WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | Wanted: a commander in chief.

The Truth About Fort Hood – YouTube.

( This is beyond outrageous.  Political correctness carried to its logical extreme.  Obama still refuses to acknowledge that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack.  This, even at the expense of the brave, patriotic victims.  Why Romney hasn’t picked up on this is beyond me.  I leave it to my readers to spread this story as far as they can.  – JW )

_

Caroline Glick :: Justice for Ft. Hood Heroes.

( This is beyond outrageous.  Political correctness carried to its logical extreme.  Obama still refuses to acknowledge that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack.  This, even at the expense of the brave, patriotic victims.  Why Romney hasn’t picked up on this is beyond me.  I leave it to my readers to spread this story as far as they can.  – JW )

November 5, the day before the US Presidential elections will be the third anniversary of the massacre of 13 US soldiers at Ft. Hood by Islamic terrorist, US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Combative Obama finds subdued Romney | The Times of Israel.

( This basically outlines my own reaction to the debate.  I will add only that I believe Romney kept his head down and played the moderate because doing so was what lifted him out of the doldrums in the first debate.  I have felt from the beginning that Americans were only looking for an excuse to vote against Obama.  By moderating his tone, he made Obama look somewhat mean and strident without having to risk alienating voters with strong, new ideas.  Bottom line, though this may indeed be Romney’s best strategy to win the White House, it meant the last debate was as I feared it might be… A lead balloon. – JW )

As president takes the offensive, Republican challenger projects moderation

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama came ready Monday for a fighting finish, deriding Mitt Romney as reckless and overmatched in world affairs. Instead he found a subdued challenger who was eager to agree and determined to show he was not a warmonger.

Romney starkly moderated his tone and his approach in the closing debate. He seemed determined not to unnerve undecided voters who are weary of another US-led war, or to upend a race that remains remarkably tight with two weeks to go.

No moment was more telling than when Romney had a clear opening to respond to Obama’s lecture that he was wrong and irresponsible on foreign affairs. He responded by giving his five-point plan for fixing the economy, leading to a bizarre exchange that took the debate wildly off topic. It showed how much the commander in chief was in his comfort zone, where the challenger was not.

The last debate turned into a mirror of the first one, when Romney had been the aggressor and Obama was intent not to fiercely challenge him. Even in trying to outline differences with Obama, Romney often started by agreeing with him. Suddenly, it was Romney who was talking about supporting economies abroad, while Obama the Democrat warned against nation-building.

From drones to Afghanistan to Syria, Romney and Obama spoke in agreement on goals, if not strategy.

The president’s biggest vulnerability — last month’s deadly assault on the US Consulate in Libya, and all the unanswered questions that surround it — barely surfaced. Romney seemed to pass on the opportunity to assail Obama’s leadership on it.

Obama accomplished portraying himself as a world leader, facing a former governor who he said had offered positions that sent a mixed, and unsettling, message to allies and the American people.

He did so at times mockingly, but faced little fire in return.

“I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong,” Obama told Romney. He later questioned Romney the businessman’s ability to understand the Navy’s needs, saying: “We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them.”

Romney’s clearest points were to try to turn Obama’s most aggressive moments against him, and to outline a more comprehensive strategy for combatting the extremism that has roiled the Middle East and North Africa. Even then, his tone stood out. Politely.

“Well, of course I don’t concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that I’ve said,” he said. “They don’t happen to be accurate. … Attacking me is not an agenda.”

With the race extremely tight and several states hanging in the balance, Romney sought to show he was reassuring, poised and in essence, presidential. Instead, he seemed to lose some of the edge that gave his campaign a bump in the first debate, where he aggressively challenged the president on economic issues.

Trying to capitalize on the mood of voters, Obama has campaigned as the leader who ends the wars, not the guy who begins new ones. Romney tried to combat that by saying, for example, that he would not get the United States involved militarily in Syria even though he wants to find a way to arm the opposition.

Yet millions of viewers at home were often left to discern exactly how much Romney and Obama differ in a world of diplomacy that is enormously difficult and nuanced.

Before the debate, Romney aides said they believed viewers would, above all, be looking for Romney to demonstrate leadership and confidence. His answers often appeared driven to show he understand the regions, players and challenges at play instead of undermining the president’s positions on them.

The moderate Romney was dominant.

On Afghanistan, for example, Romney said he also would bring troops home by 2014. Often, though, Romney would agree in principle before saying he would have executed differently.

Romney congratulated the president on killing Osama bin Laden, for example, but then said, “We can’t kill our way out of this mess.” He agreed that sanctions were hurting Iran, but then said he would have initiated them sooner than Obama did. Romney also said he agreed with Obama’s decision to stop supporting Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak — “I supported (Obama’s) action there” — but said he would have been more “aggressive” in trying to encourage democracy.

After a whole year in which foreign affairs has been the undercard of the campaign fight, it got its moment with the stakes right where they should be — high.

The presidency is about the world even during inward-looking times. Currency standoffs with China, nuclear showdowns with Iran and military tensions around the globe affect the economy and security of the United States.

The debate season ended with Romney looking like he wanted to get off the stage and back on the economy. That, ultimately, is where this election will be settled.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/22/foreign-policy-presidential-debate

That was just a wretched debate, with almost no redeeming qualities. It was substance-free, boring, and suffuse with empty platitudes. Bob Scheiffer’s questions were even more vapid and predictably shallow than they normally are, and one often forgot that he was even there (which was the most pleasant part of the debate.)

The vast majority of the most consequential foreign policy matters (along with the world’s nations) were completely ignored in lieu of their same repetitive slogans on the economy. When they did get near foreign policy, it was to embrace the fundamentals of each other’s positions and, at most, bicker on the margin over campaign rhetoric.

Numerous foreign policy analysts, commentators and journalists published lists of foreign policy questions they wanted to hear asked and answered at this debate. Almost none was raised. In sum, it was a perfect microcosm of America’s political culture.

via Presidential debate on foreign policy: live Glenn Greenwald commentary | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

Jeffrey Goldberg – Authors – The Atlantic.

1) Romney didn’t come to fight, but to agree. “I agree,” was a surprising meme. I imagine some voters might like that, though most journalists clearly didn’t. Obama was almost too cutting. Quite a departure from the first debate.

2) Israel is a big winner. It was mentioned more often than I even thought it would be mentioned.

3) Mali! Who woulda thunk? But it’s a serious problem — an al Qaeda-inspired group basically controls half the country. Reversing this is extraordinarily important.

4) Romney understands that Americans are tired of the Middle East. He didn’t push intervention as hard as he could have, and he limited himself in offering alternative policy prescriptions for Syria.

5) I thought Romney backtracked on Afghanistan pretty decisively.

6) Mentioning Yad Vashem is tacky. But, whatever. The reason Israeli politicians bring visitors to Yad Vashem is so they will mention it. And from what I know, Yad Vashem was an education for the President.

7) Obama didn’t go on an “apology tour.” On the other hand, I tend to think that placing daylight between Israel and the U.S. doesn’t help the peace process. Obama came in to office with a different theory than George Bush’s theory. His theory hasn’t worked out (not that Bush’s theory worked either, which could lead you to conclude that perhaps peace is not in the offing).

8) If I lived in southeastern Virginia, I wouldn’t be happy with Obama. More ships, please.

9) People are picking on Romney for highlighting Russia’s role in the world, but that role is mainly nefarious, so I don’t see much of a problem with that.

10) In the competition to decide which country is a greater threat to world peace, Pakistan or Iran, I would have to vote for Pakistan for the moment. One has nukes, one, so far at least, doesn’t.

11) Obama once again speaks very clearly on Iran. Iran will not get nukes. He’s made this his policy. People haven’t adequately considered the possibility that one reason he wants to take Iraq and Afghanistan off the table is because he’s squaring up to confront Iran, and doesn’t want to do it when the country is exhausted by over-extension.

On Opposite Night, Obama Attacks Romney On Israel | The New Republic.

Marc Tracy

The whole campaign, Mitt Romney has used Israel as a cudgel against Barack Obama. At the foreign policy-themed debate, it was the reverse. For all the snarking on Twitter, Israel was brought up just as much as could be expected. The surprising part was who was making the attacks.

Ever since the Republican primaries began, Israel has been a focal point for the Republican national security case against Obama. That’s not just because Israel is a treasured subject for American Jews, a group that includes both donors, who do have the power to make themselves heard with the candidates, and Floridians, whose 3 percent share of the state population is maybe enough to help swing a close race (and here I obligatorily note that the debate was in Boca Raton, Florida, home of Flakowitz Bagel Inn and many a Jewish grandparent).

More importantly, Israel is a rare national security weakness: a place where Obama pledged to throw his weight around to make a difference and failed. This political reality led to the spectacle of the Republican candidate being the only person on stage to mention the Palestinians. (“Are Israel and the Palestinians closer to reaching a peace agreement? No, they haven’t had talks in two years.” Obama didn’t rebut this.)

But still, all in all, Romney held back on the Israel talk. Obama brought the country up the first two times, both instances when it was not immediately apposite, as if to pre-emptively answer the inevitable onslaught. Yet Romney used it to attack Obama only twice, and both times, it was framed within the larger debate over Iran. Obama had failed to curtail the mullahs in Tehran, Romney argued, because from the get-go they sensed his weakness: “when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and Israel, they noticed that as well,” Romney said. Later, discussing Obama’s so-called “apology tour,” which most famously included his 2009 speech in Cairo, Romney added: “You skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations. And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel.” (Obama visited Israel during his campaign in 2008; he has not gone as president.)

I am not sure why Romney held back. I don’t think hammering Obama on Israel is poor politics, except in the sense that it takes time away from discussing the economy. But in the context of an aggressive, extremely (and unusually) well-funded campaign by the Emergency Committee for Israel, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and others throughout the past 18 months to smear Obama as Israel’s foe, there is no denying that Romney actually went easy on the issue.

In fact, it was Obama who uncorked the premier Israel soundbite—really the second most memorable line of the night, after that “bayonets” business. “And when I went to Israel as a candidate,” the president said, “I didn’t take donors, I didn’t attend fundraisers, I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself—the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable.”

This was unpredictable! Team Obama’s standard rebuttal to Israel-based Republican attacks has been to cite the “unprecedented” (their frequently employed word) military-to-military and intelligence cooperation that has flourished over the past four years between Israel and the United States. Obama did mention this, citing Iron Dome—the successful Israeli anti-rocket system that the U.S. has funded—and the massive joint military exercise going on, fortuitously, this week. He did not quote Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s assertion that the current administration “is doing in regard to our security more than anything that I can remember in the past,” perhaps to avoid being accused of meddling in Israeli politics as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has meddled in ours.

But this was the first time I had heard Obama accuse Romney, even implicitly, of supporting Israel disingenously. After all, to say, “When I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn’t take donors, I didn’t attend fundraisers,” is to say that when Romney went to Israel as a candidate, he did take donors, and he did attend a fundraiser. Which is true. (Obama also noted that he visited Sderot, the southern town frequently at the mercy of rockets launched from Gaza; he declined to note that on his trip, Romney did not.) The precise substance of Obama’s critique is vague (and don’t be shocked when some Republican claims that Obama scandalously insinuated that Romney supports Israel exclusively for the Jewish money it brings him), but the contrast is clear: Obama went because he felt he should; Romney went because he felt he needed to.

A final note on that Obama line: I really wish he had stopped after “fundraisers.” Invoking Yad Vashem and the Holocaust felt like a step too far. It’s worth noting that it is a step Israel and Yad Vashem themselves encourage you to take: you emerge from the harrowing experience of Israel’s Holocaust musuem onto a balcony that looks onto the hills outside Jerusalem—an unequivocal statement that the Holocaust’s extinguishing of so many millions of Jewish lives, cities, and cultures has culiminated in their rebirth in the Holy Land. Israel has a Holocaust memorial, but it is not itself one. But instead Obama pandered on the Holocaust, much as Romney, to a lesser extent, pandered on the Palestinians. Strange evening.

The Iranian bluff – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Tehran seeks dialogue with West as its military threat gradually diminishes

Alex Fishman

Over the past few months Iran has been purchasing huge amounts of food, and its citizens have been banned from withdrawing foreign currency from banks. In light of this, the West estimates that the Islamic Republic is preparing for the tightening of the economic siege, as well as for a military conflict and a forced war economy.

There is no doubt that the New York Times report on the resumption of direct talks between Iran and the United States marks yet another attempt by Tehran to loosen the noose around its neck. About a month ago the permanent members of the UN Security Council rejected Iran’s “nine-step plan” to defuse the nuclear crisis with the West and instead passed a resolution demanding that Tehran stop enriching uranium to a 20% purity level and also ship all uranium enriched above five percent out of the country.

Therefore, the Iranians are seeking to resume the talks from a position of weakness and fear. They fear that the collapse of their economy will lead to a mass public protest and that the major bluff regarding their military capabilities will gradually be exposed. The West is becoming less and less impressed with Iran’s claims of advanced capabilities and technology.

Earlier this week the large Israeli-American air defense exercise kicked off. Two armies with the most advanced warning and satellite systems will simulate an extreme scenario in which will Iran will launch hundreds of long-range missiles toward Israel. But the Iranians do not have the capability to launch such an attack, and they know it.

The Iranians are closely following, with great concern, the successes of the Iron Dome system against short-range missiles. They assume that the Iron Dome’s technology is similar to that of Israel’s long-range air defense systems: The Arrow 2, which has been operational for a number of years, and the Arrow 3, which is still in the experimental stage.

Arrow missile test (archives)

The Iranians read in the Israeli press that the success rate of the Iron Dome in intercepting missiles reaches 80%, and they assume, obviously, that the Arrow 2 has a similar success rate. However, they also have to take into account that the Arrow 2 has been upgraded and that the more advanced missiles are supported by improved radar systems. The math is simple: Even if the Iranians do manage to simultaneously launch 100 Shabab-3 missiles (1,200 km range), Israel would still be able to intercept them with 124 Arrow 2 and advanced Arrow 2 missiles – an 80% success rate.

There are two more factors that must be considered: The Iranian missiles are inaccurate, and some of them may hit Jordan. Moreover, in the future the successful interception rate of the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 will surpass 80%. Since the Shahab is more expensive than an Arrow missile, it would be a shame for the Iranians to launch them knowing they would not cause serious damage.

The Israeli security establishment is making these same calculations, so there is no need to get overly anxious when a few public figures speak of Iran’s military capabilities.

In light of all this, the Iranian military threat is gradually diminishing. These are the threats of a suicidal regime, but the ayatollahs do not plan on committing suicide, they want the Lebanese to do it for them. Iran is seeking dialogue in hopes that the West will ease some of the economic pressure.

Obama, Romney both avoid equating an attack on Israel to an attack on America.

DEBKAfile Special Report October 23, 2012, 5:40 AM (GMT+02:00)

Obama and Romney square off on foreign policy

Both US presidential contenders, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney pledged to stand with Israel if attacked in their foreign policy debate in Boca Raton, Florida Monday, Oct. 22. But neither replied directly to the question put by moderator Bob Scheiffer:  which of them would offer a formal declaration as president to treat an attack on Israel as though it was an attack on America, especially in relation to a nuclear Iran?
Romney said: “if Israel is attacked, we will have their back.” He added he would stop a nuclear-capable – not just a nuclear – Iran. Both candidates agreed that military action was a last resort against Iran after all others had been exhausted. Obama said: “I will stand with Israel if they are attacked” and will not let Iran get a nuclear weapon, but added that Romney seems willing to take “premature military action.” He cited unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation between his administration and Israel, and pledged an “unbreakable bond” with America’s true ally.

debkafile: The reservations on the parts of both candidates reflect the erosion of Israel’s strategic position in the four years of the Obama presidency compared with Iran’s rising clout in the region.

When the moderator asked how they would react to a telephone call from the Israeli prime minister announcing that bombers were on the way to attack Iran, Romney replied that his relations with Israel would be such that that phone call would not be made. Obama did not reply.

While Romney said tough sanctions against Iran should have come earlier, Obama stressed that his first priority had been to round up a world coalition to make them effective. Romney wanted action against Iran to include an economic boycott and isolation, tighter sanctions and getting Ahmadinejad indicted before the international court for promoting genocide by saying Israel should be wiped off the map.

Romney attacked the president’s record by saying, “We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran,” and have seen a dramatic reversal of the Arab Spring, with the Middle East in the grip of violent turbulence and extremism and al Qaeda is nowhere near on the run. Iran sees weakness where it expected strength. He charged Obama was silent when students in Tehran demonstrated for democracy. But he refrained from taking on Obama directly over his response to the attack which killed the US ambassador in Benghazi.

Reverting to relations with Israel, Romney called the tension between the US and Israel, our most important Middle East ally, “very unfortunate.” He pointed out that when Obama went to the Middle East, he traveled to Cairo and skipped Israel, which he has never visited as president. Obama countered that as a candidate he did go to Israel and visited Yad Vashem and the towns blasted by Hamas rockets rather then attending fundraisers.
Romney praised Mr. Obama for ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden but added, “We can’t kill our way out of this mess.”
He hammered the point throughout that the president had failed to show the world strong American leadership. Obama countered by accusing his rival of “wrong and reckless” proposals and “being all over the map” in his judgments between the start of his campaign and now.

When asked to name the greatest security threat to the United States today, Obama replied “terrorism;” Romney, “nuclear Iran.”
For the American voter, 15 days before the presidential election, foreign policy is of secondary interest compared with the economy and jobs.

Complete Third Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy 2012: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney Oct 22, 2012 – YouTube.

–