroyed, or at the very least, greatly reduced Islamic State. And working together on this common interest, may result in further cooperation on issues such as Iran's nuclear program and state sponsorship of terrorism through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

5. Stop stove-piping interconnected conflicts. The conflict taking place in Syria and in Iraq are nearly one and the same. President Obama made the strategic mistake of not involving the United States in the Syrian conflict sooner, and in not following through on his threatened "red line" with regards to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons. However, that is the past, and we cannot go back to do things differently. We must face the reality of the situation today, not as it was or as we wish it would be. And the reality of the situation today is that the Islamic State has virtually erased hundreds of miles of borders between Iraq and Syria. These conflicts are, today, singular. The Islamic State is physically defeating the moderate rebels on the ground in Syria. And those rebels that remain are suffering from a significant reduction in morale. In places like Aleppo, long a moderate rebel stronghold, the Islamic State is creating a siege from one side, while the Assad regime's forces are attacking from the other. Most observers state that if Aleppo falls to the Islamic State, the Syrian revolution as we know it is over. Once the moderate rebels are defeated, the Islamic State will continue its march toward Damascus and begin significant clashes with the regime. President Obama's long-held worst-case scenario fear that replacing the Assad regime could bring an even worse regime to power would, in such an eventuality, be staggeringly prophetic. If the Islamic State takes Aleppo and begins to pose a serious threat to Assad, then we can basically say goodbye to the Middle East. Shortly after this occurs, Lebanon and Jordan will become dangerously unstable and those regimes could potentially fall to the Islamic State. From there, significant threats could be made not just against Israel, but against Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and others. Soon, Yemen and North Africa would fall to the Islamic State, and Libya, already fast becoming a terrorist state, would see its rebel groups merge with the Islamic State, and bring with it a new level of barbarism throughout Africa.

6. Airstrikes. For the past week, for the first time in three years, the United States has been striking selective targets in Northwestern Iraq. These airstrikes, though necessary, are ineffective unless they are significantly stepped up. All Islamic State positions in Iraq and Syria need to be hit. This includes the Islamic State's positions on the outskirts of Aleppo, the border crossings controlled by the Islamic State between Iraq and Syria, and all Islamic State positions in and around Mt. Sinjar near Mosul.

7. Use of special forces. Carrying out successful airstrikes will require deploying special forces, not just as advisers behind-the-scenes, but as imbedded personnel on the front lines. It is true that this carries significant risks, will likely result in the deaths of American soldiers, and negates the President's promise of no boots on the ground. However, it is necessary, and boots are already on the ground (about 1,000 advisers, if not more, are in Iraq or en route). American soldiers can, and should do more than train their counterparts in the Iraqi military and amongst the Peshmerga. By embedding these elite units within the Kurdish forces, they can offer superior tactical guidance and call in airstrikes on the Islamic State positions that may not be easily observed from the air. Additionally, the presence of these soldiers on the ground offers President Obama the ability to more rapidly deploy force, if necessary, to protect minority groups from impending genocide. President Obama has laid out an approach to using force that essentially encompasses three scenarios: (1) to combat terrorism; (2) to protect American personnel; and (3) to prevent genocide. All three are present in Iraq, and having agile forces on the ground, engaging with the enemy and assisting our allies, provides greater flexibility to President Obama in carrying out American foreign policy and protecting American interests in the region. 

8. Implore the participation of the British and the French. America cannot solve all of the world's problems, nor can it solve this problem, alone. It is important for the US to have the willingness to deploy force, but we should not have to shoulder that burden alone. The Islamic State threatens not just the United States and its interests in the Middle East, but all of Western Europe. As such, Britain should deploy special forces that can coordinate with their American counterparts, and assist in air strikes or resupplies, as necessary. They should play an active role in the humanitarian mission of airdropping food, water, and medicine, not just to the Yazidis, but to any minority groups that are under the Islamic State's guns. France, coming off its successes defeating an insurgency in Mali, should also deploy special forces. Their forces were proficient and professional in Mali, and, in a matter of weeks, drove away the rebels without suffering a single fatality. These forces could be used to fortify Mosul or to protect the Mosul dam from destruction.

9. Continue to support Iraq politically. The US significantly lost influence over the Al-Maliki regime from the moment it withdrew all of its forces from Iraq years ago, and ceded such influence to Iran. The sectarian divide in Iraq deepened during that period, and created a polarized and impotent political system that makes the one currently gripping the United States look utterly successful. Now that Maliki has stepped down and Prime Minister Abadi (whom both the United States and Iran support) is taking over, Iraq has the opportunity to overcome its sectarian divide, create a capable political system, and unite (as best as may be possible in a country like Iraq) diverse groups of people. The US should continue to support this new government in Iraq, and, as it takes a more active role in combating the Islamic State within its borders, use and exert its increased influence to pressure the government to continue reforms.

Taking the above nine steps will not be easy, nor will they be quick. American lives will be lost, instability will continue to rage, and the slaughter of civilians will not immediately cease. Some days, the situation will appear hopeless, and, temporarily, the Islamic State may look to have the upper hand. But we cannot give up. The risk of inaction is too great. The threat posed by the Islamic State should worry every American, every European, and, frankly, every citizen of the Middle East. If the Islamic State is permitted to continue its brutality unimpeded, soon it will not just be the Yazidis or the Iraqi Christians who face imminent peril; it will be us all.

[thefishbeinreport]

Read this book!

[thefishbeinreport]

Why do we allow Dennis Rodman to appear on television?

This morning, I watched the Chris Cuomo-Dennis Rodman interview on CNN's New Day. Before I delve too deeply into the interview, let me just say that I have now watched Chris Cuomo interview a number of people, some powerful like the President, and others, imbeciles, like Dennis Rodman. Cuomo may be the most underrated interviewer in the mainstream media today. He is smart, articulate, asks difficult questions, and doesn't allow his guests to bully him. More journalists should follow in his footsteps, particularly his unimpressive co-host, Kate Bolduan.

Now for the interview itself. Rodman and nine other former NBA players were interviewed on CNN because of Rodman's recent trips to North Korea, his kind words about his "friend", dictator Kim Jung Un, and the team's basketball game to be played in North Korea in honor of Mr. Kim's 31st birthday. In the wake of Mr. Kim's execution of his uncle (perhaps brutally by being fed to 120 starving dogs), his imprisonment-without-charge of American Kenneth Bae, and the general prison-like conditions of the citizens of the hermit kingdom, Cuomo asked him if it was appropriate to play in North Korea. After significant ramblings filled with more "ya know's" and stuttering than anything relevant or intelligible, Rodman and the others attempted to portray their journey as a cultural awakening to open doors to the North Koreans. Too bad the North Korean people have to spend their days contemplating how they're going to feed their families and stave off disease, rather than focus on the Ambassador of Culture, Dennis Rodman. But I digress.

What really came of this interview is the fact that Dennis Rodman may be a great basketball player, but he is an absolute moron, with no understanding of foreign policy, an inability to grasp the brutality of and danger posed by the North Korean dictatorship, and apparently a terrible track record of choosing close friends. He (and the others) could make no legitimate argument for their journey to North Korea, no rational response regarding Mr. Bae's condition or fate, and an inability to grasp the responsibility he (and they) possesses as a citizen of the world and a public figure, to at least attempt to do some good in a horrific situation. If Mr. Kim really is a friend of Mr. Rodman's, perhaps Mr. Rodman could exert his influence to get Mr. Bae released, or at least put his family in touch with him so his status can be confirmed.

With great power (and publicity) comes great responsibility. So far, Dennis Rodman has shown he is not up to the task.

[thefishbeinreport]

Iraq in Shambles

This morning I awoke to the news that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is now in control of Fallujah, a city where some of the fiercest Iraq War battles were waged and where many Americans lost their lives. Secretary of State Kerry has made it clear that the United States will continue to support the government of Iraq, just not with troops or any of the other means to retake the city and prevent the further erosion of the legitimate Iraqi government's control over the country. Therefore, the United States will once again do nothing as Islamic militants expand their reach throughout the Middle East and beyond.

This recent turn of events was entirely predictable for several reasons. First, Nouri Al-Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq, has waged a zero-sum game of politics, ensuring that any gains he experiences comes at the expense of the Sunnis. Pitting Shiite vs. Sunni in Iraq is what led, in 2007, to one of the worst sectarian near-civil wars the world has ever witnessed. And Maliki's policies are setting the stage for further sectarian violence and potential civil war in an already fragile Iraq.

Second, the United States chose the Zero Option in Iraq during President Obama's first term, opting to remove all US combat troops from the country without leaving a residual force to continue battling militants. Let me be clear, the invasion of Iraq was a dreadful mistake made by the Bush Administration for the reasons cited (there were compelling reasons to invade Iraq independent of alleged WMDs), and the subsequent six year war needlessly cost the lives of 4,489 American soldiers, 339 Coalition soldiers, and likely several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians. However, in the words of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, "if you break it, you own it".  The mess that the Iraq War became immediately after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment was a mess that we helped to make, and a mess that was, and arguably still is today, our responsibility to fix. Too many Americans sacrificed their lives, many in Fallujah and Ramadi and Al Anbar province generally, to allow all of our gains to be reversed, and for Al Qaeda to have yet another refuge and base of operations in which to plan and execute local, regional, and global terrorist attacks.

Third, President Obama's entire counterterrorism policy is premised on the fact that core Al Qaeda leadership has been decimated by drone attacks and the organization is weak and ineffective, no longer possessing the capability to inflict terror around the world. This premise was always flawed (even after killing Osama Bin Laden), and recent events demonstrate just how wrong the President was at the time, and remains today. Al Qaeda has successfully morphed into regional strands, similar to the United States Confederacy model, whereby there is an overarching, if albeit weak, central governing body, and localized groups responsible for their own recruitment, organization, planning and execution of attacks. Al Qaeda today is stronger than at any point since 9/11, with affiliated groups like Jabat Al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham (ISIS) forcing out more moderate rebel groups in Syria and Iraq, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) taking over portions of Mali and the northern arc of Africa from Morocco to Egypt, and Sunni-Shiite battles taking place in Bahrain and Lebanon, where in the latter reprisal bombings are occurring on a near daily basis. So much for the Al Qaeda obituary.

In short, President Obama's failure to properly confront the realities of Islamic terror beyond the tribal regions of northwestern Pakistan, has led to a rebirth of Al Qaeda around the world, a weakening of our allies in Africa and the Middle East, and the potential to lose Iraq completely, either to an Al Qaeda-inspired civil war or an Iranian takeover. Over 130,000 civilians have been killed in Syria since that country's civil war began, with no let up in sight, and the United States has done nothing. Our failures over the past five years have served only to empower terrorists and terrorism, and to create a vacuum that Al Qaeda and its related groups are all too eager to fill. Now, the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives, and the children of those 4,489 patriots, are watching CNN's images of the fall of Fallujah and wondering just for what, exactly, their loved ones made the ultimate sacrifice.

[thefishbeinreport]

11 Years On, We are (Still, and Forever) at War

The assassination of the US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stephens, tells us many things about the Middle East, US foreign policy, and the post-9/11 world. Eleven years to the day after the largest terrorist attack in American history, our enemies are plentiful, widespread, and organized. And they share a common theme - a hatred for American freedoms and a willingness to carry out the worst evils in the name of their religion.

Ambassador Stephens was a hero to many in that part of the world. A representative of a government that helped to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi's frightful rule, he exemplified diplomacy, patriotism, and dedication to advancing our values and defending our principles abroad. Sadly, the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime created a vacuum, both politically and throughout society, that ushered in radicals hellbent on preventing any semblance of democracy from rising from the ashes of that horrific dictator's rule.

But his death is much more than just a loss of a good man and a setback in relations with a country still trying to find its way in the wake of the Arab Spring. The brazen attack on sovereign US territory - diplomatic territory - raises alarming concerns about the safety and security of our foreign installations. The reasoning for the attack, anger at a film critical of Islam and produced by a US citizen, suggests that we've made little or no headway in fostering societies where basic freedoms - such as women's rights, freedom of opinion, basic education, and rudimentary rule of law - are recognized. A people who are willing to commit murder to avenge criticism of their God are a people not worthy of defending. And they are a people who, try as we might, will never respect what we stand for. 

Several changes need to be made to ensure that Ambassador Stephens' death is not in vain. First, the rules of engagement for our Marines guarding US embassies overseas must be modified so that any threats to the lives of those working at the embassy, or to the embassy property itself, are neutralized. As one editorialist wrote today, "the first terrorist who fires on the embassy should receive a warning shot to the leg; any subsequent attackers not deterred by the warning should receive a bullet to the head." Secondly, we need to send a clear message throughout our government and throughout the world: Though this film was made in poor taste, criticisms of a religion (or any other opinions for that matter) are legitimate forms of speech, and though the US government does not endorse such opinions, our principles and our values require that we fight to protect the rights of those opining. Third, we must condemn, in the strongest terms, not only the assassination of Ambassador Stephens and the three other US citizens killed yesterday, but also the breaching of both the Benghazi embassy as well as the attack on our embassy in Egypt. Protest all you want, but do not think that violence against our country or its representatives will ever be tolerated. Fourth, we must make it clear to our enemies - those in Libya and Egypt, Hezbollah and the Syrian and Iranian regimes, that any links they have to these attacks will be uncovered and will be dealt with swiftly. And that they will be punished severely for any future material support they offer to those who attack Americans. Lastly, efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear program must continue apace. We cannot wait idly, praying for negotiations to produce a diplomatic solution, while Iran races toward the capability, if not the actual development, of a nuclear weapon. A world where these same terrorists, who attack our embassies and assassinate our diplomats, live under a nuclear umbrella provided by Iran, is a world we must never let come to fruition.

There can be no more excuses for the behavior exhibited by these mobs. Whether protesting a European cartoon depicting the Prophet or rioting because of a film's poorly-timed, yet, at least to some extent, uncomfortable truths about today's widespread practice of Islam, the Muslim community worldwide needs to take a look in the mirror and decide their religion's future. Is it a future where moderates fight to win back the mantle of their religion, or is it one where the "few" who have hijacked a religion define its legacy. This is the war we must ALL fight today. A war between the forces of modernity and peace and the forces of savagery and intolerance. In the names of Ambassador Stephens, Sean Smith, and the two other Americans killed in the embassy attack, this is a war not only worth fighting, but a war we must fight if our way of life is to survive.     

[thefishbeinreport]

Catherine Ashton, Anti-Semitism, and Equivocation

Earlier last week, Mohammed Merah, a French self-proclaimed Al-Qaeda member, went on a killing spree. He began his spree by assassinating ethnic minority members of the French special forces while they were on leave from their base. His shooting spree culminated in the brutal slaying of three Jewish students and a Rabbi at a Jewish day school in Toulouse.

Like most incidents similar to this one, it was immediately clear that the students were targeted for one reason, and one reason alone: they were Jewish. President Sarkozy immediately went to the scene of the crime to comfort the bereaved. The French government moved almost immediately to a declaration that this was an act of violence by a "lone wolf", even though in the days that followed we would see a pattern of behavior exhibited by Mr. Merah that demonstrated his actions were merely the next stage in the War on Terror. I will save for another day a discussion of why governments worldwide feel a need to downplay any notion that terror is religiously (i.e., Islamist) motivated. But what was really striking in the aftermath of the Toulouse massacre was the words of European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton.

To be sure, Ms. Ashton condemned the attack on French soil. However, her mistake was one commonly committed by government leaders - she suggested, outright, that the murders of innocent Jews was synonymous with deaths of young people anywhere in the world. To this end, Ms. Ashton cited the massacre in Norway at a youth political summer camp by a right-wing, clearly mentally-disturbed madman. She cited the deaths of Syrian anti-Assad protesters. She cited the tragic bus accident in Switzerland a week earlier which killed two dozen Belgian schoolchildren. And, most abhorrently, she cited the deaths of innocent adolescents in the Gaza Strip.

Let me be clear: All five of these incidents are tragic, unnecessary deaths of innocent children; but they are in no way similar. And to force comparisons merely displays an attempt by the EU to avoid a necessary debate about the state of European immigration and integration, as well as a continued global phenomena of Anti-Semitism that goes unheeded.

In Norway, a madman stormed a summer camp and unleashed Hell to protest his government's policies. Though this was a premeditated, planned mass murder, it was not motivated by a desire to kill innocents merely for belonging to a religious group deemed "Infidels" by another religious group. The comparison of the Toulouse shooting to a bus accident is so forced and beyond understanding that it doesn't warrant further discussion. The Syrian protesters are fighting to take back their country from a murderous dictator whose brutality knows no bounds. In an earlier post on this blog I proposed a rationale for military intervention to stop this brutality. However, in no way is the murder of civilians by a dictator comparable to the planned assassination of children based solely on their religious beliefs. And finally we come to the most absurd likening in Ms. Ashton's equivocation.

What is happening in the Gaza Strip is tragic. Innocent people have been killed there, some by the Israeli government, many by their own leadership, either directly or indirectly. There's is a burden few countries in the world must face. Gaza is trapped in a cycle of violence whose blame can, and must, be spread between and among themselves, their neighbors, and the international community. But make no mistake: The deaths in Gaza of innocent civilians are not premeditated murders based on their religious practices. In fact, many of those deaths are byproducts of armed conflict, including poverty, disease, lack of education, Israeli heavy-handednness, Arab intransigence, and Palestinian terrorism's use of civilians as human shields. But in no way are civilians in Gaza dying as a result of outside forces targeting them for their religious beliefs.

The problem with Ms. Ashton is the same problem that exists with many leaders and governments throughout the world. It is a failure on their part to acknowledge the obvious - that some members of the Muslim faith have hijacked their religion and have used statements from their Holy book to advocate for, and carry out, attacks on "Infidels", primarily Jews. Furthermore, they err by failing to acknowledge that Anti-Semitism is still very much alive today, particularly in Europe. These failures are the result of a mistaken belief that if we ignore the true intentions of these terrorists and mask the true nature of their crimes, they will just go away. The results of this decades-long disregard for the obvious is still visible in the courtyard of Ozar Hatorah in Toulouse.       

[thefishbeinreport]

Israel and the Iron Dome - A Lesson in Homeland Security

Last weekend, shortly after Binyamin Netanyahu returned to Israel from his visit to Washington, the fragile ceasefire that had existed between Israel and various militant groups in Gaza, was broken. On Friday, Israel assassinated a key figure in the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC), a terrorist group marginally aligned with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Following the targeted killing, militants began to launch over one hundred rockets into southern Israel.

This turn of events was noteworthy for several reasons. First, it was the worst break in the ceasefire since the January 2009 Operation Cast Lead concluded. Second, Hamas, though criticizing Israel for its escalation, was keen not to verbally provoke a further conflict or to participate in any violent responses, leaving much of the rocket fire to be conducted by smaller, less influential militant groups. Additionally, the Israeli public was relatively calm during the violence, with few noticing any significant disruption to their day-to-day lives. And lastly, Israel deployed the Iron Dome anti-missile system for the first time in a combat environment - and it was tremendously successful. The system, which predicts the trajectory of an incoming missile, allowing military officers to shoot down those missiles destined for population centers, was able to intercept several incoming projectiles before impact. Arguably, this prevented any Israeli fatalities and ensured the number of casualties was relatively manageable. Because the Israeli public was not particularly affected by the events, Israel was able to avoid a further escalation that could have involved thousands of soldiers entering the Strip.

However, more important than the short term benefits of the Iron Dome as it related to this particular ceasefire breach is the longer-run success of this system in shooting down more accurate rockets. Such a missile barrage is expected to come from Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, if and when the Israel Air Force launches a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. (An opinion piece on this issue is forthcoming). The demonstration of this system's success last weekend bodes well for those in Israel who support an Israeli strike against Iran, though have heretofore unresolved concerns regarding military retaliations against Israel's major population centers. If the Iron Dome system can be expanded to include a larger number of anti-missile batteries arrayed throughout Israel, the likelihood of a preemptive strike against Iran increases drastically, in step with Israel's ability to withstand any subsequent missile and rocket attacks. The next several weeks, as relatively minor, expected violations of the ceasefire occur, will be critical to the Israeli leadership's thought process as they mull attempting to set back a third enemy's nuclear capabilities. 

[thefishbeinreport]

Clarification of My Support for "KONY 2012"

Let me begin by stating that, prior to watching the "KONY 2012" video, I was quite familiar with the decades-long situation in Uganda, Joseph Kony, and the Lord's Resistance Army. I also knew that the fighting in Uganda had primarily come to a halt, that Mr. Kony and his cronies (which numbered only in the hundreds, and no longer in the thousands) had fled to neighboring Congo, and that a peace treaty between Mr. Kony and the current authoritarian regime of Yoweri Museveni was at hand when an ill-timed indictment was handed down by the perpetually weak International Criminal Court (ICC). Those facts, which are either brushed over or completely overlooked in Jason Russell's recent video, in my opinion, do not negate the message of Mr. Russell's film or the need to bring one of the world's worst war criminals to justice.

"KONY 2012" is a cinematic masterpiece in the sense that it demonstrates the sheer power of social media, the ability to convey complex issues in a short, simple-to-understand manner, and to galvanize my generation (if only briefly) into thinking about global issues beyond our immediate periphery. Though at times factually inaccurate, it is an example of what I term "conservative humanitarianism", the notion that a liberal ideology of the world at peace through hand-holding and kumbaya-singing is not the only way to effect change in foreign policy. Though the video does not call for the outright killing of Joseph Kony (to which, admittedly, i would support), it does call for collective action to locate, arrest, and try Mr. Kony before the ICC in The Hague. This is a worthy outcome to decades of brutality, and though the crimes have recently ceased in Uganda, justice must still be sought.

However, we mustn't stop there. Mr. Kony is only one man, though he represents the world's worst in terms of brutality. My support of "KONY 2012" is less an indication of support for Jason Russell and Invisible Children, the organization behind the 30-minute documentary, and more a reflection of my belief that all war criminals must be brought to justice. This is an important and worthwhile outcome and one the United States, United Nations, NATO, and the African Union should support wholeheartedly and to which they should contribute unambiguously. The arrest and prosecution of Mr. Kony is an important beginning, but is only the beginning. Omar al-Bashir and Ahmed Haroun were integral to the genocide in Darfur in the early part of this century. Jean Bosco Ntaganda commanded the Congo militia and is known as "The Terminator" for his merciless killing and conscripting of child soldiers. Felicien Kabuga is the man responsible for bankrolling the 1994 genocide in Rwanda where nearly 800,000 people were killed, mostly with machetes, for merely being part of a different ethnic makeup. Add to that list Bashar al-Assad, the current President of Syria, whose murderous rampage to maintain power has left thousands of civilians dead in the streets.

In one of my earlier posts on this blog, I presented the notion that the United States should commit military forces to situations where either our national interests OR our ideals are threatened. One of those ideals is human rights. And until we seek justice from those who have violated our ideals, wherever they are, our nation and our highest aspirations remain incomplete. 

[thefishbeinreport]

Stop Joseph Kony -- NOW! This 30-minute video will change your life....please repost on your blogs.

[thefishbeinreport]

Eric Holder is Wrong, and Dangerously So

Earlier this week, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Executive branch had legal authority to maintain a "kill list" of American citizens involved in terrorist activities. Furthermore, according to his statements, the US may lawfully assassinate these individuals overseas. This particular aspect of Mr. Holder's pronouncement was not unexpected, nor, in my opinion, was it unwelcome. These days, the US military and intelligence apparatus must be nimble enough to fight our enemies in diverse environments - killing those who are plotting against our civilians, even if they themselves are US citizens, may at times be necessary. It was the language he used to describe this authority that caused me to cringe and hearkened back to a time when another president stated, "When the president does it, it's not illegal."

Mr. Holder stated, "Due process and judicial process are not one and the same....The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process." This is a tremendous break from prior legal precedent and places the Executive branch at odds with the notion of checks and balances and separation of powers. For the top attorney in the nation to state that the US government can assassinate its own citizens without prior, or after action, judicial review is unprecedented, unconstitutional, and dangerous.

Some will argue that this is the most effective way to deal with a legal dilemma for which there is no suitable alternative. This argument is factually incorrect and legally incoherent. Currently, the US has secret courts throughout the country, known as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) courts, which allow for judicial review of government decision-making in the areas of national security. These courts are experienced to handle such cases, operate without maintaining a judicial record (known as "in camera review"), and  grant approval of certain actions in secret. Admittedly, questions and concerns have been raised about the legal construct of this secret court system as well as the perceived prejudice (in favor of the government) in its decision-making. However, at the very least, the FISA courts have added a layer of judicial review, a system of checks and balances, and a constitutional legitimacy to the national security and foreign intelligence-gathering activities of our nation's top secret agencies. Prior approval for certain activities is required, while others must receive post-action review. In the case of targeted killings of Americans abroad, it appears Mr. Holder believes neither is required.

The danger of Mr. Holder's pronouncement is that it creates a slippery slope, allowing for Executive branch abuse of power and discretion, without an accompanying degree of judicial oversight. Mr. Holder is correct to point out that the killing of a US citizen by the government is a grave and difficult decision. He is also correct that these actions are sometimes justified in the name of national security. Anwar Al-Maliki is one such example of a US citizen, living abroad, who I believe was justly assassinated by an unmanned drone. However, by suggesting that these activities and their accompanying decision-making are exclusively within the realm of his department and the Executive branch, generally, without providing for an oversight mechanism to ensure adherence to the Constitution, Mr. Holder's legal justifications become suspect and his legitimacy as the US Attorney General becomes questionable.

[thefishbeinreport]

Read this book!

[thefishbeinreport]

The noble title of "dissident" must be earned rather than claimed; it connotes sacrifice and risk rather than mere disagreement.

-Christopher Hitchens

[thefishbeinreport]

How Rush Limbaugh Ruined A Much-Needed Debate

Earlier this week, Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University, testified before Congress on behalf of women seeking greater access to contraception. It is a topic that has dominated the political discussion in recent weeks, after President Obama "compromised" on ObamaCare's mandate that employer-sponsored medical insurance cover this medication for women. The issue that led to that compromise was whether religious institutions (who are presumably opposed, on religious grounds, to the use of contraception) would be forced to provide this medication against their moral and ethical beliefs. To complicate matters, following Ms. Fluke's testimony, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh weighed in, calling Fluke a "slut" because she was basically looking to get "paid for sex." Mr. Limbaugh's comments were not only "inappropriate" (a rather underwhelming term used by House Speaker John Boehner to describe Limbaugh's tirade) but they were an insulting, needless distraction from the real debate we should be having around this issue.

Now, I know Mr. Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican party; however, he is a voice within it, and a rather loud one at that. His is a voice that, in the absence of other suitable representatives, typically drowns out all those around him. It's unfortunate that the party has such an individual holding its mantel, and even more unsettling that the media gives him such undeserved attention. However, his comments precisely represent the Republican party's fatal mistake in this debate. The party has chosen to oppose Mr. Obama on this issue based on social/cultural grounds - religious institutions should be exempt from this mandate; individuals shouldn't be encouraged to participate in what some call "sexually-deviant" behavior, by having the government provide their contraception. The problem with this strategy is that the culture wars are over: women have the right (rightly) to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy; sex before marriage is no longer taboo.

Instead, the Republicans should be debating Mr. Obama on the role of government in individual's lives, and the responsibility individuals must take for their own. The issue isn't whether a woman is a "slut" for using birth control. The issue is whether, fundamentally, the government should be in the business of providing non-essential services to its citizens, particularly during a time of budgetary cutbacks and crippling debt. The issue is whether there is any aspect of an individual's life for which he or she must take personal responsibility. And the issue is where the line is drawn across which government is no longer its citizens' keeper. 

To be in favor of greater access to contraception is not wrong; it's just misguided. If the government must provide access to "the pill", must it also provide access to condoms for men? After all, condoms are nearly as effective at preventing pregnancy, have fewer physiological side effects, and have the added benefit of preventing disease transmission. And must the government also pay for the training of medical personnel in the proper uses, drug interactions, side effects, etc. associated with contraception?

Sex is a healthy adult activity, perhaps even for unmarried couples (gasp!). But the keyword in that sentence is adult. I don't use that term to indicate age, but rather maturity. As an adult, one is expected to take responsibility for his or her own actions. No one, not even the government, can provide one with all the tools necessary or desired to lead a happy, successful, fulfilling life. Life, in fact, is about choice. One chooses whether to have sex, just as one chooses whether to use physical protection or oral contraceptives. Either way, it is the individual's responsibility to secure those items. I recognize that the government has a certain interest in regulating people's behaviors and ensuring certain norms. For example, the government has an interest in reducing the spread of disease, and therefore may invest in educating teenagers about the risks of unprotected sex. But we, as a nation, cannot be the providers of all the means to lead a normal life. We don't provide helmets to motorcyclists (despite a government interest in reducing traumatic head injuries) and we don't provide multivitamins to all those who want them (even if they may increase longevity and reduce the risks of developing cancers and other diseases).

This is the debate in which we, American conservatives, should be engaging. We should be challenging President Obama's assumption that the government can better provide for the people than they can provide for themselves. Or that the government should be doing this at all. We should be openly, intellectually debating the merits and demerits of government intervention in individuals' lives. Not resorting to slurs and name-calling when we disagree with our opponents.

On a day when Senator Olympia Snowe outlined her reasoning for not seeking reelection, citing the lack of compromise in the Senate, the dilution of political discourse in D.C., and the takeover of the parties by radicals, it is high time for the future leaders of the Republican Party to stand up and be heard. They must denounce Mr. Limbaugh in the strongest terms, take back the mantel that they have lost to these extremist ideologues, challenge Ms. Fluke's arguments on their merits, and engage in open, honest debate about the role of government in individual's lives. Only after that discussion has taken place and the parties have compromised on this issue, can we begin to move forward as a nation and confront the challenges that lie ahead.  

[thefishbeinreport]

The Delta Between the GOP Presidential Candidates and the Average American

There was a time when this appeared to be the perfect election for the Republican Party. Obama's approval ratings were very low, the economy had made only modest improvements since he took office, unemployment remained excessively high, we were involved in two large-scale ground wars in the Middle East, oil prices were elevated, the budget was out of control, and the talk of American decline was incessant. In fact, all of these points are still applicable today. So, why is the average American unimpressed with the GOP Presidential candidates, all but assuring another four years for the Obama Administration?

The answer is in the lackluster field of candidates, the issues on which they have chosen to focus much of their attention, the hypocrisy of their positions in relation to their past actions, and the shocking absence of new, innovative, practical ideas to move this country forward. The party which once claimed to have the "biggest tent" under which diverse groups of Americans could find political shelter, has become a narrowly-focused entity wrapped up in the culture wars of the '90's. Let's examine the four remaining candidates in turn.

Ron Paul is the weakest and most vulnerable candidate remaining in the field; however, counter-intuitively, he's likely to remain in the race the longest. He has a small, but dedicated group of supporters, and his policies represent a staunchly libertarian ideology. Some of his ideas are worthy of further consideration: a smaller, less-intrusive government with greater accountability and drastically reduced bureaucracy. Other ideas are far-fetched, disingenuous, and oftentimes delusional. The idea that the sole remaining superpower in the world would close all of its bases throughout the world, do away with the federal reserve and entire departments within government is irresponsible. The truth is that the majority of the costs of our overseas military bases are paid for by the host countries in which those bases are present. Withdrawing to "Fortress America" would make it nearly impossible to project power and American ideals abroad, and to respond to threats against our nation's security and our way of life. Rick Santorum spoke aptly (as he rarely does) during one of the dozens of presidential debates when he said that the ideas for which Republicans like Mr. Paul are things that can never be accomplished, and those beliefs that scare Republicans are things Mr. Paul would attempt to do on day one of his administration. 

Then there is Newt Gingrich. Here is a "leader" (and I use that term loosely) who shut down the government rather than compromise with the opposite party. Here is a man who tirelessly sought to, and succeeded in, impeaching President Clinton (though ultimately he failed to remove him from office) for infidelity, while, at the same time, carrying on an illicit, extramarital affair of his own. Here is a candidate who claims Americans need to take personal responsibility for their finances, yet he personally has a $100,000+ credit at the luxury jewelry store, Tiffany's. Here is a man who states publicly that the Palestinian people are a fiction. Putting aside historical evidence and the implicit notion in his comment that their true homeland is in Jordan (a fact oftentimes overlooked but worthy of debate and discussion), the comment is unhelpful at best, and, at worst, demonstrates a lack of compassion and diplomacy, as well as a complete disregard for a group of people who are in the midst of a long-term, major humanitarian crisis : all qualities required of the Presidency.

Turn next to Rick Santorum. The former Senator has dedicated his political career to the culture wars - and invariably stands on the wrong side of the debate. His backward comments about women serving in the military, the imposition of religion in government (which is equally unconstitutional to the government's role in religion), homosexuality, and essentially casting aside the poor, represent the lowest common denominator in the Republican Party. His comments about JFK's religion speech making him "want to throw up" and the accusation that Obama is a "snob" for wanting every American to have at least the opportunity at higher education (for just one year!), have no place in American political dialogue and discourse.

Finally, there is Mitt Romney. He is qualified to be president: He managed a successful business, served as a moderate conservative governor in a very liberal state, was willing to think creatively about solving unique problems (see: health care in Massachusetts), managed the Olympic games in Salt Lake City (a complete success). However, his willingness to flip-flop on important issues just to appease the Republican base is disconcerting. We've tried "Republican base" ideas - they don't work. And that's a notion he should embrace.

Mr. Romney should not have to apologize for being successful, business-savvy, or wealthy. In fact, he shouldn't have to apologize for being incredibly wealthy (which he is), or for paying a lower tax rate than Warren Buffett's secretary. Mr. Romney pays the taxes he owes, and any accusations that this low figure is "wrong" should be taken up with the special interest groups who have managed to buy off Congress when it comes to complexity and loop holes in the tax system. However, Mr. Romney, you need to learn that basic human emotion known as empathy. People don't think you "get them" when you make off-the-cuff $10,000 bets on television (even if you were right). People don't think you "get them" when you casually discuss you wife and the "couple of Cadillacs" she drives. People don't think you "get them" when you discuss Nascar in the context of the wealthy team owners with whom you're friendly. And people don't think you "get them" when you say you know what it's like to be poor. It's okay that you don't know what it's like to be poor. It's okay that you're rich. And it's okay that you have multiple cars, homes, and wealthy friends. But it's not okay to keep referring to all of these things in stump speeches and interviews, and then expecting the American people to see in you someone who "gets them". 

It isn't difficult to come up with good ideas to solve the problems facing this country. But to do so successfully, one has to be realistic. Just as our budgetary woes won't solve themselves by merely spending more money on "infrastructure and investments", they also won't solve themselves merely by slashing budgets exponentially. Europe has been trying it for years, and the Euro Zone is a disastrous example of government excess, with citizens rioting in the streets. At some point, some people will have to pay higher taxes. And the people who pay those higher taxes may just have to be the people who make the most money in this country. At the very least, they should be paying the same tax rates as their secretaries.

Additionally, stop focusing on issues of less importance such as women and gays serving in combat (the US is one of the only western countries whose military doesn't allow this, by the way) or whether a woman who has been raped and wants to terminate her pregnancy has to get an invasive physical examination before being allowed to have an abortion. Or whether contraception should be outlawed. These debates have been exhausted and their relevance, compared to the dozens of more important issues facing our country, are minuscule.

And make up your mind about foreign policy. You can't criticize President Obama for participating in a European-led humanitarian intervention in Libya (which resulted in regime change - that special focus of Republican foreign policy in the Middle East over the past decade - without a single American loss of life) and then also criticize him for failing to intervene in Syria or backing the protesters in Iran. You can't accuse him of weakness abroad when he has ordered the killing at close-range of Osama Bin Laden, carried out exponentially more targeted killings via drone strikes in 3 1/2 years than his predecessor did in 8, and expanded the use of covert operations and special forces throughout countries in Africa, SE Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

I say all of this with a heavy heart. The policies and ideals that were the backbone of the Republican party just over a decade ago are policies and ideals I embrace wholeheartedly. And yet the current Republican presidential candidates and the party they represent have strayed so far from that period that they are nearly unrecognizable. Whatever happened to fiscal conservatism? Where did strong, but intelligent defense go? When the average American goes to the polls this November, many of them will do so deeply disappointed with President Obama's performance and handling of many domestic and foreign policy issues. However, they will compare the devil they know (whose devilishness, in actuality, has been at least moderately exaggerated) with the devils they don't know. The devils they don't know have no new ideas, they debate extant issues of social and cultural norms, they claim to be strong on foreign policy with a recent history of launching two failed (or, in the case of Afghanistan, nearly-failed) wars, they have a track record of flip-flops and hypocrisy, and they have exhausted themselves with criticisms (both legitimate and not) of the administration, while lacking the willingness to collaborate with those having a difference of opinion, in an effort to move this country forward. 

At the present time, the choice doesn't seem so difficult, after all. 

[thefishbeinreport]

Doctrines are meant to serve man, not the other way around.

- Amin Maalouf

[thefishbeinreport]

What the WikiLeaks StratFor Dump Teaches Us About Personal Security

Last December, StratFor, a private, global strategic forecasting firm announced that its email servers had been hacked by Anonymous, the now infamous outfit dedicated to exposing weaknesses in IT security at government outfits, corporations, and private firms worldwide. Today, many of those emails, along with client lists and detailed business practices, were made public by WikiLeaks.

Let's put aside the harm WikiLeaks has done to worldwide security and stability. StratFor is not a government agency, nor is it a government contractor. Rather, it is a private firm dedicated to gathering intelligence on global political, military, and economic issues which it then provides to its paid subscribers (international investors, scholars, Multinational corporations, etc.). Though some of its methods have come under scrutiny, and the email dump provided an embarrassing inside look into the ultra-private firm, it appears as though StratFor did not participate in any illegal or unethical practices. Rather, the emails show candid exchanges between employees of the company who conducted their business with an expectation of privacy and security.

In the age of WikiLeaks and hacker groups like Anonymous, which have the ability to bring down websites once believed "hack-proof" (The CIA homepage, UPenn's site, and others), the average citizen must be ever vigilant about protecting his or her virtual footprint and electronic files. Businesses who thrive on candor between and among employees must develop new ways of conducting business, relying less on the inclusion of secret information being shared via electronic means and, instead, placing greater emphasis on face-to-face collaboration and the "declassification" of corporate secrets. The old adage that one should never engage in any behavior that would be embarrassing if they died during the activity, must be updated to meet today's needs: Employees should not email any content or post any social media messages that would be embarrassing to them if posted on CNN. 

[thefishbeinreport]

Watch this movie!