web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "action"

No, Mike Pompeo didn’t say we’re prepared to take military action against Turkey if need be

Westlake Legal Group mp No, Mike Pompeo didn’t say we’re prepared to take military action against Turkey if need be Turkey The Blog Saudi Arabia military Mike Pompeo Iran CNBC action

As I write this at 5 p.m. ET, political Twitter is in the process of being scandalized by the latest jolt to U.S. foreign policy, this time supposedly delivered by Mike Pompeo. CNBC is normally a reputable news source so you can understand why this tweet made jaws drop:

Westlake Legal Group 1-1 No, Mike Pompeo didn’t say we’re prepared to take military action against Turkey if need be Turkey The Blog Saudi Arabia military Mike Pompeo Iran CNBC action

Uh, how’s that? Turkey’s a NATO ally, buddy. And although Trump is known for changing his mind, standing aside so that Turkey can bomb our friends the Kurds and then turning around and threatening to bomb Turkey would be fickle and reckless even by Trump standards.

This is how CNBC is framing Pompeo’s comments on its website too, though:

Westlake Legal Group 2-2 No, Mike Pompeo didn’t say we’re prepared to take military action against Turkey if need be Turkey The Blog Saudi Arabia military Mike Pompeo Iran CNBC action

Thinkpieces have already been written in the past hour about the insane, NATO-shattering folly of America going to war with the Turks, all because of what Pompeo supposedly told CNBC this afternoon.

But what did he say, exactly?

“We prefer peace to war,” Pompeo told CNBC’s Wilfred Frost in a taped interview that aired on “Closing Bell” on Monday. “But in the event that kinetic action or military action is needed, you should know that President Trump is fully prepared to undertake that action.”

That’s accurate but misleading. The only way to appreciate how CNBC distorted his comments is to watch the exchange yourself, starting at 4:00 of the clip below.

It’s true that the anchor begins a long question by asking about Turkey and the sanctions the U.S. imposed after Erdogan ordered his invasion of Kurdish-held parts of northern Syria, an ally-vs-ally incursion. But he ends by referencing Iran’s attack on the Saudi oil fields, an enemy-vs-ally conflict . I think he meant to ask, very simply, what America intended to do if Erdogan resumed his offensive against the Kurds after the ceasefire notwithstanding the sanctions in place. What would be the next step taken by the White House to deter the Turks? What Pompeo heard, though, I think, was the reference to Iran and Saudi Arabia and took it as a general question about what America would be willing to do in that particular case and in the region generally to deter enemy powers. So he gave the standard diplomatic answer: We prefer peace, we choose nonviolent deterrents like sanctions first, but we never take the military option off the table.

Since the question began as a question about Turkey, though, and since it’s not crystal clear that Pompeo misunderstood it, CNBC is selling it as the Secretary of State dangling a threat of military strikes on a NATO partner. Er, he is not. In fact, if you watch the last minute or so of the clip, Pompeo reiterates that we disagree with NATO allies all the time on foreign policy (e.g., the Iran nuclear deal) but we nonetheless put aside our differences to work on matters of shared interest. Does that sound like a guy who’s ready to bomb a NATO country because they won’t call off an invasion which the president has spent the better part of a week defending, claiming that all Erdogan wants is to “clean out” Kurdish terrorists from the border area?

It’s silly to chastise the White House for things they haven’t said or done when there’s so much that they have said or done that deserves chastisement. For instance, the Pentagon is reportedly now so worried about Trump blindsiding them with orders for instant withdrawals for which the military is unprepared that they’ve begun drawing up contingency plans for a full evacuation of Afghanistan within weeks just in case the word comes down. Why not an orderly withdrawal with plenty of lead time for the Defense department to do things the right way? Because you never know what mood might strike the president on a given day. We can safely rule out a “bomb Turkey” mood striking him, though. At least anytime soon.

The post No, Mike Pompeo didn’t say we’re prepared to take military action against Turkey if need be appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group mp-300x159 No, Mike Pompeo didn’t say we’re prepared to take military action against Turkey if need be Turkey The Blog Saudi Arabia military Mike Pompeo Iran CNBC action   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tucker Carlson on Venezuela: When was the last time we successfully meddled in another country?

Westlake Legal Group c Tucker Carlson on Venezuela: When was the last time we successfully meddled in another country? Venezuela Tucker Carlson The Blog Pompeo military maduro guaido action

If you can’t think of an answer, let Trump and Mike Pompeo know as soon as possible. And I do mean as soon as possible.

“The President has been crystal clear and incredibly consistent. Military action is possible. If that’s what’s required, that’s what the United States will do,” Pompeo said on Fox Business Network. “We’re trying to do everything we can to avoid violence. We’ve asked all the parties involved not to engage in the kind of activity. We’d prefer a peaceful transition of government there, where Maduro leaves and a new election is held. But the President has made clear, in the event that there comes a moment — and we’ll all have to make decisions about when that moment is — and the President will have to ultimately make that decision. He is prepared to do that if that’s what’s required.”

What sort of developments on the ground would “require” the U.S. to act? An all-out attack by Maduro on Venezuelan civilians? Ironically, that’d be a reprise of Obama’s justification for assembling the coalition against Qaddafi in Libya, that members of the United Nations have a responsibility to protect vulnerable populations from war crimes committed by their own government. Trump endorsed intervention in Libya in 2011 on humanitarian grounds then predictably ran away from it after the post-Qaddafi period proved violent and chaotic. Currently he’s rooting for the country’s new Qaddafi-esque military strongman to march on the U.S.-backed government in Tripoli. Don’t look to POTUS for consistency on any of this. He’s probably gung ho to take out Maduro for no grander reason than that dealing a famous socialist a bruising defeat would be sweet symbolism for 2020 and would get all the kooks on the far left of the Democratic Party yelling at him.

Tucker’s going to yell at him in the meantime, though:

“Would the overthrow of [President Nicolás] Maduro make Venezuela a more stable, prosperous country? More to the point, would it be good for the United States?” Carlson said, specifically pointing to calls for intervention from Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.). “Before the bombers take off, let’s just answer a few quick questions, starting with the most obvious: When was the last time we successfully meddled in the political life of another country? Has it ever worked? How are those democracies we set up in Iraq and Libya and Syria and Afghanistan?”

Carlson further claimed sanctions against the South American nation hurt America’s middle class by increasing gas prices. If pro-interventionists “are indeed good people, why do they seem to care more about Venezuela than they care about this country, the one they run?” he said.

He can beat up on Rick Scott all he wants but Scott knows who his constituents in Florida are and knows what they want to hear. Even Democrats in Florida are siding with Juan Guaido, realizing that they’d have a political problem with both Cuban expats and Venezuelan expats if they backed a Castro-supported cretin like Maduro. (The White House continues to emphasize Cuba’s role in propping up Maduro in public pronouncements, which is both true and good politics. Pompeo’s even taken to noting that Cuba has essentially invaded the country.) Tucker knows who his constituents are too, though: He’s pitching to an audience of one here, Fox News’s most loyal viewer. What happened to the isolationist Donald we all thought we knew from the Republican primaries? Why is General Haftar’s attempt to impose “stability” on Libya praiseworthy while Maduro’s attempt to impose “stability” on Venezuela worthy of U.S. military intervention?

He gets too cute with his own argument at points, though. It’s true that interventionists routinely demagogue isolationists as callous towards war crimes but Carlson demagogues interventionists when he accuses them of caring more about Venezuela than about the U.S. (Although, full confession, this Onion quickie yesterday did make me laugh.) And he’s missing the point when he says that U.S. intervention would cause a massive refugee crisis. One reason that Trump has been sold on confronting Maduro, I’d bet, is the belief that U.S. intervention might actually stave off a protracted civil war and prevent a refugee crisis. Interventionists have spent the better part of 10 years claiming that if America had jumped into Syria early and aggressively Assad might have been dislodged and a “political solution” brokered that would have spared the country from years of havoc. Because it didn’t, the war became a maelstrom and Europe was left to find sanctuary for fleeing Syrians. Whether U.S. intervention really would have made the war better or worse is unknowable — and its unknowability is part of Carlson’s point, that interventionists always think they know how the script’s going to go and they never, ever do. But Tucker himself is claiming a weird degree of certainty in believing that U.S. intervention can only make the refugee problem worse. What if we stay out, the Venezuelan military splits, Maduro hangs on as stubbornly as Assad did, and we get a 10-year civil war anyway with enthusiastic Russian and Cuban participation?

The post Tucker Carlson on Venezuela: When was the last time we successfully meddled in another country? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-300x159 Tucker Carlson on Venezuela: When was the last time we successfully meddled in another country? Venezuela Tucker Carlson The Blog Pompeo military maduro guaido action   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com