My latest at PJ Media:
As of today, John Bolton is no longer President Trump’s national security adviser, but whether he jumped or was pushed is a matter of some controversy. Trump tweeted: “I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House.” Bolton, however, disputed the idea that he was fired, himself tweeting: “I offered to resign last night and President Trump said, “Let’s talk about it tomorrow.” He later elaborated: “I offered to resign last night. There was no request for a resignation.” The more important question, however, is what this means for the Trump administration going forward.
“I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration,” said Trump, “and therefore I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service. I will be naming a new National Security Advisor next week.”
According to Fox News, “Bolton’s removal comes after the hawkish adviser was reportedly sidelined from high-level discussions about military involvement in Afghanistan, after opposing diplomatic efforts in the region.” Fox quoted an unnamed “White House official,” who said: “Simply put, many of Bolton’s policy priorities did not align with POTUS.”
Bolton apparently opposed Trump’s plan to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan; he also, according to the Fox report, “led a quiet effort inside the administration and with allies abroad to convince the president to keep U.S. forces in Syria to counter ISIS and Iranian influence in the region.”
The Washington Post stated several days ago that Bolton also opposed the Trump administration’s peace talks with the Taliban..
There is much more. Read the rest here.
Tony Naim says
I am afraid the president is wrong on this one and John Bolton is right: you do not deal with savages, you crush them
mortimer says
The president wants to crush their economies.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, our giving money to Afghanistan is not crushing their economy.
And holding peace talks with the Taliban is not crushing them, either. Instead, it just embolden’s them.
gravenimage says
emboldens
Mike says
What is the success of sucg a politic in niddle East ?
Mike says
I’m glad Trump fired Bolton . it shoudl gave been done long ago .
gravenimage says
Do you hate anyone who impedes pretending that Jihadists are partners for peace?
LB says
I agree. But pussyfooting about the issue is not the solution. Either utterly annihilate them with everything you got leaving nothing behind, or back out completely (financially, militarily and technologically) and let them stew in their own rot. There is no middle ground or compromise with islamic shitholes like Afghanistan.
Ole Pederson says
It was about time!
I completely disagree with the other opinions. John Bolton is an extremist warmonger on the verge of lunacy. With this guy the US could have stumbled into the next war. That the other posters here seem to would have preferred that is inconceivable to me.
There was nothing I wished Trump to do more, than to oust this guy. This feels like a breath of fresh air!
Thank you Mr. Trump. May his successor be someone with more brains and less ideology.
And btw Iran can dissolve itself. No need to interfere.
gravenimage says
So Ole doesn’t believe that Jihad exists? It all just warmongering on the part of the ‘filthy Infidels’, I suppose…
Ole Pederson says
Dear gravenimage, where is the logic in your question?
I could ask you in a similar logic: “So gravenimage, you do believe that the earth is flat?”
Could it be that you see one word and immediately feel compelled to babble your ever-same monologue? Or maybe you live in a world of black-and-white and believe in violence as a solution to everything.
The question of whether you think Bolton a good advisor is completely irrelevant to the question how to deal with Jihadists.
I will point out just this:
1. Iran as a nation never militarily attacked another nation, instead it was attacked for example by Iraq (when Saddam Hussein was supported by the USA and even encouraged to attack Iran), about one million were killed.
2. While Iran has one of the most despicable terror-regimes in the world and is known to support islamist terror groups for jihad, the same applies to Saudi Arabia. Exactly the same. Moreover, Saudi-Arabia openly makes war on Yemen. But Saudi-Arabia is ally of the USA! Saudi Arabia even can buy US weaponry for billions of $.
Why not bomb Saudi Arabia instead? Why the double standards?
Angemon says
“Iran as a nation never militarily attacked another nation”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/act-of-war-mattis-says-obamas-inept-response-to-cafe-milano-bomb-plot-emboldened-iran
Ole Pederson says
Oh and one more. You never learn, do you?
The US: bombed Iraq and put away with Saddam Hussein. What do we have now? Chaos, civial war, Islamic terror in spades, the Islamic state.
The US bombed Lybia and put away with Ghaddafi and what do have now? Chaos, civil war, and a springboard for illegal immigration to Europe.
Just what do you think will happen when the US attack Iran? Iranians will be happy about that?
Not all of them support their horrid regime.
gravenimage says
Ole Pederson wrote:
The question of whether you think Bolton a good advisor is completely irrelevant to the question how to deal with Jihadists.
……………….
Actually, the whole point here is whether Bolton was giving good advice on the issue of dealing with Jihadists. People can differ on that question, but the idea that Nation Security has nothing to do with Jihad is a very strange assertion.
Avenger says
Of course the Saudi troll Angemon comes to the rescue for his Sunni masters.
He cites one trivial piece of hearsay garbage to try to vilify Iran’s exemplary peaceful past history.
Angemon says
“Of course the Saudi troll Angemon comes to the rescue for his Sunni masters.”
were it true, I would be the worst Saudi sunni ever, seeing how I routinely trash Saudi Arabia… And, of course, there’s the whole thing about me supporting Israel – that would make me the double worst Saudi sunni ever…. Oh, and I “come to the rescue” of Saudi Arabia without mentioning it. You called me “Saudi Troll” but left out “wizard”…
“He cites one trivial piece of hearsay garbage”
By which you mean Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis denouncing an attempted attack by Iran to America. Of course, were this, in fact, “trivial hearsay garbage”, the pro-Russian apologist troll going by the moniker “Avenger” wouldn’t needs to rush to Iran’s defense… Go back to claim that Jay Smith and David Wood are “islamic indoctrinators” and let the grown-ups talk…
P.S.:
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-attempted-attack-in-Paris-half-a-ton-of-explosives-found-report-593523
Angemon says
“Iran’s exemplary peaceful past history”
“Death to America” and “destroy Israel” are “exemplary peaceful”? LOL!!!!!
gravenimage says
Avenger wrote:
Of course the Saudi troll Angemon comes to the rescue for his Sunni masters.
He cites one trivial piece of hearsay garbage to try to vilify Iran’s exemplary peaceful past history.
………………….
What claptrap–the idea that if you have a problem with Shi’ite Jihad activities that you ergo are a supporter of Sunni Jihad. These are the same kind of claims that christianblood has made. (where has he gone? Has he been recalled by his Russian handlers?)
It is inconceivable to either of these apologists for the Mullahs that it is possible to *hate all Jihad*, whatever sect is its discreet source.
Avenger cannot, of course, cite anything to back up his calumny against Angemon.
And the idea that taking diplomatic staff hostage for over a year is “exemplary” is is just grotesque.
Naildriver says
I was all for Bush going into Afghanistan.
But as with Iraq he botched it up, and the USA even had to suffer the ingratitude and out right insults from the bald idiotic president they elected — and the implementation of Islam into their constitution that was about the same had we just let the Taliban run things.
The idea of conquest is to defeat the enemy — Islam is the enemy . A secular country should have been the objective – and insisted upon.
Joh Soudas says
Great Story , thanks
I can say from the Greek American radio station I listen to that we Greek American that follow this story are meeting this with overwhelming joy and relief that Bolton is out of there.
Greek Americans consider John Bolton a turkophil and an enemy of Greece and all Greek Americans.
Years ago he made statements about Greek Americans being suspected of being in league Russia plain and simple because Greece and Russia are Greek Orthodox Christians. Hence we Greeks and Russian are from the same religion i.e threats to America.
J D S says
Who REALLY knows FOR SURE. is in league with Russia or even with the devil??? For sure , China, North Korea, Mongolia…..but as for other European Countries?????
gravenimage says
Citations?
RichardL says
I visit Longwarjournal on a regular basis. My wife knows the guys who run it. I have been commenting on Longwarjournal for years that all US soldiers should be withdrawn from Afghanistan because drones can easily do the job of decimating jihadis and poppy fields. About a year ago, Longwarjournal changed and now also advocates such a solution. Their map listing contested and Taliban controlled provinces shows clearly what direction the countries is in. The US and the other allies established the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – the insanity of that alone is hard to grasp. What I am sying is that Longwarjournal has many contacts in the administration and has been advising the Obama and the Trump admin. So someone is proposing what we here would like to see and someone is listening.
J D S says
We have the ability to take out anyone ANYWHERE without boots on the ground…but the guts to do it and what the aftermath would be …. well most know the answer..In so m e cases .maybe….just maybe a wipe out might be the answer. Peace talks in any Muslim country is just a waste of time….Voodoo????
Trick_or_Treat says
What now? Well I’ve just, overnight, been watching proceedings apparently (so it’s huffed and it’s puffed) to establish grounds for the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump as your President. And (in their remotest wildest fancy) should that event occur, what then?
And WHEN do you think it will be when all these demented goats finally come out of this seemingly psychopathic obsession with this ‘Donald Trump-Russian collusion thing and move on?
Some time back my son sent me a pearler of a meme (I’ve still got it on my phone), It shows a dude sitting demurely on the end of a couch (looking kind of fazed, and into space) and a rather concerned looking woman shrink sitting in a chair with her clipboard notes saying to him, “Now, I have to ask this, …is the Russian Collusion here in the room with us right now?”
gravenimage says
Even most Democrats–like Nancy Pelosi–know that Trump being impeached and removed from office simply is not going to happen. But many hard leftists know this is red meat for their base, and want to go through the motions. Never mind that many polls have shown that this effort will just hurt the Democrats.
tim gallagher says
Off this topic, I’m in Australia, and I just came across a story on news.com.au that might interest Jihad Watch. I don’t think you have dealt with this, although I may have missed it. The title is “Defiant Saudi women stun onlookers by wearing western clothes in public”. The main woman mentioned is Mashael al-Jaloud. She is shown wearing western clothes amongst the usual black tent wearing women. I am someone who knows pretty much nothing about computers or how people upload reports to you, etc, but I think you should check this report out. I thought it was a bit like the reports of women in Iran ditching the head gear. Sometimes I do wonder and hope that things like this indicate that primitive, backward Islam is losing its grip on people. Probably not, but here’s hoping. You probably would deal with this report, but I thought I’d mention it to you.
Angemon says
Whether in Saudi Arabia or Iran, that usually doesn’t end up well for them…
gravenimage says
Thank you, Tim. That story is here:
“Rebel women fight back by wearing western clothing in Saudi Arabia”
https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/13/rebel-women-fight-back-wearing-western-clothing-saudi-arabia-10734434/
And, sadly, Angemon is right. Just a year or two ago, a woman was arrested for taking a selfie of herself unveiled in a public space.
tim gallagher says
The extraordinary courage of these women amazes me. As you say, Angemon, it doesn’t usually end well. As I said, up above, I wonder if these incidents are a tiny little chink in the armour of backward Islam. Maybe there are some people who just can’t stand to live as though they were still way back in the 7th century anymore. If these types of incidents keep happening, maybe it’s a tiny ray of hope. It certainly takes incredible courage to be one of these trail blazers.
gravenimage says
I do hope so.
CogitoErgoSum says
If the purpose of the U.S. staying in Afghanistan is to make sure the nation is built around the American ideal of democracy, it’s never going to happen as long as the majority of the people in Afghanistan are Muslim. Their idea of democracy is not the same as the American idea of democracy. For Muslims, especially those in the Taliban, any laws will have to be in compliance with Islamic principles as taken from the Quran, the Hadiths and the life of Muhammad. Read the constitution of Pakistan or Iran. There will need to be a “Supreme Leader” or an Islamic Council or, as in Saudi Arabia, a King, to act in the place of the Caliph to make sure the country is run according to the principles of Islam — and those principles do not allow for laws that grant equality to “unbelievers” (whom the Koran also calls “evil-livers).
From doing my own quick read of the constitution of Afghanistan I can see that there are not enough provisions in it to insure all laws are in accordance with Islamic principles. As for the Loya Jirga, the powers granted to it and the composition of its members do not seem sufficient to guarantee every law passed will be sufficiently examined for adherence to Islamic principles before enactment. See the constitution here:
https://www.afghanembassy.us/about-afghanistan/constitution/
Do we have anything in writing as to exactly what it is that the Taliban want … or are the Taliban actually numerous competing groups with no common goal as to what the shape of the government should be? If they are not unified amongst themselves there is no way anyone can get anywhere negotiating with any one group of them. Endless war is Afghanistan’s destiny until one group becomes powerful enough to make all the others submit. It looks like another Vietnam to me where the U.S. will have to declare “victory” on its own and let the Afghan people fend for themselves … unless the U.S. wants to stay there forever throwing money and lives down a bottomless pit.
gravenimage says
+1
gravenimage says
Bolton Out: Now What?
……………..
“Diplomatic efforts”? Pretending that the bloody Taliban are rational diplomats is madness.
Reziac says
Trump generally gives everyone a chance to either negotiate, or hang themselves. The Taliban chose to hang themselves. Trump has obviously accepted that (he did say, “The Taliban talks are dead” with great emphasis), and was quite angry about their perfidy. I don’t think the Taliban will get many favors from Trump, even if they come crawling to the table.
gravenimage says
I hope you are right, Reziac.
underbed cat says
Treaties in Islamic countries are temporary pauses, that are only agreed to until they can strengthen. Meanwhile mosque send out migration groups to travel to western countries to set up communities to act peaceful, gain trust, inhibit freedom of speech, demand gun control, criticize host country, capture the press, and educate followers to infiltrate the leadership roles in non islamic countries. Occasional terror attacks are denied as radicalized extremist with no goal or connection to the close mosque where the Q book and terror collude. In fact you would be ostracized if it would even be mentioned. Suddenly citizens of invaded countries get converted by deception and the problem never ends. Now that the U.S. has spent money and received gifts from rich Islamic countries we have educated their future physicists to provide the training for big weapons. So why is it growing in the United States? So tell me again why the doctrine of sharia is ignored? Who is winning this war? How to strengthen our country and defend against the inside job of getting Americans to hate America? It won’t happen with darkness and fibs and a conquered press. In my opinion and as a fact jihad is not peace.
gravenimage says
Too true.
Infidel says
The best option is to pull out all troops, but with orders to burn down all Afghan poppy fields and massacring as many Talibs as possible. That way, future enemies will fear US withdrawals more than occupations
That said, I agree more with Rand Paul than Liz Cheney on what our foreign interventions should look like. Also, John Bolton was not anti Jihad: he only opposed Iran and the Taliban, but had no criticism of Qatar, Turkey or the Saudi backing of AQAP in Yemen. He seemed to be under the illusion that the only Jihadist threat to the West are Shias, even though Sunni incidents outnumber Shia incidents in the same proportion as their populations. Pretty much like Lindsay Graham
Infidel says
Oh, and I hope someone like Col Doug McGregor succeeds Bolton in this role. He has a better idea of how to pull US troops – currently posted in 150+ countries- back home
underbed cat says
Disappointed to read John Bolton is now gone,.I felt he was a good counter balance to Pompeo, who I had less faith in but only due to the realization that he has not changed the CVE strategy that suppresses language of Islamic terror down to radicalized nuts, instead of Islamic terror…that follow the Quranic concepts of war to bring sharia world wide and conquer allies. CVE prohibits knowledge about the doctrine which is how after all these years fighting a war we wrote Constitutions in Afghanistan and Iraq to operate under sharia law,is a goal of all terror groups that we we fought and many have lost the lives of many young men fighting the obsessive drive for sharia for Allah. The negotiator has middle eastern name and if he is follows the Quran is not able to be trusted, that is right out of the doctrine. Sharia is oppressive and deadly. So in fact while soldiers were dying over there fighting, the left won’t shut down borders or define the enemy we fight, now we have more mosques every day and already they have conquered much of our economy, are operational in the states, the press still harasses the President and lauds over the President who weclomed the enemy to set up camp in all 50 states. Do our soldiers know the enemy we fight, many signs were missed….in the middle east it was forced on people, that many did not want there is no tolerance there for Christian and Jews, who will survive.
Writing sharia constitutions was crazy,I still cannot wrap my thoughts around …such betrayal.
J D S says
It’s tough to be the Secretary of State….I would not wants “lap dog” there….many times a presidents appointed and advisors know more than the president….about state affairs….and have good insight because many of them “have been there and done that”
As to John Bolten..I listened carefully when he was a Fox news contributed and liked what he said . I :O of e Fox invites him back.
OLD GUY says
Strong personalities often clash, I also am sorry to see Trump let John Bolton go. In government and especially in foreign affairs you need people with different views and ideas. John Bolton thank you for your service.
James Lincoln says
President Donald Trump named Charles M. Kupperman as the acting national security adviser Tuesday after John Bolton’s ouster.
Kupperman served on the board of directors for the Center for Security Policy from 2001 through 2010 .
Sounds like a good pick, Mr. Kupperman is a staunch anti-jihadist…
gravenimage says
You are right, James. Here’s the SPLC smearing him:
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/09/11/trumps-acting-national-security-adviser-once-tied-group-known-anti-muslim-stance
He sounds pretty good.
Chand says
Phew! (sigh of relief)
gravenimage says
How *dare* anyone think that pretending that Jihadists aren’t civilized diplomats, huh?
Kepha says
Mixed feelings here. On the one hand, Bolton understood the seriousness of international threats, and that there are people out there who hate us for who we are even more than they do for what we have ever done. Yet Bolton’s hawkishnes on the Afghanistan venture was wrong-headed. That intervention needs to be terminated, and should’ve been terminated shortly after OBL’s beshrouded cadaver got dumped into the Arabian Sea. Only the Mongols ever succeeded in truly pacifying that country, and they did so by razing Balkh and Herat to the ground, building pyramids out of the severed heads of the people, and made sure that good-sized sections of the country would have populations that looked like the Mongols centuries later. In our case, we are further dependant on Pakistan for our logistics, and Pakistan is not an ally.
@Ole Pedersen: If Iran is so peaceful, why is the Revolutionary Guard in Syria and Lebanon (and in the latter, training and supporting Hizbollah)? If we Americans were dirty, aggressive imperialists for trying to keep Soviet proxies from rising in Latin America or trying to shore up non-Communist regimes in Asia, so is Iran for playing simiar games on a smaller scale.
And as for the destabilizations of Syria and Libya, that was the handiwork of the world’s beloved Obama [mal-]administration; whose Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power decided to play their feminist game of anything-you[nincompoop Bush II]-can-do[overthrow an Arab dictator]-I-can-do-better. It did not matter a fig to either of those overrated bats that Bush II had scared Qaddafi out of his nuclear ambitions and that Qaddafi had essentially been tamed; or that the brave Sunni rebels of Syria were part and parcel of the same movement that had brought us 9/11 in the first place.
And, sorry to break the news about the Iran-Iraq war, but that didn’t need US support to break out. Sadam Hussein was an ally of the great, progressive Soviet Union back then, and a personal friend of Fidel Castro. Perhaps we in Washington might’ve engaged in a bit of Schadenfreude at old and new enemies having a go at each other. Sadam also had to remind his Shi’ite population, with their mainly Iranian-origin ‘Ulema, that they could not look to Iran to deliver them.
At this point, the USA needs a far more realistic foreign policy that recognize that history is going to happen, especially to those determined to have it happen to them. The descent into sectarian, tribal, and ethnic chaos that bubbles up in Syria and Iraq as soon as an iron fist is either shattered or loosens up the tiniest bit ought to be proof enough that the Sykes-Picot lines were a foredoomed project. In Asia, we need to recognize that if we thought that we would become friends with Communist China due to a common interest agains the Soviets in the later Cold War, for Beijing, this was only a temporary rapprochement with an enemy they had chosen as early as two years before their declaration of the PRC (if not earlier). Our investment in maintaining the borders of 1946 at all costs basically trained us to accept an imperial state all while bankrupting us; perhaps it would be wiser to simply declare that if oter countries cannot establish a workable social contract, we won’t feel guilty about it. Recognize Taiwan (especially now that Beijing has told Japan that Japan might need to reconsider its sovereignty over the Ryukyus). Recognize Somaliland and Puntland. Prepare to Recogniize Ambazonia, Kurdistan, West Papua, Balochistan, and Sharki Turkistan, if need be.