Mulshine - "Menendez blames everyone but himself for the mess he helped make in the Mideast" - Syria

PAUL MULSHINE ARTICLE Menendez blames everyone but himself for the mess he helped make in the Mideast: Mulshine Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger By Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger on January 31, 2015 at 3:28 PM, updated January 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM When I was a lad my mother would on occasion ask me why I did something. "Because Johnny told me to," I would reply. "If Johnny told you to jump in the lake, would you jump in the lake?" she'd reply. In the case of Bob Menendez, apparently so. He not only jumped in the lake, but he pulled a lot of people in with him. That's the only logical conclusion after reading that op-ed piece he wrote attacking me for pointing out that his advocacy of a rebellion in Syria led directly to the rise of ISIS in that country and Iraq. Menendez doesn't deny that it was his goal to have Syrian strongman Bashar Assad deposed. He doesn't deny that the rebellion he and others advocated permitted ISIS to move into the parts of Syria formerly controlled by Assad. Instead he complains that:     Mulshine criticizes me for pushing the U.S. "to take an active role in supporting the rebels fighting to oust Syrian dictator Bashar Assad."     But that exact position is the administration's policy, arguing that "Assad must go" and supporting the training and equipping of the Syrian opposition. President Barack Obama over Labor Day 2013 even came within minutes of approving air strikes against Assad for gassing Syrians and crossing his self-imposed red line.     It is also the position of Senators from liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conservative Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) who voted with me in September 2013 to provide lethal and non-lethal assistance to vetted Syrian opposition groups.     Mulshine is free to disagree, but if he wants to cast blame, it should be distributed evenly amongst nearly all officials in power from President Obama, to Secretary Kerry, to former Secretary Clinton, on down who understand that the Assad regime has lost its legitimacy. Or in other words, "They told me to jump in the lake and I jumped." At the time he and the rest were deciding that "Assad must go" as they put it, Menendez was the chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If he had dug in and pointed out that the U.S. would be better off propping up Assad as a bulwark against the Muslim Brotherhood, he might have had some influence in heading off this fiasco. But how could he have known the effort to depose Assad would go so horribly wrong and lead to the rise of ISIS? Uh, by reading my columns. When it comes to foreign policy, I seek out the people who understand the Mideast. See my prior columns warning of the folly of "liberating" our enemies here. These are not politicians. I've yet to meet one who had even the vaguest notion of who's fighting whom in that neck of the woods. Instead I seek out ex-CIA agents like Bob Baer or ex-Green Berets like Pat Lang. These guys saw this fiasco coming from the very beginning. An example from a column critical of GOP presidential contender and leading "neo" conservative Rick Santorum's foreign policy stance in which I cited Baer (italics mine):     Thanks to the insistence by the neoconservatives -- which is the polite way of saying "knucklehead" -- that everyone should be freed from dictatorial rule, Islamic fundamentalists are now in a position to control much of the Mideast.     Once freed from the horrible Hosni Mubarak, Baer noted, the Egyptians promptly sacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo. If the dictatorship in Syria falls, he said, Israel will be surrounded on all sides by angry Muslims. All of them will have the freedom and opportunity Santorum and his fellow neocons wanted them to have.     "We really do have to wake up," Baer said. "We do not have the money to play out our fantasies." Baer said that in my column way back in 2011. If Menendez had been talking to Mideast experts instead of Beltway insiders back then, he would have known that deposing Assad would lead to the rise of Islamic fundamentalists. Then there was this advice from Baer in May of 2013 concerning the disaster in Benghazi that followed the fall of Moammar Gadhafi:     Gadhafi had his faults, but at least he kept our embassy staff safe. The same wasn't true for the unsteady coalition that succeeded him. The task of embassy security has to be entrusted to the locals, said Bob Baer, a former CIA agent with years of experience in the Mideast.     "Were we going to put a Marine division in Benghazi to protect it?" asks former CIA agent Bob Baer. "The Salafis were everywhere."     The Salafis are a militant branch of the Sunni brand of Islam. They're also active on the rebel side in the civil war in Syria. Yet the neocons want the United States to aid those rebels, as well. Almong those neocons were Menendez's committee comrades John McCain and Lindsey Graham. McCain was so crazy he actually traveled to Syria to give moral support to the rebels - something we're now prosecuting average citizens for doing, by the way. Yet Menendez listened to them instead of trying to get a more realistic point of view from people like Baer. In October of 2011, I quoted Baer about Santorum's pledge to support Syrian rebels:     "Who does he propose supporting in Syria?" Baer said. "Anyone with any common sense knows it's the Muslim Brotherhood that would take over. There are no white hats in Syria." By the way, it's been obvious for more than 30 years that there are no white hats in Syria. Back then, Assad's father had to blow up an entire town to halt the Muslim Brotherhood in its effort to take Syria. Yet there's Menendez, still looking for "vetted moderate rebels" to fight against Assad in Syria. And now his defense is that everyone else inside the Beltway was just as naïve? Pat Lang could have cured that naivete - if only the senator had sought him out. The former Vietnam Green Beret and longtime denizen of the Mideast was among the experts I quoted in a column I did on the "Assad must go" consensus last July:     Former Vietnam Green Beret and veteran Mideast operative Pat Lang recalled being ostracized at conferences for suggesting that Assad might not be going anywhere.     "It was an article of faith in the Washington think-tank policy establishment that Assad was going to go down," Lang said. "I asked these guys continually, 'How do you know that?' The answer usually was hostile sullenness." Hostile sullenness: That's a perfect description of our senior senator's attitude. He could simply admit he was wrong, but instead he attacks those who were right. By the way, among them was a guy who could be challenging our governor for the Republican nomination for president next year. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is the leading genuine - as opposed to "neo" - conservative in Congress. He had this to say when I asked him in 2013 about the pressure being put on Obama to attack Syria:     As for Paul, he said there's something wrong when Republicans are on the same side of the issue as the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. That's New Jersey's own Sen. Robert Menendez, who Paul termed "the leading proponent of getting us involved in war." The best I can say for Menendez is that at least he's a Democrat. I can't stand it when Republicans like McCain and Graham fall for this bleeding-heart nonsense about "liberating" the people of the Mideast at U.S. expense. But Democrats believe in wasting our money on social engineering. So at least he's consistent. But he's catching a lot of heat from his fellow Democrats for his attack on President Obama. Menendez accused Obama of repeating "talking points straight out of Tehran" in a speech about the need to negotiate with the Iranians over nuclear issues. But thanks to people like Menendez, Obama's got little choice but to be nice to the Iranians. Like it or not, the Iranians are our de facto ally in the effort to eliminate ISIS from Iraq and Syria. Once Menendez and the neocons kneecapped Assad, there was no one left to fight the Sunni madmen that rose to power in the vacuum. Now it's up to the Shia to beat back their ancient enemies the Sunni. And the Shia in Iran actually know how to fight, unlike the Shia that George W. Bush put in charge of Iraq. Menendez pats himself on the back for having voted against the Iraq War. But back then his vote had little meaning; it was one of 435 in the House. During the run-up to the Syria debacle, however, he held the single most powerful foreign-policy position in the Senate. And he said things like this:     Beyond arming the "moderate elements" of the rebels, the senator said he was open to considering options like tearing up Syrian airfields.     "If (Syrian President Bashar) Assad continues to have unlimited air power and artillery, that's a hard battle to win," Menendez said. "You can't just simply send them a pea shooter against a blunderbuss at the end of the day, or else . . . time is not on our side, and our vital national security interests will not be pursued." That air power is now being used to bomb ISIS. But if Menendez had had his way, those planes would be stuck on the ground. [ie Syrian planes.] As for "vital national security interests," we never had any concerning Syria. Assad was willing to work with us on any effort against Islamic fundamentalists, for the simple reason that they have always wanted to overthrow his secular regime. There's plenty more of this to be found, all of it equally shortsighted. That's bad enough. Worse, even at this late date Menendez doesn't seem to realize the dimensions of the debacle he helped create as chairman. What he helped create is nothing less than a Sunni-vs.-Shia war for control of the region. You've got to pick one. If you oppose Iran, then you support ISIS. If you oppose ISIS, then you support Iran. And it should be obvious to anyone taking the traditional America-first position, which side to take. The Shia make up less than a tenth of the world's Muslims and they are concentrated in a small area in the Mideast. Iran is a regional power with a defense budget one-hundredth the size of our own. The Sunni, by contrast, control major countries such as Pakistan and have colonies all over the world, including in such countries as France, Great Britain and the U.S. They have vast oil wealth and expansionist goals. And then of course there are secular leaders like Assad. Why anyone would believe it is in the U.S. interests to depose a secular leader in a Muslim land is a mystery to every true conservative in America. Menendez does not pretend to be a conservative of course. He's a flaming liberal and unlike McCain, Graham and the rest of the neocons, he admits it. But the sole job of a politicians is to make decisions. You have to take your pick which side you're on. There's no middle ground. Anyone who can say "vetted moderate rebels" without laughing should be disqualified from further comment on the Mideast. And it's no excuse to say that someone told you to say it. If they told you to jump in the Potomac, Senator, would you jump? I think we know the answer to that one. I'll lend you a wetsuit. The water's cold this time of year. http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/01/menendez_blames_everyone_but_himself_for_the_mess.html COMMENT Really enjoyed reading this article. Noticed Marco Rubio has popped up again.  Gee, fancy that. McCain would support corporate-military interests & 'liberation' is just a useful tool to further the agenda of interests he supports (including, most likely, the agenda of the pro-Israel lobbies, judging by information on McCain). Lindsey Graham would most likely also support those same interests, judging by these extracts from Wikipedia: Lindsey Graham Graham is a leading foreign policy hawk and interventionist.  He is known for his willingness to be bipartisan and work with Democrats ... Military Graham was commissioned as an officer and Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force in 1982. He was placed on active duty and in 1984, he was sent to Europe as a military prosecutor and defense attorney, serving at Rhein-Main Air Base in Frankfurt, Germany. After four years in Europe, he returned to South Carolina and then left active duty in 1989.  He subsequently entered private practice as a lawyer. ... joined the South Carolina Air National Guard in 1989, where he served until 1995, then joining the U.S. Air Force Reserve. During the Gulf War, he was recalled to active duty, serving as a Judge Advocate at McEntire Air National Guard Station in Eastover, South Carolina, where he helped brief departing pilots on the laws of war. In 2004, Graham received a promotion to Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve at a White House ceremony officiated by President George W. Bush. Graham served in Iraq as a reservist on active duty for short periods during April and two weeks in August 2007, where he worked on detainee and rule-of-law issues. He also served in Afghanistan during the August 2009 Senate recess. Since then, Graham has been assigned as a senior instructor for the U.S. Air Force JAG Corps. He also serves as an Air Force Reserve appellate judge. NSA In response to the 2013 disclosures about the United States National Security Agency and its international partners' global surveillance of foreign nationals and U.S. citizens, Graham said that he was "glad" the NSA was collecting phone records. Foreign Policy A leading foreign policy hawk, Graham supports an interventionist foreign policy.  Graham and his fellow Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, who were frequently dubbed "the three amigos", travelled widely, pushing for American military intervention, particularly after the September 11 attacks. On November 6, 2010, at the Halifax International Security Forum, Graham called for a pre-emptive military strike to "neuter" the Iranian regime. He is an advisor to The Atlantic Bridge. Graham is an unabashed supporter of Israel. Graham threatened to derail the confirmation of President Obama's nomination for secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, remarking that Hagel "would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense towards the state of Israel in our nation’s history." On February 28, 2013, Graham criticized President Obama and both political parties on the Senate floor for allowing the budget reduction to occur with "two-thirds of the budget" exempt from reductions and said the impact on the Department of Defense would create a "hollow military" that "invites aggression". Graham also said the U.S. should aim to "drive the Russian economy into the ground." Graham is close friends with Arizona Senator John McCain. He supported McCain's presidential bid in 2000 and served as national co-chairman of McCain's 2008 presidential bid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham Getting back to McCain, the conclusion that McCain is also a pro-Israel senator like his friend Lindsey Graham appears supported: John McCain During the 2008 presidential campaign, McCain's advisors stated that they were not in favor of the peace negotiations then ongoing between Israel and Syria. ... McCain has courted the support of individuals and groups that are opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. In 2008, McCain's advisors stated that they did not favor continuing the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. John McCain has called the crisis with Iran "the most serious crisis we have faced – outside of the entire war on terror – since the end of the Cold War." "Nuclear capability in Iran is unacceptable," said McCain. McCain has cited Iran's stance towards Israel as justification for his aggressive policy towards Iran, saying, "Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities. I totally support the president when he says we will not allow Iran to destroy Israel." McCain tried to persuade FIFA to ban Iran from the 2006 World Cup, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denials as the reason since such denials in Germany, where the competition was held, are illegal. In June 2008, a group of congressional Democrats criticized McCain for voting against 2005 legislation that would have toughened sanctions against Iran. "McCain tries to give the impression that he's tough on Iran, but when it came time to stand up to party leaders and Big Oil, John McCain stood down," said senator Frank Lautenberg. [Big Oil won?] McCain supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the U.S. decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. McCain was an advocate for strong military measures against those responsible for the September 11 attacks in 2001 and supported the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. On August 14, 2009, McCain, along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, met with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli "to talk... about a transfer of American military equipment."  At the meeting, Gaddafi's son Muatassim "emphasized Libya's interest in the purchase of U.S. lethal and non-lethal military equipment," and McCain "assured Muatassim that the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs."   During the 2011 Libyan civil war, McCain called for the removal of Gaddafi from power, due to Gaddafi having "'American blood on his hands' from the 1988 Lockerbie bombing."  In April 2011, he became the 'highest-profile Western politician' to visit the rebels in Libya, urging Washington to consider a ground attack that aims for the absolute removal of Gaddafi.  He later said the airpower policy that Obama had pursued should be the model for American actions against other countries in the region. "It is time to bring Kosovo – and the Balkans with it – out of the 1990s and into the 21st century by recognizing Kosovo's independence. During the crisis in the Serbian breakaway province of Kosovo in 1999, McCain urged President Clinton to use all necessary force. McCain maintains a relatively moderate stance concerning Pakistan, although he has recognized the South Asian nation as an important part of US Foreign Policy. In the aftermath of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination (in December 2007) McCain appeared to rule out the option of US forces entering Pakistan, saying that it was not an appropriate time to "threaten" Pakistan.  [What's the deal here?] McCain was a fierce opponent of Putin's Invasion of Chechnya describing it as "a bloody war against Chechnya's civilian population." He stated "Yes, there are Chechen terrorists, but there are many Chechens who took up arms only after the atrocities committed by Russian forces serving first under Boris Yeltsin's and then Putin's orders." [Supports Chechnya extremists.] McCain is a strong supporter of ballistic national missile defenses.  Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia’s border with NATO if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech Republic.  In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in the former Eastern Bloc.  Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under a Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States. During the Syrian civil war that began in 2011, McCain was a vocal supporter of the U.S. intervening militarily in the conflict on the side of the anti-government forces. He called for arming the Free Syrian Army with heavy weapons and for the establishment of a no-fly zone over the country. McCain also stated his agreement with the belief that the U.S. is a "Christian nation." On September 30, 2007, he clarified his remarks by saying "What I do mean to say is the United States of America was founded on the values of Judeo-Christian values, which were translated by our founding fathers which is basically the rights of human dignity and human rights."  McCain also stated, “I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values.” In February 2013, McCain reiterated his belief that America is "a Judeo-Christian nation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain What about this guy, Bob Menendez?  Here's a bit about Menendez: Bob Menendez Parents:  Cuban immigrants / 1953Menendez, who is described as very close to Republicans on foreign policy voted for the failed Kosovo Resolution, authorizing the use of military force against Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War.   He was an early advocate of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities. Wikipedia .................................................... First Latino chair of the Foreign Relations Committee Menendez fiercely pro-embargo - Cuba Menendez represents the pro-Israel wing of the Democratic party — thanks in part to the large Jewish population in New Jersey — that has been pushing the President to get tougher on Iran. Menendez (with Republican Senator Mark Kirk) co-authored sweeping sanctions 2012 against Iran ... Menendez has voiced reservations about Chuck Hagel, Obama’s nominee to run the Pentagon, because of Hagel’s past statements on Iran. Menendez "chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2010, outraising Republicans $130 million to $115 million in a big GOP year." http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/14/meet-bob-menendez-kerrys-successor-on-the-foreign-relations-committee/ In the Time article, Menendez is described as representing "the pro-Israel wing of the Democratic party." So, it looks as though there may be a common influence on US foreign policy:  pro-Israel senators.