Category: International

From Sen. Lindsay Graham to President Barack Obama, there’s obviously a serious strategic gap in what the U.S. position should be when it comes to boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS. And this, too, is obvious: If you’re not in charge, it’s always easy and risk-free to weigh in without consequence. Or without a reality check.

U.S. troops in Syria? That’s what ISIS wants in order to make the Islam-vs.-Crusaders case. Sunni Muslim troops–overwhelmingly aided and abetted by the military and intelligence wherewithal of the U.S. and allies–are a must.

* Turkey, as we know, is a member of NATO. Has been since 1952. Its location and military wherewithal dictate as much. Its air force is formidable and its active military personnel is second only to the U.S. at 600,000.

But Turkey, as we also know, has long yearned to be admitted into the European Community. Obviously, it hasn’t happened. We were reminded recently why that won’t change.

At a Turkey-Greece soccer game in Istanbul, fans booed during the moment of silence for the Paris victims of ISIS. They then added to the desecration with an “Allahu Akbar” (“God is great” ) chant.

No, that doesn’t represent all–or even most–Turks, but it was the sort of symbolic reminder that assures Turkey is not a good EC fit.

* After 30 years, Jonathan Pollard, who was convicted of spying for Israel, has been released. Parole requirements preclude his leaving the U.S. without government permission for five years. Pollard has expressed his desire to renounce his American citizenship and move to Israel, where he’s seen by some as a hero.

His defenders contend his punishment was too severe for helping a close U.S. ally. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated his release. But there is an ironic bottom line: Imagine, being jailed as a traitor who engaged in massive espionage with an “ally.”

Whenever President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, have met over the past few years, the optics of the photos spoke volumes. Cringeworthy. An exercise in mutual disdain. It was worse than those uber awkward photos of Obama with the imperious Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose American political comfort zone is the Republican Party.

The most recent Obama-Putin photo op–ahead of the annual G-20 Summit in Turkey–had a notably different look. The two leaders weren’t exchanging grimaces over perfunctory handshakes. They were seated and leaning in–with translators by their sides–in serious conversation.

The aftermath of the Parisian mass murders had underscored a stark reality: Obama and Putin, although the oddest of couples, are both on the same side. The only one that matters. The side that confronts the existential threat of jihadist mass-murderers. It is why Russia asked the FBI to help analyze forensic evidence from that downed Russian airliner. Such a request for help was seen as unusual.

This is no longer about Crimea, that new Russian submarine-launched nuclear torpedo or U.S. support for NATO and former Soviet Bloc countries. This is about the ramifications of Russian lives lost over Sinai, the most recent ISIS slaughter of innocents in Paris and the chilling threat of more horrifics ahead for “infidels” and “apostates.” And it’s, frankly, about Russian leverage in Syria.

Obama and Putin need each other, even if they don’t like each other.

The strange bedfellows scenario has another inclusion: Anonymous. That’s the international network of activist hackers that has claimed responsibility for cyberattacks against government, corporate and religious websites over the past decade. An Anonymous spokesman on YouTube–wearing  the familiar Guy Fawkes mask–called the Paris killers “vermin.”

He also pointedly warned ISIS: “Expect many cyberattacks. War has been declared. We don’t forgive and we don’t forget.”

Never wanted to be on the same side as hacktivists–but it’s all anti-ISIS hands on deck now. Subversives can now be the good Guys.

Among those canceling plans as a result of the Paris shootings: the Los Angeles-based band Foo Fighters. The group announced the abrupt end of its European tour in a statement: “In light of this senseless violence, the closing of borders, and international mourning, we can’t continue right now. There is no other way to say it. This is crazy and it sucks… .”

Two points.

First, there is a better way of saying it.

Second, there is no context for “senseless” when referencing that which is barbaric, heinous, horrific and evil.

We’ve all heard the references to “rethinking” the fight against terror. They include better coordination with our allies; a pragmatic, anti-ISIS relationship with Russia; more resources for a more pro-active approach to intelligence gathering; and a more effective use of ISIS targeting by our military. Those are givens.

But there’s one more. It’s no less a given, but less talked up. It is this: The law-abiding, value-sharing worldwide and American Islamic communities have to step up and be heard and seen like never before. Most notably, government officials, media owners, religious icons and community leaders.

No, this is not profiling and stereotyping–let alone demonizing–in the name of national security or as cover for xenophobia and witch hunting. And this is not a customized Napoleonic Code of guilty until proven culturally innocent. This is, however, a critical part of all hands on deck to fight the good fight against the further spread of evil and depravity across the globe and in this country.

It’s every stakeholder’s fight–and some are in position to help more than others.

If there is jihadist vermin among us, they need to know that there are no safe havens–and no easy, pre-horror anonymity until it’s carnage time for “crusaders.”

This is an existential war against monstrous, Islam-perverting Muslims. It’s an all-out effort in what the other side has long seen as a civilization endgame against “infidels” and “apostates.” This is not the Cold War where everyone’s bottom line was not wanting to die. That obviously doesn’t apply to suicidal fiends.

Not winning this war–with all the technological and human resources at our disposal–is not an option.

* As the downing of that Russian plane and the mass killings in Paris underscored, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin need each other, even if they don’t like each other.

The question of climate change largely remains, frustratingly, an exercise of ideology and narrow self-interest vs. scientific consensus. Talking points vs. talking sense. However, now add the comments of Exxon Mobil Vice President Ken Cohen to the mix. It could help.

“Exxon Mobil recognizes that climate risks are real and responsible actions are warranted,” recently acknowledged Cohen. No, he wouldn’t have said it had EM not been in cover-your-ass litigation mode over lying about climate-change risks. But he still said it. And we’ll be seeing it referenced again. And again.

More than 200 passengers lost their lives when that Russian Airbus broke up in midair and crashed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. What we don’t know yet is the specific cause. What we do know is that it’s suspicious, and whetting that suspicion is the ISIS Sinai affiliate taking “credit.” It said it had taken down the plane in retaliation for Russia’s involvement in Syria.

There’s doubt about its wherewithal to do that, but airport security at Sharm el-Sheikh is hardly iron clad. Terrorism possibilities are always a given in such circumstances.

Regardless, even the specter of such a scenario–as payback for Russian intervention in Syria–has to have the Putin government, already uneasy about certain Muslim dynamics–internal and external–increasingly concerned.

Maybe there’s an ironic upside.

It’s obvious what the U.S. and Russia have in conflict since the resurgence of authoritarian nationalism under Vladimir Putin. Russian resentment over NATO expansion and the West’s reprisal sanctions for what happened in Crimea just to name two.

Maybe–just maybe–the upshot of the awful Airbus crash and ever-encroaching ISIS impact will result in something both cooperative and self-serving between America and Russia. Perhaps it will be the stark realization of what we have in common: the ever-growing, evil threat of Islamic terrorist fiends.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Maybe it’s more than a proverb.

That’s the way it (embar)goes.

Once again, for the 24th consecutive year, the United Nations will be taking its annual vote on Cuba’s resolution demanding an end to the U.S. trade embargo. And once again, on Oct. 27th, the General Assembly vote will be embarrassingly one-sided in support. Last year it was 188-2. The U.S. and Israel were, again, the duo of dissent. And there were three familiar abstentions: Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. So, 188-2-3. How’s that for credibility and clout?

This year, however, there is speculation that the U.S. may change that dissent to an abstention. This would be in keeping with the Obama Administration’s rapprochement with Cuba–and its stated desire for Congress to end the counterproductive, 54-year-old embargo.

This would also be weird.

It’s unheard of for a UN member state not to oppose resolutions critical of its own laws. But that’s what having a Cold War relic of a policy still in force yields. Talk about embarrassing.

This much is assured at the upcoming General Assembly of the United Nations: For the 24th consecutive year Cuba will introduce a resolution demanding an end to the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. Also assured: a one-sided vote in support of the resolution of condemnation. Last year it was 188-2. Joining the U.S.–for obvious reasons–as the dissenting pair: Israel.

This time, however, there’s serious talk that the U.S. may change its dissent to an abstention. It would reflect the Obama Administration’s rapprochement with Cuba as well as its desire for Congress to finally end the counterproductive, 54-year-old embargo. This would be both notable and, well, embarrassing.

It is understandably unheard of for a UN member state not to oppose resolutions critical of its own laws. But that’s what having a Cold War relic of a policy yields.

And, BTW, there’s abstention precedent on this annual embargo vote. Last year there were three. So if the U.S. does abstain, it will follow the lead of the 2014 abstainers: Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. That’s how credible the U.S. position has become.