Trump the Traditionalist

From arch neocon Elliott Abrams, at Foreign Affairs, "Trump the Traditionalist: A Surprisingly Standard Foreign Policy":

Imagine two U.S. foreign policy analysts plucked from their Washington think tanks and marooned on desert islands, one just before Donald Trump announced his presidential candidacy and the other just before the 2016 election itself. After the election, both are told that the Republican candidate won and are asked to predict the new administration’s foreign policy. Whose predictions would have been more accurate?

At times this spring, the second analyst’s forecasts would have been on the money. Having followed the bitter election, he or she would have foretold the nature of the transition and the early weeks of the new administration as a logical continuation of the campaign. The starkly nationalist rhetoric of Trump’s inaugural address; the president’s unpredictable tweets; the departure of Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, after only 25 days in office; and a whole host of other developments solidified many professionals’ sense that Trump would break dramatically with long-standing traditions and with recent policy. As the months passed, however, the analyst’s predictions would have been increasingly off base as the administration’s foreign policy became more conventional.

Meanwhile, the other desert-island refugee, who would have missed Trump’s surprising ascent and the bizarre campaign that followed, would likely have predicted that no matter who won the GOP nomination and despite any idiosyncrasies that emerged during election season, the realities of governing and of leading in a complex world would ultimately produce a fairly familiar Republican approach to foreign policy. And on balance, this analyst would have been right.

The Trump administration has been in office for less than six months, and most jobs below the cabinet level still remain unfilled, so one must tread carefully when making judgments about its approach or predictions about its future. But it is already clear that this is not a revolutionary administration. The broad lines of its policy fit easily within those of the last few decades. Trump might not be a conventional president, but so far, his foreign policy has been remarkably unremarkable.

A BREITBART PRESIDENCY?

This is a far cry from what many observers expected (and what some continue to worry about): a radical departure from tradition and the emergence of what might be called a Bannonite administration, after Steve Bannon, the populist-nationalist provocateur who chaired Trump’s campaign and was later named his chief White House strategist. Before joining the Trump team, Bannon had led Breitbart News, the online publishing company that he described as “the platform for the alt-right” and that regularly railed against “globalists” in the foreign policy establishment...

Keep reading.

Douglas Murray on the Manchester Bombing (VIDEO)

Murray's one of the most thoughtful "neocons" out there.

Watch, "Douglas Murray on the Daily Politics with Andrew Neil discussing the Manchester Bombing."

Syria Strikes Send Critical Message to North Korea, China, and Russia

From Judith Miller and Charles Duelfer, at Fox News, "Syria airstrikes: The critical message Trump sent to North Korea, China and Russia."

So Laura Ingraham's Not Thrilled With Trump's Syria Attack?

Apparently not, if this tweet is any indication. Indeed, I saw some buzz about how she was one of the "alt-right" commentators opposing the strike.

I love Ms. Laura, but on this point I suspect she's off.

Hope @realDonaldTrump reads this buried in @nytimes. pic.twitter.com/bXi2QIVnNV

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) April 9, 2017

Syrian Chemical Attack Survivor Hits Out at @CNN's Brooke Baldwin (VIDEO)

Boy, you think Ms. Brooke's tryna make Trump look bad, tryna delegitimize his administration?

This dude Kassem Eid ain't buying it. He's awesome!

At Daily Mail and CNN:



America, the indispensable nation.

Leftists hate that, lol.

H.R. McMaster Boots K. T. McFarland

Well, if the appointment as envoy to Singapore doesn't work out, K. T. McFarland can always head back to Fox News.

At Bloomberg, "McFarland to Exit White House as McMaster Consolidates Power":

K. T. McFarland has been asked to step down as deputy National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump after less than three months and is expected to be nominated as ambassador to Singapore, according to a person familiar with White House personnel moves.

The departure of the 65-year-old former Fox News commentator comes as Trump’s second National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, puts his own stamp on the National Security Council after taking over in February from retired General Michael Flynn.

McFarland proved not to be a good fit at the NSC, the person said, adding that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly was involved in the decision as well.

Her removal follows a reorganization of the NSC in the past week that removed Stephen Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and senior counselor, from the principals committee, the Cabinet-level interagency forum that advises the president on pressing security matters.

Other officials, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were brought back onto the committee as “regular attendees,” reversing a move made in January. The changes were outlined in a presidential memorandum dated April 4.

Former Goldman Sachs executive Dina Powell stays on as another deputy national security adviser, and a second person is expected to be named to a similar role to replace McFarland...

More (via Memeorandum).

Trump Made All the Right Calls This Week

I've been thinking so much myself.

From Walter Russell Mead, at WSJ (via RCP), "In Striking Syria, Trump Made All the Right Calls":

President Trump faced his first serious foreign-policy test this week. To the surprise and perhaps frustration of his critics, he passed with flying colors.

In the first place, the president read the situation correctly. Syrian President Bashar Assad’s horrific and illegal use of chemical weapons against civilians was not merely an affront to international norms. It was a probe by Mr. Assad and his patrons to test the mettle of the new White House.

This must have looked like a good week to challenge Washington. The Trump administration is beset by critics. Most senior national-security posts remain unfilled. The White House is torn by infighting. The Republican Party is divided by the bitter primary campaign and its recent health-care fiasco.

President Trump concluded, correctly, that failing to respond effectively to Mr. Assad’s challenge would invite more probes and more tests. He moved quickly and decisively against the provocation, demonstrating that the days of strategic dithering are gone.

Second, Mr. Trump chose the right response: a limited missile strike against the Syrian air base that, according to American intelligence, had launched the vicious gas attack. This resonated well nearly everywhere. At home, it won approval from Jacksonians and others who want a strong president. The strikes vindicated America’s prestige and dealt a clear setback to those who seek to humiliate or marginalize the U.S. But no ground troops were involved and Mr. Trump made no move toward long-term counterinsurgency or nation-building, the type of campaign that many Americans, his base in particular, have learned to view skeptically.

Internationally, the strike was also popular. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, putting awkward phone calls behind him, spoke up forthrightly in Mr. Trump’s support. So did Canada’s Justin Trudeau, not usually considered a member of the Trump Fan Club, and Germany’s foreign minister, a Social Democrat whose party has been among the most critical of past American military action.

The strike reassured nervous allies, hungry for leadership but concerned about Mr. Trump’s temperament, that he is capable of a measured response intended to support a vital principle of international law. Friends of the U.S. will sweat less, and opponents will sweat more. That is a good thing.

Third, Mr. Trump handled the process well. Congress was briefed but not asked for approval, a decision inside the long-established norms that govern military action by American commanders in chief. Engaging in a war to overthrow Mr. Assad would be another matter, but so far Mr. Trump has stayed well within the mainstream of American presidents dating back to the 18th century.

The Trump administration notified Russia before the U.S. bombed the Syrian airfield. This is a process of its own. If this were the start of a long war, we wouldn’t give our adversaries advance warning about the opening salvo. However, by telling Moscow we were about to strike, the administration was signaling that the engagement would be limited, and the Russians could therefore temper their response. By using cruise missiles, the administration also guaranteed that the action would be impossible to prevent.

Finally, Mr. Trump gets extra points for deftness...

Keep reading.

Donald Trump 'Neocon Puppet'?

Heh.

I got a kick out of seeing Paul Joseph Watson blow a gasket last night:

I guess Trump wasn't "Putin's puppet" after all, he was just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet.

I'm officially OFF the Trump train.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 7, 2017

And then all kinds of reports today about the "alt-right" meltdown at the administration's Syria strike.

At the Atlantic, the Daily Beast, and the New York Times, among others, I'm sure:

“What Trump did was nothing less than a betrayal" https://t.co/gQWa3dA3om

— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) April 7, 2017

Alt-right turns on "neo-con puppet" Trump after bombing Syria https://t.co/FhhfcUJQUC pic.twitter.com/OHzmtjwFd3

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) April 7, 2017

"I'm officially OFF the Trump train." Trump's far-right supporters turn on him after the Syria missile strike. https://t.co/CRIDWz4PgB

— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 7, 2017

They're paleocons. The "alt-right" are basically "paleocons" opposed to a forward U.S. foreign and national security policy. I'm not a paleocon, lol.

Miltary Strike Against Syria (VIDEO)

Following-up, "U.S. Launches Tomahawk Missile Strike After Syria Chemical Weapons Attack (VIDEO)."

I was watching "The Exorcist" and flipped over to CBS when it was done. I tripped out at the headline of the military strike against Syria. It all happened so fast, literally within 24 hours from President Trump's comments about "crossing so many lines" yesterday.

Watch:

U.S. Launches Tomahawk Missile Strike After Syria Chemical Weapons Attack (VIDEO)

Oh boy.

That's a pretty quick turnaround from yesterday's comments about "crossing so many lines."

I like it. This president shows resolve and dispatch. It was literally a surprise attack. Members of Trump's own administration didn't even know beforehand. And striking so quickly sends all kinds of messages, to Assad and Kim Jong Un, as well as Vladmir Putin and Xi Jinping. A new sheriff's in town. The U.S. will not hesitate to act when "vital interests" are at stake, as President Trump made clear in his comment today in the strike.

In any case, at the Guardian U.K., "US strikes Syrian airfield in first direct military action against Assad: Dozens of Tomahawk missiles have been launched at a government airfield in the wake of the Syrian leader’s use of chemical weapons against civilians."

And at USA Today, "U.S. launches cruise missile strike on Syria after chemical weapons attack":

WASHINGTON — "No child of God should ever suffer" the horror of the chemical weapons attack Syria launched on its own people, President Trump said Thursday, as he announced a cruise missile strike against Syria.

Trump ordered the strike against Syria early Friday local time in retaliation for the chemical weapons attack that killed 86 people on Tuesday, he said.

The attack, the first conventional assault on another country ordered by Trump, comes a day after he declared that the chemical weapons assault had “crossed many, many lines,” including the deaths of 27 children.

From his resort in Palm Beach, Fla., Trump said Syrian President Bashar Assad "launched a horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians using a deadly nerve agent. Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered at this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.

"Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital national security interest of the Untied States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons," Trump said.

Years of previous attempts to change Assad's behavior had failed, Trump said.

The 59 missiles, fired from the destroyers USS Porter and Ross in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, struck the airfield where the Syria based the warplanes used in the chemical attack, according to Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. The missiles destroyed aircraft, hardened hangars, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems and radar at the Shayrat Airfield.

The chemicals used in the attack on April 4 were also stored at the base, Davis said. The missile strike was designed to deter Syria from mounting another chemical attack...

More.

President Trump Says Chemical Weapons Attack Changed His View of Syria (VIDEO)

And this just days after Secretary of State Tillerson sought to rehabilitate Bashir Assad.

We've been escalating in Iraq and Syria in any case. I'm interested to see how things play out now, like the buzz of a more legitimate hard-power case for regime change in Damascus. That's something a lot of Trump supporters opposed during the campaign. Not sure what the political upside would be if Trump's looking to hang onto his hardcore base of supporters. I don't think they're primarily neoconservatives.

In any case, at the Washington Post, "Trump condemns chemical attack as his U.N. ambassador assails Russia’s role":

A chemical attack in Syria that killed scores of civilians, including children, “crossed a lot of lines for me,” President Trump said Wednesday, adding that he is now responsible for trying to end a grinding conflict he blamed his predecessor for prolonging.

Unlike his U.N. envoy, Trump did not mention Russia and its culpability for backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose government blamed the chemical release on rebel forces.

“When you kill innocent children, innocent babies — babies! — little babies,” Trump said, “that crosses many, many lines. Beyond a red line, many, many lines.”

He suggested that the attack Tuesday had changed his mind about his approach to the conflict and confronting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but he did not give any specifics.

“I like to think of myself as a very flexible person,” Trump said during a Rose Garden news conference with visiting Jordanian King Abdullah II.

“And I will tell you that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me, big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing,” Trump said. “I’ve been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn’t get any worse than that.”

Trump said the grinding Syrian conflict, in its seventh year, “is now my responsibility,” but repeated campaign-trail criticism of the Obama administration for threatening military action and then backing off.

“We have a big problem. We have somebody that is not doing the right thing. And that’s going to be my responsibility,” Trump said. “But I’ll tell you, that responsibility could’ve made, been made, a lot easier if it was handled years ago.”

Earlier Wednesday, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley assailed Russia in blunt terms for protecting the Syrian government, saying that Moscow is callously ignoring civilian deaths...

More.

Unhinged John Podhoretz Attacks Robert Spencer

Just last month I said that "Commentary remains my favorite magazine on the conservative right."

Well, I don't know how much longer I can say that, especially considering the behavior of the vile idiot John Podhoretz.

See Robert Spencer, at Jihad Watch, "John Podhoretz to Robert Spencer: “You piece of sh*t”."

Of course, Podhoretz deleted these tweets, but the Internet is forever, as they say:

Alt Right Press Conference at the Willard InterContinental Washington

Following-up from a couple of weeks ago, "I'm Not 'Alt Right'."

Not that it needs to be said, but I'm really, really not "Alt Right."

Sheesh, these people are scumbags.

From Betsy Woodruff, at the Daily Beast, "Alt-Right Leaders: We Aren't Racist, We Just Hate Jews" (via Memeorandum):

The racist, anti-semitic, white power group called the ‘alt-right’ has been mainstreamed thanks to Breitbart and the Trump campaign. And they are loving the attention.

Well, if they really said they want a movement without Jews (whom they "hate"), then that's indeed pretty racist. (And I know, religion isn't race, but anti-Semitism is regarded as a "racist" ideology, similar to white supremacy.)

At a presser today, Alt Right leaders discussed what they refer to as "the Jewish question" https://t.co/VssPMI0e75

— Betsy Woodruff (@woodruffbets) September 10, 2016

At The Willard today, Alt Right leaders mulled the possible superiority of East Asians to whites: https://t.co/VssPMI0e75

— Betsy Woodruff (@woodruffbets) September 10, 2016

Alt Right leaders say the white ethno-state will not include Jews but will have a good relationship w Israel https://t.co/VssPMI0e75

— Betsy Woodruff (@woodruffbets) September 10, 2016

An Emerging Alliance Between Neocons and Hillary?

From Paul Gottfried, at FrontPage Magazine, "THE HYSTERICAL LEFT AND THE REST OF US":

Last week in Commentary, neocon publicist Noah Rothman brazenly or stupidly denied the obvious. Having learned that Hillary Clinton, in a speech before the American Foreign Legion, trotted out such phrases as “America the indispensable nation” and “American the exceptional nation,” Rothman attributes the belief that the Democratic candidate is a “closet neo-conservative” to the “hysterical left.” Rothman assails a nutcase Left for what may be self-evident to the rest of us: “It is in Clinton’s implicit admission that the next president must begin the work of repairing the damage done to geopolitical stability and American preeminence by Barack Obama that has them in a tizzy. But that’s not neoconservatism; it’s not even ideological. It is simply reality.” Further: “The left isn’t just furious at Clinton for failing to denounce her neo-conservative endorsers; they’re aggravated by the fact that she’s undermining Barack Obama’s legacy.”

The Left may have discerned a very real connection between Hillary and her “neo-conservative endorsers.” These endorsers come in two kinds: the outright toadies like Max Boot and Robert Kagan who have jumped aboard the Hillary express; and those “conservative” publicists like Erick Erickson, Kevin Williamson, Bill Kristol, George Will and Jonah Goldberg who are doing everything humanly possible to blacken the reputation and political viability of Hillary’s opponent, without explicitly declaring for Shrillery. It is also totally disingenuous to ascribe the obvious conclusion entirely to critics on the Left. The Right that is supporting Trump has assumed the same thing as “the hysterical left” about the neocons’ extremely cozy relation to Hillary.

Rothman engages in more mystification when he tells us that Hillary is embracing “reality” when she sounds like a neocon, without really being one.  But Rothman’s “simply reality” is profoundly “ideological,” his denials not to the contrary, and he asserts, even more misleadingly, that what he represents is a “conservative foreign policy.” Rothman’s “conservative foreign policy” means of course a neoconservative one, of the kind we encounter in explicitly neoconservative publications. But most Americans who view themselves as being on the Right might have second thoughts about Rothman’s “conservative” policy.

They might believe like Trump that we should destroy ISIS and stand by proven allies but unlike Commentary, Weekly Standard and the National Endowment for Democracy, these Americans whom Rothman pretends don’t exist are not interested in nation-building or exporting the present version of American liberal democracy to the far flung corners of the globe. Trump wins the support of such people because he seems to be reviving a realistic foreign policy (although I wish he would articulate it more consistently). There is nothing even vaguely “conservative” about what the neoconservatives intend to do internationally. Nor can I find anything that distinguishes them from Hillary on social policy. Whether the subject is immigration, gay marriage, or the rest of the LGBT agenda, neoconservative publicists stand with the Democrats or are at least delighted to accommodate them. Even more importantly, they don’t give a damn what kind of wackos President Clinton would appoint to federal courts.

Lest I be accused of painting with overly broad strokes, I should point out that some public figures long associated with the neocons have disengaged and are now enthusiastically backing Trump. Presumably these erstwhile friends of the neoconservatives, including Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Rudolph Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and David Horowitz, have ceased to be “conservatives” in the way in which the neocons would apply that term. That designation is now reserved for the Never-Trumpers and Hillary’s neocon advisers.  This may be a dishonest move but it’s also a daring one. Given their vast media resources and relatively cordial relations with the liberal Left, especially since they’ve begun to work directly or indirectly for Hillary, neoconservatives who are fighting Trump or have declared for the Democratic candidate may still be able to shape the “conservative” public conversation. In the 1980s the founding generation of neoconservatives managed to occupy the establishment Right and to neutralize opposition on the Right. In the end, they used their extensive media and philanthropic contacts to become the most powerful force in the conservative movement.

But this success may be hard to match in the present circumstances. For one thing, as the commentator David Goldman (Spengler) has observed, the parents of John Podhoretz and Bill Kristol were much more talented, resourceful leaders than those who are now running the family business. Bill Kristol “makes the mistake of thinking that he still matters.” He heads a movement that engages “in cultish self-adoration” and which has been consistently foolish in its statements about foreign policy, especially when young Kristol compared the disastrous Arab spring to the American founding. Spengler also expresses disapproval for the infantile fashion in which the neoconservatives have “crushed dissent ruthlessly and declared anathema upon anyone who questioned them,” or at least on anyone on the Right who questions their doctrinal authority.

The neocon second generation are also hemorrhaging what is left of their older advocates, much of whom have defected to Trump and the populist Right. These older allies have been among the more prominent and more articulate representatives of their side; and what is left of the neocon camp is now being led by self-absorbed mediocrities, who, as Spengler notes, inherited the status they never worked for and for which they lack serious qualifications. Others in their camp may find it hard to pretend to be “conservatives,” except for being associated with a neoconservative foreign policy that is in no way conservative. Despite all their media and philanthropic assets, the minicons are not working from the same strength as those who set up their movement and brought it to power.

In fact these clumsy operators are setting the stage for a new alliance on Right that may eventually sideline them. This front is slowly taking shape around Trump’s campaign; and whether or not he wins, a Right that stands in opposition to the second generation of neoconservatives is already emerging. In all likelihood this movement will be far more successful in gaining influence and media accessibility than was the Old Right of the 1990s, of which I was a frustrated part. Although purges have been a constant aspect of the conservative establishment, particularly since the neocons took it over in the late 1980s, this ostracizing process may not work anymore against the critics of Jonah, Noah, Rich and Erick. The personalities on the other side may be too prominent to be simply purged or denied the use of the “conservative” label. Some things do change; and unfortunately for Commentary, this may be one of them.

Actually, Commentary remains my favorite magazine on the conservative right. It's just that I'm waiting for this electoral season to blow over, and hopefully for things to get more back to normal. Of course, if Trump wins things may never be normal again on the right, but I won't worry too much about it: the Democrat-left will be out of power by then.

And by the way, I think I align with the older neocons, especially Norman Podhoretz, who is awesome. Frankly, I don't care much for John Podhoretz or Bill Kristol, the latter whom especially seems to have lost his marbles.

Hat Tip: Blazing Cat Fur.

I'm Not 'Alt Right'

Here's a quick post to reiterate, in the strongest possible terms, that I'm a neoconservative ideologue, not just any old "conservative" ideologue, or (god-forbid) some new "alt right" bottom-dweller conservative ideologue, for that matter.

While reading Dave Weigel's piece at WaPo yesterday, I followed the links to Joseph Sobran's essay, "For Fear of the Jews."

It's just revolting, but it's not new to me. This Sobran dude's new (to me), but the ideas there are pretty familiar after dealing with disgusting "paleoconservative" losers over this last decade or so. And unfortunately, some of the memes at that piece don't just reflect on paleos but on the "alt right" as well (see Yishai Schwartz, "Banal, Incoherent, Anti-Semitic and Pro-Trump: Why We Should Take the Alt-Right Seriously"), to say nothing of a lot of generic libertarians too (think of the Ron Paul trolls back in 2008).

Sometimes folks have argued that I'm not really neoconservative, but actually more of a straight "conservative." Nope. I see unalloyed support for Israel as a fundamental tenet of neoconservatism (see David Bernstein, "Is Neoconservatism a 'Jewish' Movement?"). Not blind support, mind you (see David Horowitz's flawed essay on that). But unwavering support for the Jewish people and Israel's leadership in the cause of moral decency in the Middle East and the world. I thus always push back against all manner of attacks against the "evil" neocons, which are usually thinly-veiled attacks on Jewish supporters of democracy promotion, regime change, the war in Iraq, and so forth. After the Arab Spring I'm much more careful about uncritical advocacy for democracy promotion, but Israel remains the light of moral decency in international affairs.

Interestingly, all this recent discussion of "white supremacy" and the "alt right" has conveniently obscured the intense racism, Israel-hatred, and ideological extremism on the Democrat Party left. Folks ought not lose sight of what's really at stake in this election. Donald Trump's a good man. Hillary's attacks on him are despicable. She's got more in common with those "fringe extremists" on the "far reaches of the Internet" than Donald Trump ever will (see William Jacobson, "Hijacking of #BlackLivesMatter by anti-Israel activists already has damaged the movement").

There's a lot more to neoconservativism that foreign policy and support for Israel. In my case, I'm a classic throwback to the old "liberal" who's been "mugged by reality." I'm especially neoconservative on domestic issues, points of ideological emphasis that hark back to the 1960s and some of the earliest neocons who helped shape public policy at that time --- folks like Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Norman Podhoretz (see Justin Vaïsse, "Why Neoconservatism Still Matters").

In any case, one of the things I love about the "neocon" label is how widely you see people on the right attack it (usually this is part of a diatribe against "endless wars"). Although I sometimes get a painful twinge at these outbursts, I just embrace the label as a badge of honor.

So, there you go. I just felt like I needed to get that out, especially after reading that vile Sobran piece.

How Donald Trump Broke the Conservative Movement (And My Heart)

It's from Katherine Miller, at BuzzFeed, not my favorite publication.

Still, this is interesting because I feel entrenched coalitions are breaking up, and that's not a bad thing. At the least, whether Trump wins or not, American conservatism's going to have to do a rethink.

How Donald Trump Broke The Conservative Movement (And My Heart) https://t.co/CjWivWs4cq pic.twitter.com/sPbVzLx8Vj

— Katherine Miller (@katherinemiller) July 25, 2016

Matt Lewis Has a New Book Out, Too Dumb to Fail

Check it out, at Amazon, Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots).

That reminds me of a book from (just over) 10 years ago, Adrian Wooldridge's, The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America.

You remember the "America's a center-right nation" argument the left was pushing back against so hard when Obama came to office? I think it's going to be back in vogue this year.

Paris Attacks, Rise of Islamic State, Shake a Weakened Europe — And the International System

A great piece, from Robert Kagan, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Crisis of World Order":

The only alternative [to European and Obama-led global chaos] is to address the crisis in Syria and Iraq, and with it the terrorist threat posed by Islamic State. But just as in the 1990s, when Europeans could address the crisis in the Balkans only with the U.S. playing the dominant military role, so again America will have to take the lead, provide the troops, supply the bulk of the air power and pull together those willing and able to join the effort.

What would such an effort look like? First, it would require establishing a safe zone in Syria, providing the millions of would-be refugees still in the country a place to stay and the hundreds of thousands who have fled to Europe a place to which to return. To establish such a zone, American military officials estimate, would require not only U.S. air power but ground forces numbering up to 30,000. Once the safe zone was established, many of those troops could be replaced by forces from Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, but the initial force would have to be largely American.

In addition, a further 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to uproot Islamic State from the haven it has created in Syria and to help local forces uproot it in Iraq. Many of those troops could then be replaced by NATO and other international forces to hold the territory and provide a safe zone for rebuilding the areas shattered by Islamic State rule.

At the same time, an internationally negotiated and blessed process of transition in Syria should take place, ushering the bloodstained Mr. Assad from power and establishing a new provisional government to hold nationwide elections. The heretofore immovable Mr. Assad would face an entirely new set of military facts on the ground, with the Syrian opposition now backed by U.S. forces and air power, the Syrian air force grounded and Russian bombing halted. Throughout the transition period, and probably beyond even the first rounds of elections, an international peacekeeping force—made up of French, Turkish, American and other NATO forces as well as Arab troops—would have to remain in Syria until a reasonable level of stability, security and inter-sectarian trust was achieved...

RTWT.

Natalie Portman is Wrong, Scarlett Johansson Right on Boycotts of Israel

Well, I used to have Ms. Portman down as a hot neocon, but she's become too much of an Obama-cultist these last few years.

Not so with Scarlett Johansson. She's been a voice of moral clarity on Israel.

See the report at Truth Revolt.

Dick and Liz Cheney's New Book is Out Today!

I'm looking forward to diving in.

Get your copy, at Amazon, Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America.

And ICYMI, "Restoring American Exceptionalism."