Where critics will attack the Tillerson nomination

Fred Lucas writes at the Daily Signal about Trump's pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. Some, like John McCain, are critical of the fact that Tillerson has worked well withPutin, who gave Tillerson an award called "the Order of Friendship." Is it wrong for America and Russia to live in friendship with one another? Lucas brings up another point of criticism:

Tillerson is also meeting resistance from some social conservatives for his support of allowing gay youth members in the Boy Scouts and for his company’s financial support of Planned Parenthood.

During Tillerson’s tenure as CEO, Exxon Mobil was among the corporations that gave money directly to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Tillerson was a Boy Scout in his youth and went on to become an Eagle Scout. He became the national president of the Boy Scouts of America in 2010, and served in the role until 2012. He continued to serve as the organization’s national executive, where he reportedly played a key role in building a consensus to do away with the scouts’ ban on gay youth members.

“Under his chairmanship, Exxon Mobil’s score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate ‘Equality’ Index has … skyrocketed to 87 percent,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins wrote.

Perkins continued to attack Tillerson’s record on social conservative issues:

Still, Trump calls Rex a “world class player and dealmaker,” but if these are the kinds of deals Tillerson makes — sending dollars to an abortion business that’s just been referred for criminal prosecution and risking the well-being of young boys under his charge in an attempt to placate radical homosexual activists — then who knows what sort of ‘diplomacy he would champion at [the Department of State]?

...On Facebook, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised the choice of Tillerson.

“Rex Tillerson is an excellent choice for secretary of state,” Rice wrote. “He will bring to the post remarkable and broad international experience; a deep understanding of the global economy; and a belief in America’s special role in the world.”

...Trump spent much of 2016 opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal with the United States and 11 other countries. However, Tillerson has gone on record supporting the deal, the Daily Beast reported.

“Even when a nation does not have a rich endowment of resources, we have learned that open markets and free trade can bring nations the energy supplies they need,” Tillerson said in a June 3, 2013, speech at the Asia Society Global Forum in the District of Columbia. “But only governments can open the avenues of free trade. … One of the most promising developments on this front is the ongoing effort for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The 11 nations that have been working to lower trade barriers and end protectionist policies under this partnership are a diverse mix of developed and developing economies. But all of them understand the value of open markets to growth and progress for every nation.”

Read more here.

"Bush may have been feckless, but Obama is mad."

David P. Goldman shows how a demographic peak and an economic trough are creating some of the Middle East problems.

It could have been avoided by the cheap and simple expedient of bombing Iran’s nuclear program and Revolutionary Guards bases, followed by an intensive subversion effort aimed at regime change in Teheran. Former Vice President Dick Cheney advocated this course of action, but then Secretary of State Condileeza Rice persuaded Bush that the Muslim world would never forgive America for an attack on another Muslim state.

The Bush Administration was too timid to take on Iran; the Obama administration views Iran as a prospective ally. Even Neville Chamberlain did not regard Hitler as prospective partner in European security. But that is what Barack Obama said in March to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg: “What I’ll say is that if you look at Iranian behavior, they are strategic, and they’re not impulsive. They have a worldview, and they see their interests, and they respond to costs and benefits. And that isn’t to say that they aren’t a theocracy that embraces all kinds of ideas that I find abhorrent, but they’re not North Korea. They are a large, powerful country that sees itself as an important player on the world stage, and I do not think has a suicide wish, and can respond to incentives.” Bush may have been feckless, but Obama is mad.

With Iran neutralized, Syrian President Basher Assad would have had no choice but to come to terms with Syria’s Sunni majority; as it happens, he had the firepower to expel millions of them. Without the protection of Tehran, Iraq’s Shia would have had to compromise with Sunnis and Kurds. Iraqi Sunnis would not have allied with ISIS against the Iranian-backed regime in Baghdad. A million or more Iraqis would not have been displaced by the metastasizing Caliphate.

ISIS by itself is overrated. It is a horde enhanced by captured heavy weapons, but cannot fly warplanes in a region where close air support is the decisive factor in battle. The fighters of the Caliphate cannot hide under the jungle canopy like the North Vietnamese. They occupy terrain where aerial reconnaissance can identify every stray cat. The Saudi and Jordanian air forces are quite capable of defending their borders. Saudi Arabia has over 300 F-15′s and 72 Typhoons, and more than 80 Apache attack helicopters. Jordan has 60 F16′s as well as 25 Cobra attack helicopters. The putative Caliphate can be contained; it cannot break out into Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and it cannot advance far into the core Shia territory of Iraq. It can operate freely in Syria, in a war of attrition with the Iranian backed government army. The grim task of regional security policy is to channel the butchery into areas that do not threaten oil production or transport.

Ultimately, ISIS is a distraction. The problem is Iran. Without Iran, Hamas would have no capacity to strike Israel beyond a few dozen kilometers past the Gaza border. Iran now has GPS-guided missiles which are much harder to shoot down than ordinary ballistic missiles (an unguided missile has a trajectory that is easy to calculate after launch; guided missiles squirrel about seeking their targets). If Hamas acquires such rockets-and it will eventually if left to its own devices-Israel will have to strike further, harder and deeper to eliminate the threat. That confrontation will not come within a year, and possibly not within five years, but it looms over the present hostilities. The region’s security will hinge on the ultimate reckoning with Iran.

Read more here.

Thanks to Maggie's Farm for linking to the Goldman article.