Trump Speaks With Egyptian President on Church Bombings

The White House says President Donald Trump has spoken with the Egyptian president following the recent church bombings to express his confidence that Egypt will do what it can “to protect Christians and all Egyptians.”

The White House said that Trump spoke with President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi on Sunday “to convey his deepest condolences to Egypt and to the families who lost loved ones in the heinous terrorist attacks against Christian churches on Palm Sunday.”

The statement adds: “The president also expressed his confidence in President el-Sisi’s commitment to protect Christians and all Egyptians.” (Read more from “Trump Speaks With Egyptian President on Church Bombings” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Trump: Find Peace in Syria by Looking to Switzerland

We’re all Syria buffs now. We’re barraged with conflicting reports, atrocity stories, and carefully nurtured narratives. They all seem to goad us to back a major U.S. involvement in that country. (Can you spell “q-u-a-g-m-i-r-e”?) So let’s step back and think for a minute.

How much hope is there for a country where citizens speak three quite different languages? Where they hold starkly opposed religions — each of which damns the members of the other as heretics or infidels? Where religious or ethnic atrocities on each side feed into a history of bitterness?

We are speaking now not of Syria, but of Switzerland.

How Switzerland Solved the Syrian Problem

That’s right, one of the richest, most peaceful countries on earth. The Swiss have low taxes, minimal government, and the most democratic constitution in human history. Citizens’ religious freedom, property rights, gun rights, and freedom of speech are protected even better than in America. Most of a Swiss person’s taxes go to his town, not the federal government. Any citizen can collect signatures to force a national referendum to change the laws.

But Switzerland was once a lot like Syria. Its ethnic factions engaged in vicious attacks and bloody vengeance. Its churches used to whip their members into mutual holy war. Catholics would march with the Eucharist in elaborate processions through Protestant towns. This risked armed attacks by Calvinists. So young Catholics formed shooting clubs. They would march alongside their priests, brandishing rifles. As recently as 1847, the Catholics and Protestants fought a brief civil war that ended with the Jesuits expelled and banned from the country.

Localism über Alles

So what was it that rescued Switzerland from turning out like Syria? What could President Trump learn from the Swiss success story? The answer is simple. Localism and decentralization saved Switzerland. They could save Syria. In fact, a peace plan based on these principles is currently on the table, at the Russian-sponsored Astana talks — which the U.S. so far is boycotting.

True American “federalism” is fine example of localism in action. Let Maine and Mississippi, California and Colorado, make most of their own laws. Suit laws to the values and habits of their citizens. In the teachings of the popes, this idea is called “subsidiarity.” It is designed to keep political power as close as possible to the citizens whom it impacts. You can debate most of your tax burden at your local town meeting.

For more on subsidiarity, see the chapter we wrote about it in The Race to Save Our Century.

Protection for Each Region and Minority Group

Rebuilding after the 1847 civil war, the Swiss did not look to the rigidly centralized government of France. Instead, they modeled themselves on the still quite loosely knit United States. They embedded in their new constitution protections for the rights of every region, and left most of the political power in each region’s hands.

There were some, of course, who wanted a powerful central government that could impose one faction’s wishes on everyone. The Swiss who thought like this had welcomed Napoleon’s invasion. But the country’s deep divisions made such a scheme impossible. At least without a tyrannical government willing to batter the Catholics and Calvinists, French and German speakers, city-folk and farmers, into sullen, begrudged submission.

Reject 20th Century Statism and Centralism

Of course, that is what Bashir Assad’s harsh secular government has done in Syria. He repressed the Sunni majority, while protecting his own embattled (Alawite) minority, along with Christians and other smaller groups. Brutal coercion is likewise the program of Islamist rebels backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Forcibly homogenizing peoples and regions is the model of twentieth century statehood: A powerful central government, dedicated to “national greatness,” crams one ideology down the throat of every hamlet and village.

That’s the model Western powers imposed on the Middle East, along with crackpot borders that took no account of ethnic or religious differences, in the Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916.

A Unified Democracy is Not an Option

Up till now, the only alternative to thuggish, centralized nationalism of the sort practiced by Assad (and before him, Saddam Hussein) has been Islamist theocracy. Islamists like the al Qaeda factions now covet power in Syria. They also wish to impose a single creed and way of life on vibrant, diverse regions. The difference is that Islamists look to sharia as the source of all law and order. That’s bad news for religious minorities. That’s why millions of Alawites and Christians now look for protection either to Assad, or to Kurdish militias.

If Assad were to reconquer Syria, he would brutally crush Islamists and make life hell for religious Sunnis.

If the U.S. topples Assad and lets “nature” take its course, murderous theocrats linked to al Qaeda would do the same to Alawites, Shiites, and Christians.

If Turkey has a strong hand in the settlement, the government it sponsors will crush the Kurdish militias, who seek autonomy for their distinct and long-suffering nation.

There is no prospect of a strong, centralized government that would honor human rights and democracy. That’s not an option in a nation this religiously and culturally fractured. Whoever holds the whip hand of a powerful national government will crush and subdue the others. That is why each side fights so brutally. It’s why most of the factions, including Assad but not the Christians and Kurds, have resorted to chemical weapons.

Restart the Russian-Backed Peace Talks

There is a better way. The peace talks at Astana, stalled for now, envisioned a Swiss-style solution for Syria. Each of the regions now controlled by one faction or other would form a kind of “canton,” with most of the powers that normally go to a central state. These cantons would be linked by a loose confederation, designed to keep peace among them. (Some other Alawite, not Assad, should be its figurehead.) People unhappy in the canton where they ended up would likely vote with their feet, and move to a friendlier region.

The Swiss model is already present in Syria. The Federation of Northern Syria, led by Kurds allied with Christians and tolerant Arabs, is composed of self-governed cantons in voluntary association. It’s the one part of Syria where women take part in politics, all religious groups are free, and power stays close to the people. The Stream‘s Johannes de Jong has written in depth on how federalism works now in this part of Syria.

Such a plan isn’t perfect. It will frustrate the ambitions of every group. And that’s the point. Because in Syria today such ambitions often include erasing minority rights, forcing people to change religions, or simply wiping them out.

Or We Could Just do Iraq All Over Again

In Iraq we tried another plan: Seize power from brutal, secular nationalists. Then spend trillions to set up a fragile central democracy, and leave. That’s what gave us ISIS, and left most of Iraq either in ruins and cleansed of Christians, or ruled by intolerant Shiites who obey the Islamic Republic of Iran. There is no constituency for tolerant, democratic central government in the Arab world. That is why such a government does not exist. Anywhere.

We could deny that fact, for ten or twenty years, and have another Afghanistan on our hands. Or we could admit it, and leave behind a howling wasteland like Iraq.

How about this: Instead of trying this brutal, foolish plan yet again with yet another country, why don’t we look to a model that actually works? Maybe Switzerland, instead of the U.S. or Russia, should lead the Syrian peace talks. (For more from the author of “President Trump: Find Peace in Syria by Looking to Switzerland” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dramatic Escalation in Syria

According to Syrian media sources, the Russian government has taken measures to guarantee more security for its forces in case of possible attack regarding the recent U.S. Tomahawk air strikes on the Shayrat air base on April 7.

At this moment, two Russian all-purpose jets capable of spotting and intercepting cruise missiles are barraging in the Eastern Mediterranean. Moreover, the Russian forces are ready to carry out retaliatory strikes on the U.S. ships that launch cruise missiles if they attack the Russian military objects (including Khmeimim and Tartus bases).

Meanwhile, the Russian military advisors have arrived at the Syrian bases equipped with the anti-aircraft defense systems to assist Assad’s forces to counter cruise missiles strikes.

The United States fired dozens of cruise missiles at a Syrian air base on Friday from which it said a deadly chemical weapons attack had been launched earlier in the week, escalating the U.S. role in Syria and drawing criticism from Assad’s allies including Russia and Iran.

“What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well,” said the statement.

The joint command center also said the presence of U.S troops in northern Syria where Washington has hundreds of special forces helping the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to oust Islamic State was “illegal” and that Washington had a long-term plan to occupy the area.

The regional alliance said the U.S. cruise missile strikes on a Syrian base killed dozens of civilians would not deter their forces from “liberating” all of Syrian territory.

It’s notable that the British paper Daily Mail has removed an article titled “The United States supported the plan to carry out a chemical attack in Syria and blame Assad regime” dated January 29, 2013.

Meanwhile, thousands took to the streets to protest against the U.S. airstrikes against Syria yesterday. Protesters from all across the country made it clear that they will not stand for U.S. aggression in Syria, in a direct clash with the recent actions ordered by the Trump administration.

As the U.S continues to intervene in Syria, the majority of protesters expressed their concerns saying that money spent on these weapons of mass destruction, should rather go towards funding, “jobs, schools and healthcare.” The Tomahawk missiles that struck Syria in the first wave of airstrikes reportedly cost $60 million USD in total as one Tomahawk missile is valued at approximately $1 million USD. (For more from the author of “Dramatic Escalation in Syria” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shocking Video Shows Moment Suicide Bomb Blast Rips Through Egyptian Coptic Christian Church

HORRIFYING CCTV footage shows the moment a blast from a suicide bomber ripped through a church in Alexandria as attacks on two religious sites in Egypt claimed the lives of at least 47 people.

Hundreds were injured as bombs ripped through two Coptic Christian churches within hours of each other in attacks claimed by ISIS.

Egyptian media has beamed CCTV footage of the Alexandria bombing and reporting that a man seen in a blue jumper is a suspect.

Two clips show the man approach the main gate to St. Mark’s cathedral, before being turned away and directed toward a nearby metal detector.

The man then passes a female police officer chatting to another woman and enters the metal detector before an explosion engulfs the area sending debris flying. (Read more from “Shocking CCTV Shows Moment Suicide Bomb Blast Rips Through Egyptian Coptic Christian Church” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Response to Syria a Bold First Step in Rebuilding US Credibility

On Thursday, President Donald Trump ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles against an airfield in Syria.

The strike came in response to Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack ordered by Bashar Assad against the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in northwestern Syria.

Trump immediately condemned that attack, which reportedly killed 80 people, including men, woman, and infant children. The target he selected for last night’s strike was the airfield used to launch that very attack.

The strategic impact of this tactical move is hard to overstate.

The deterrent effect of this attack for Assad’s use of chemical weapons is clear, but the bigger message is global. This was Trump’s first big step in re-establishing the meaning of American presence, America’s word, and the general respect for American power in the eyes of nations, friend and foe.

Many here in the United States are worried about the escalation in tensions this attack might bring about in the world. But whether you are confronting a playground bully or a rogue nation, you have to be willing to accept risk to protect the things you hold dear.

Bullies may fight back when they are confronted because they won’t willingly give up their power. But refusing to stand up to them simply means you are choosing to live under their rules.

It doesn’t matter what your name is, or whether you have a powerfully protective family or network of friends that will shield you from such confrontations. You have to be willing to step into the breech and accept the associated risk if you want to chart your own destiny.

Elect to run, and you’ll be running for the rest of your life. Choose to hold your ground, and you’ll establish a level of confidence and strength that will make even the worst of actors think twice about challenging the lines you draw in the sand.

Trump’s decision last night drew a line in the sand. It changed the atmosphere across the entire globe and affected the conversations taking place right now in cities like Pyongyang, Moscow, and Beijing—and of course, at Mar-a-Lago.

It put the world on notice that the repercussions for challenging the word or the wherewithal of the United States is no longer limited to stern rhetoric, and that a debilitating, kinetic response can come swiftly and often without warning. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Response to Syria a Bold First Step in Rebuilding US Credibility” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russian Naval Activity in Europe Exceeds Cold War Levels

Recent Russian naval activity in Europe exceeds levels seen during the Cold War, a top U.S. and NATO military officer said, voicing concern that the distributed nature of the deployments could end up “splitting and distracting” the transatlantic alliance.

Navy Admiral Michelle Howard, who heads NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command in Naples and commands U.S. naval forces in Europe and Africa, said Russia had clearly stepped up its naval actions in recent years although the size of its navy was smaller now than during the Cold War era.

“We’re seeing activity that we didn’t even see when it was the Soviet Union. It’s precedential activity,” Howard told Reuters in an interview late on Saturday during a missile defense conference.

Howard cited a wide range of activities, including Russia’s deployment of its Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean, increased patrols in the north Atlantic and Arctic region, significant out-of-area submarine deployments, and submarine movement in the Black Sea.

“They’re a global navy, I understand that. But the activity in this theater has substantially moved up in the last couple of years,” Howard said. (Read more from “Russian Naval Activity in Europe Exceeds Cold War Levels” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russia Warns of War; Assad Still Using Airstrip Supposedly Destroyed by US Missiles

By George Sandeman. Russia and Iran have said they will respond to further American military actions following the air strike in Syria last week.

In a joint statement, the command center for the two countries and allied groups said “we will respond to any aggression”.

The statement read: “What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.”

The warning comes on the same day that:

*A Russian politician warned the North Koreans could strike at any time
*A seven-year-old Syrian girl tweeted her support for Trump’s missile strike
*The President blasted claims his 59-missile strike on Syrian airfield missed targets

(Read more from “Russia Warns of War; Assad Still Using Airstrip Supposedly Destroyed by US Missiles” HERE)

___________________________________________

Russia, Allies Promise to Respond With Force to Future US Attacks

By Steve Hawkes. Russia, Iran and other allies of the Assad regime accused the US of “crossing red lines” over airstrikes in response to a chemical attack on a rebel-held village.

In a joint statement they said: “We will respond with force to any aggressor.”

And the Russian Embassy in London raised the prospect of war in a series of provocative tweets that described [Great Britain’s] Johnson as Trump’s “lieutenant”.

In one it suggested “conventional war” could be an outcome if G7 delivers an ultimatum this week. . .

[O]ne senator said Assad was saying ‘F*** y**’ to the US by continuing to fly jets from the airfield bombed by the US on Friday morning. (Read more from “Russia, Allies Promise to Respond With Force to Future US Attacks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The US Missile Strike Against Syria: What You Need to Know

For the past five years, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad has been given a free pass to murder hundreds of thousands of his own people with impunity. During his tenure, former President Obama used strong language, even implementing a supposed “red-line,” to try and deter the genocidal Syrian leader from further action, but it didn’t work. Assad has continued to push the boundaries of the free world, utilizing weapons of mass destruction to continue his reign of terror over much of Syria. His massive chemical weapons bombardment on innocent women and children this week appears to be the straw that broke the camel’s back for President Trump.

In launching some 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian regime air base Thursday night, President Trump made clear that the use of chemical weapons as an instrument of warfare would not be tolerated. Allowing for such a precedent to be established, one in which tyrants are allowed to use WMDs without consequences, threatens both the security of the American people and the global community.

The Tomahawks were launched from the USS Porter and USS Ross, which were situated in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time of the assault. The Pentagon made clear the missile raid was a “proportional response,” and not part of a larger engagement. The U.S. launch targeted Shayrat Airfield, which was reportedly used as a base for Syrian fighter jets and chemical weapons.

A Pentagon statement said that the strikes have “severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment, adding that the Tomahawks reduced Assad’s “ability to deliver chemical weapons.”

Moreover, the launch sent a signal to the Syrian dictator’s enablers — the Iranian regime and Russia under autocrat Vladimir Putin — that America would no longer “lead from behind” or take a back seat on global security issues.

President Trump’s strike against Assad was praised by American allies in Israel, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others.

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” President Trump said from his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida Thursday night. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson slammed Russia for failing “in its responsibility” to move chemical weapons out of the nation. “Either Russia has been complicit or Russia has been simply incompetent in its ability to deliver on its end,” Tillerson said of Russia’s failures.

Syrian state-media is claiming that the U.S. attack killed nine civilians, but provided no proof for its claims. “The United States of America committed a blatant act of aggression targeting one of the Syrian air bases in the Central Region with a number of missiles, leaving 6 people martyred and a number of others injured and causing huge material damage,” Syria’s government-run SANA news agency commented. (For more from the author of “The US Missile Strike Against Syria: What You Need to Know” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Must Not Repeat Iraq War Fiasco, Leave Al Qaeda in Control of Syria

Remember that tragic picture of a drowned Syrian refugee? It broke hearts all around the world. Never mind the story behind it, which soon fell apart. (The family had been living safely in Turkey.)

That photo overwhelmed rational argument. It ended debate. It helped sway Angela Merkel to admit a million Syrian refugees into Europe, via Germany. The continent is still reeling from the results: A rape epidemic in Sweden, “refugees” committing terror strikes in Paris, mass attacks on women in Germany … the list of appalling outcomes goes on and on. Turkey now threatens to send 2 or 3 million more “refugees” from the safety of camps in that country — if the E.U. won’t cave in to Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan’s demands.

It All Happened Before in Iraq

Remember the warnings that Saddam Hussein was preparing nuclear weapons? How about the promise that “Iraqi democrats” like Ahmed Chalabi would set up a pro-American regime in that country and guarantee religious freedom?

Fast forward past the missing WMDs, and the absolute chaos that erupted in that country when we removed its secular strongman. What’s Iraq like now? It’s a firm ally of Iran, with large swathes of the country devastated (or still controlled) by ISIS. One million Christians whose families had lived there since the age of the Apostles are huddling in refugee camps. And the nation still can’t pump its oil.

We Handed Iran to Khomeni

Think back a little further in history, and recall the tragic reports from Iran in the 1970s. I grew up hearing horror stories about what happened to Islamists and Communists at the hands of the Shah’s secret police. (The Shah, while a dictator, protected the rights of women, Christians, and Jews, and was a firm American and Israeli ally.) Those stories are what moved Jimmy Carter to yank out U.S. support.

So we handed that vast country over to the most hidebound Shi’ite extremists. They promptly took U.S. hostages. The threat they posed to their neighbors goaded Iraq into a war of aggression. More than a million people died in the war that resulted. Christians are hunted there now. The Iranian government lowered the age of consent for girls to 9. There is no more freedom now than existed under the Shah. And the country is rolling steadily toward building nuclear weapons that can menace every U.S. ally from Israel to Italy.

We Don’t Know the Culprit, and it Doesn’t Matter

As The Stream has reported, it’s uncertain whether the government of Syria in fact used chemical weapons against al Qaeda-linked Islamist rebels. Remember that in 2013, a U.N. official claimed that Syrian rebels were using captured chemical weapons against the government. Johannes de Jong, who is in close touch with Christian militias in Syria, told The Stream that the Turkish military has used chemical weapons against the Kurds near Aleppo — a fact which most media refused to cover. ISIS has used chemical weapons too. It seems that every major faction except the Kurds and their Christian allies has crossed the “red line” and used chemical weapons. So with whom should we side?

If Assad chose this moment to start using chemical weapons again, it was a political blunder of historic proportions. The U.S. had just agreed to set aside his removal from power as a precondition for peace. The “moderate rebels” whom neoconservatives fantasized would transform Syria into a liberal democracy with U.S. aid have turned out to be rarer than hen’s teeth. The weapons the U.S. gave them mostly ended up with al Qaeda factions.

Syria Needs Partition, Not U.S. Occupation

The possible outcomes in Syria have narrowed, and a tolerant, pro-American regime is not an option. It never really was one. Much more likely, and probably desirable, is a decentralized, de facto partitioned Syria. Crush ISIS, and let the rest of the country devolve into reasonably homogenous regions, according to who controls what today (minus, of course, ISIS).

One for Alawites and Christians, composed of the portion now controlled by Assad. (A good deal would require Assad himself to resign and go into exile, and replace him with an Alawite whose hands are comparatively clean of civilian blood.)

One for Arab Sunnis, composed of what’s controlled now by Turkey and its allies linked to al Qaeda.
One for Kurds, Christians, and Arabs opposed to al Qaeda, composed of what’s now controlled by the tolerant, democratically governed Federation of Northern Syria. (Turkey will fight this outcome, however — it opposes any territory for the Kurds, whose cousins it fiercely represses at home.)
There is no realistic prospect, even with Russian help and Trump in office, for Assad to reconquer the country. Nor could he hold it. So why would he do the one thing that would guarantee his ouster from power? Which might force Trump to break his campaign promise to keep U.S. forces out of the Syrian quagmire?

What If Assad Dropped Chemical Bombs?

But let’s allow that it’s possible, even likely that Assad’s forces were the culprit. Assad is a ham-fisted dictator, fighting desperately to protect his own power base and his ethnic group: the Alawites, a minority religious group that is persecuted in virtually every other Muslim country. So are Christians, who likewise are safe in the regions of Syria he still rules.

If we use force to knock out Assad and his government, who will fill the vacuum? The “moderate rebels” beloved of Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham can’t do it. They can’t even hold on to the weapons the U.S. gives them. The Turks won’t permit the Kurds and Syriac Christians to expand into that region. We won’t give it to ISIS.

So the most likely beneficiary of a U.S. attack on the Syrian government will be the powerful coalition of al Qaeda-linked radical Islamists, who are backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. If they take over the region with millions of Alawites and Christians, what will these jihadists do to them? Christians on the ground in Syria report that they were “cleansed” by these militias, whom they fear as much as ISIS. Indeed, the worldviews of al Qaeda and ISIS are not fundamentally different. As a native New Yorker who was present for 9/11, I am somehow biased against this outcome.

Should the U.S. Give al Qaeda a Country?

Do we want to send U.S. troops to Syria, which would likely put al Qaeda in control of a major country? To cause the ethnic cleansing of another million Christians, as we made possible in Iraq? To remove the last safe country for Christians in the region, apart from Israel? And all to accomplish what?

To salve our consciences? Because we read an article about an atrocity? Atrocities abound in the region, from the Saudis’ war on civilians in Yemen to the chaos still reigning in Libya after our last humanitarian intervention. Boosters of war always say that “inaction is not an option.” But if every likely or feasible course of action carries the risk of costing more lives and causing more chaos, prudent restraint isn’t just feasible. It’s the only moral option. (For more from the author of “Trump Must Not Repeat Iraq War Fiasco, Leave Al Qaeda in Control of Syria” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russia Warns of ‘Negative Consequences’ If U.S. Targets Syria

Russia’s deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, warned on Thursday of “negative consequences” if the United States carries out military strikes on Syria over a deadly toxic gas attack.

“We have to think about negative consequences, negative consequences, and all the responsibility if military action occurred will be on shoulders of those who initiated such doubtful and tragic enterprise,” Safronkov told reporters when asked about possible U.S. strikes.

When asked what those negative consequences could be, he said: “Look at Iraq, look at Libya.” (Read more from “Russia Warns of ‘Negative Consequences’ If U.S. Targets Syria” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.