Former Pentagon chief Gates dings Obama’s leadership, Biden’s foreign policy chops

nbcpolitics

By Carrie Dann, NBC News

The former defense secretary who served under both President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush has less than glowing praise for America’s top two elected officials.
In a new memoir, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” former Pentagon chief Robert Gates writes that Obama lacked commitment to the decisions he made about his strategy in Afghanistan, the New York Times reported Tuesday.
“As I sat there, I thought: The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war to be his,” Gates writes in the new book. “For him, it’s all about getting out.”
He also writes that the White House's national security staff lacked experience and tended towards  "micromanagement of military matters."
His words for Vice President Joe Biden are even more harsh, the paper reports.
“I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” Gates wrote of Biden, whom he also described as a “man of integrity.”
Before becoming vice president, Biden served as the longtime head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
While critical of Biden, Gates appears to favor former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The NYT writes that Gates has “especially high praise” for Clinton.
The Washington Post adds, however, that Gates says both Clinton and Obama admitted to basing their opposition to the 2007  "surge" in Iraq in part on political considerations.
"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying," Gates writes, according to the Post.
Both Clinton and Biden are considered possible contenders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Foreign Storms Await Second Term

Foxnews

Map of Foreign Policy Challenges for President Obama's Second Term/ brookings.edu

President Obama vowed, during his second inaugural address Monday, to "manage crisis abroad" in pursuit of a more "peaceful world." 

But four years after the president first took the oath, the task remains perhaps his most daunting. 

Moments before Obama spoke at the west front of the Capitol, confirmation that two more Americans had been killed in the hostage standoff in Algeria undercut the president's optimism. The news ups the tally of U.S. citizens killed to three, while seven others made it out safely. 

The brutal, and evidently planned, attack in the Sahara underscores how much work is left to be done on the world stage as Obama embarks on his second term. While the president spent the bulk of his first four years focused inward -- on jolting the American economy, overhauling the health care system and campaigning -- the number of international challenges has only mounted. 

The attack in Algeria is the latest symptom of an emerging threat outside the Afghanistan-Pakistan axis that has been the focal point of America's "war on terror" since 2001. Plots have sprung out of Yemen, out of Libya and now Algeria, representing a massive band of instability spanning North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula -- not to mention the convulsing civil war in Syria. 

Despite the challenge ahead, Obama on Monday sustained the message of reconciliation that drove his first term's foreign policy. 

"We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law," Obama said. "We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully -- not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear." 

When Obama was first elected four years ago he talked an ambitious foreign policy. His first-term agenda included restoring America's tattered international image, ending two wars, using a carrot-and-stick approach to Iran's nuclear program and helping broker peace in the Middle East. Fast forward four years and the harsh reality is that many goals are unmet. 

His biggest accomplishment, and the one that factored most into his reelection campaign, was the take-down of Usama bin Laden in Pakistan. But Al Qaeda's affiliates and allies have continued to threaten U.S. interests abroad, with a former Al Qaeda operative claiming credit for the attack in Algeria, where a total of 38 hostages reportedly have died. 

Militants also stormed the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi in September, killing four Americans. The attackers have not yet been brought to justice. 

As the president starts his second term, he will be forced to confront a number of other still-pending policy issues that could affect America's dominance in the global arena -- but it won't be easy. 

During his first term, Obama signaled a willingness to work diplomatically with Tehran over nuclear capabilities. When that didn't work, the U.S. tried coming down harder, threatening economic sanctions. In the months ahead, U.S. officials will try once more -- this time, talking directly with Iranian officials. It's important the meeting goes well. Obama has repeatedly said that it is "unacceptable" for Iran to have access to nuclear-weapon capabilities. If Iran doesn't back down, Obama will likely face more questions on whether the U.S. would back up its words with military action -- or let Israel do so. 

The scene isn't much better in the Middle East. 

Two days before the president's first inauguration in 2009, Hamas and Israel had agreed to a cease fire after a three-week war. Today, little if anything has been resolved. Getting beyond the centuries-old political divide has proven tough for the Obama administration. Last week, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed Obama's reported displeasure with his hard-line policies toward the Palestinians, some say paving the way for a clash in the future. 

In Syria, the Obama administration has steered clear of military involvement but President Bashar al-Assad's crackdown which has left 60,000 dead could force the United States' hand. Concerns that the Assad government may use chemical weapons have continued to plague the country. If those allegations are proven true, it may mean the U.S. could get militarily involved. 

On Monday, Arab League Chief Nabil Elaraby said resolving Syria's crisis had not produced "a flicker of hope."  Elaraby called for the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Syria. He also wants to create a monitoring force to make sure the job gets done. 

In China, the White House's big plan to build an economic partnership hit a wall when accusations that the U.S. was trying to curb China's ambitions surfaced. 

Still, some say that while big problems in Iran persist and Israeli-Palestinian tensions continue to escalate, it's the smaller conflicts and threats in Algeria, Mali and Libya that serve as a fresh reminder of the president's uphill battle ahead. 

On Sunday, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said that several reports had surfaced that "something big" was about to happen against a Western target but that there were few details that accompanied the threat. 

"We didn't know for sure, for certain it would be this particular place under those circumstances, but we knew that they were trying to find a Western target, which this clearly was," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said on ABC News' "This Week." 

Roger's comments came after the four-day hostage crisis ended in Algeria. There have been three arrests so far. On Sunday, a video surfaced of terrorist leader Mokhtar Belmokhtar claiming responsibility for the attack.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/21/foreign-policy-in-obama-second-term/#ixzz2IeGKSr26

Unanswered questions from the debate

Security Clearance

By CNN's National Security Unit/ Morgan Hitzig

The final debate of the presidential election was notable for all the areas of foreign policy on which the two candidates seemed to agree. But in their answers were plenty of unanswered questions about how they would handle key foreign policy issues going forward.

Where do things stand on Iran?

It was hard to see concrete differences between the candidates Monday on when it will be necessary to use military force against Iran's nuclear program - the so-called "red line."

Both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney sought to portray themselves as tough on Iran and as having Israel's back. Both suggested they would be willing to use military power if necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But neither was exactly clear about what point at which they would act to prevent that from happening.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the red line should be preventing Iran's "breakout capacity," meaning the point at which Iran has enough uranium enrichment for a nuclear weapon and the technology and know-how to fit a nuclear warhead on a delivery system, such as a long-range missile.

During the debate, Obama repeated his campaign pledge merely to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

"As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon," Obama said Monday night.

Until now, the Obama administration has suggested its red line was a strategic decision by the Iranian regime to build a nuclear weapon and the move to build one. That position has caused tension with Netanyahu, who feels Obama has not sent clear enough warnings to Tehran.

But on Monday, the president injected some new language into his refrain, saying American intelligence cooperation with Israel and other countries would give Washington "a sense of when (Iran) would get breakout capacity."

"Which means we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program," Obama said.

So did the president move up the benchmark up during Monday's debate? He never did finish the thought and say either what he meant by breakout or whether he would stop it.

An administration official said Tuesday that the president's red line has not changed.

"We will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, the official said. The president's point "is that because of intelligence capabilities and IAEA efforts, we have a sense of their timeline."

Romney's position has been closer to Netanyahu, saying he would stop Iran from having break-out capacity. On Monday, he split the difference, moving closer to Obama's position.

Failing to raise the ambiguous question of the red line, Romney threatened military action if Iran developed "nuclear-weapons capability."

But it's far from clear what Romney means here: Enough uranium to build a weapon - which could take a matter of a few months –or the means to quickly assembly and deploy a nuclear warhead atop a missile? Earlier this year, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said it would take two to three years for Iran to produce a bomb and have a deliverable weapon on a missile.

The vagueness with which both candidates answered the question of when to take out Iran's nuclear program left more questions than answers.
– By Elise Labott

What's the plan to deal with Syria?

The debate focused for a few minutes on the plan for Syria. But the difference between the two candidates was negligible at best. The real question is does either have a true plan for stopping the violence by the regime of Bashar al-Assad?

Obama laid out his plan, which for the moment involves aiding the opposition but not intervening directly.

"We are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition," the president said. "But we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step, and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping; that we're not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region."

Romney, for his part, seemed to have the same plan.

"The right course for us, is working through our partners and with our own resources, to identify responsible parties within Syria, organize them, bring them together in a - in a form of - if not government, a form of - of - of council that can take the lead in Syria. And then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves," Romney explained. "We do need to make sure that they don't have arms that get into the - the wrong hands."

Romney insisted "I don't want to have our military involved in Syria. I don't think there is a necessity to put our military in Syria at this stage."

Obama was quick to point out the similarities.

"What you just heard Gov. Romney said is he doesn't have different ideas. And that's because we're doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate Syrian leadership and a - an effective transition so that we get Assad out. That's the kind of leadership we've shown. That's the kind of leadership we'll continue to show."

For now, the most meaningful difference between the two has been on what arms to give Syrian rebels. Romney has called for supplying arms that could defend against al-Assad tanks and aircraft.

"In Syria, I'll work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and then ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks helicopters and fighter jets," Romney said in a speech earlier this month.

The Obama administration has been reluctant for even allies in the region to provide such heavy firepower for fear of who would end up with the weapons.
– By Adam Levine

What's their approach to the unraveling of the Arab Spring?

For both candidates, the Arab Spring and the forces it unleashed on the streets of the Middle East and North Africa bear close watching in the days, weeks and months ahead, they said. But for the president especially, questions remain over the administration's initial approach as well as the uncertain future of the movement.

On Tunisia, where cries for political reform from protesters in the region began, Obama said "my administration stood with them earlier than just about any country."

But did the administration show its full-fledged support for the protesters as early as Obama asserted?

After a fruit vendor set himself on fire to protest the corruption of longtime dictator President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in December 2011, it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who told Al-Arabiya that "we are not taking sides" in the protests that had been going on for almost a month at that point. Clinton added the United States hoped for a "peaceful resolution," and "I hope the Tunisian government can bring that about."

It was not until a few days later when Ben Ali had fled Tunisia for an exile in Saudi Arabia that Obama issued a statement applauding "the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people."

The abuses and excesses of the Ben Ali family did not go unrecognized by the administration however. In leaked diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks, the U.S. ambassador warned of widespread corruption in the North African country.

"By many measures, Tunisia should be a close US ally. But it is not," U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec wrote. "The problem is clear. Tunisia has been ruled by the same president for 22 years."

In a similar vein, Obama said Monday that in Egypt, the United States "stood on the side of democracy" in the uprising that eventually overthrew longtime dictator President Hosni Mubarak.

As the protests began in Cairo's Tahrir Square on January 25, and in the days immediately following, the Obama administration did not immediately call for Mubarak's stepping down from power.

In an interview with CNN on January 30, Clinton said the United States stood on the side of a "democratic Egypt that provides both political and economic rights to its people" but stopped short of calling for Mubarak to leave power.

And in a phone conversation with Mubarak on February 1, Obama spoke about an "orderly transition" in Egypt, according to a White House read out of the call, but did not call for Mubarak to step aside - the mantra of a majority of the protesters in Tahrir Square at that point.

Ten days later, following a televised address in which Mubarak announced he would delegate some of his powers but not step down until later in the year, Obama issued a statement calling on the Egyptian government to "spell out in clear and unambiguous language the step-by-step process that will lead to democracy and the representative government that the Egyptian people seek."

While there was no call for Mubarak to step down in that statement, the longtime Egyptian president did so the next day.

But the path forward for the U.S. role in the region, especially Egypt, remains unclear. Both candidates recognize the U.S. must work with Egypt's new government and help develop an economy. But how to do that, while ensuring the country does not trample the democratic rights of women and minorities, is unclear.

In the debate, Obama cited U.S. efforts to organize entrepreneurship conferences to better assist Egyptians with "rebuilding their economy in a way that's noncorrupt, that's transparent." But just after he said that, Obama said for America to be "successful in this region, there are some things that we're going to have to do here at home as well."

After more than a decade at war, Obama said it was time for the United States to look inward and further develop its own economy. "It's very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we're not doing what we need to do here," he said.

For his part, Romney sounded a similar theme as to the future of U.S. engagement with these young democracies.

"But for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong, and that begins with a strong economy here at home," Romney said. "And unfortunately, the economy is not stronger."
– By Jamie Crawford

What do they say about the fiscal cliff?

Defense spending continues to be a major point of contention between Obama and Romney. But the president left many wondering if he knew something nobody else did when he flatly declared during the debate that further cuts "will not happen."

The cuts, an additional $500 billion over 10 years, will go into effect if a deficit deal cannot be reached. But that's still a matter of negotiation with Congress. Romney has tried to say that sequestration, which is what the further cuts are called, is an Obama plan. The president rightly points out that it is something that Congress agreed to as a way to force them into making difficult decisions.

"First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen," Obama said during the debate.

That was surprising in its certainty. Republican's pounced. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee e-mailed out a statement questioning Obama's involvement in trying to head off sequestration.

"It is a nice line, but for more than a year, the president hasn't lifted a finger to avert the crisis," said the statement from U.S. Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California. "The president and his party in the Senate have failed to offer even a single real solution that could resolve sequestration. If the president is determined that these cuts won't happen, why has he drug it out this long?"

Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod tried to explain it when Jessica Yellin, CNN's chief White House correspondent, interviewed him after the debate.

"Well, he can be sure because when the people vote on November 6 and the president is re-elected, a strong message will be sent - sent that the American people want a balanced approach to solving this problem," Axelrod said. "There are plenty of people on both sides who want to get that done."

White House senior adviser David Plouffe told Politico that the president was merely reflecting the reality that the cuts are something everyone wants to avoid.

"Listen, you talk to Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. No one thinks it should happen. It was designed so what the parties have to do," Plouffe told Politico.
– By Adam Levine

Why was Romney agreeing to agree so often?

Perhaps one of the most surprising aspects of the third and final debate was Romney's willingness to agree with the president on variety of topics, further closing the foreign policy gap between the two candidates and making it more difficult to discern any true difference. Throughout the debate, Romney agreed to agree with Obama.

But Romney did have some more nuanced positions in areas where he appeared to overall agree with the president.

On Iraq, Romney said his desire to maintain a troop presence after the U.S. withdrawal was no different than the president's failed efforts to negotiate an agreement with the Iraq government to leave 3,000 to 5,000 troops in country. However, Romney supported having 10,000 troops stay in Iraq after the withdrawal.

On Egypt, Romney supported the president's decision to stand with the pro-democracy protesters and against then-President Hosni Mubarak. However, Romney said he wished Obama had had a better vision for the region before the Arab Spring ignited.

"I wish that, looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that, that we'd have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world," said Romney, "and that we would have worked more aggressively with our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form government such that it didn't explode in the way that it did."

On Israel, Romney and Obama expressed strong support for the Jewish state. However, Romney took a more strident tone in response to Bob Schieffer's question: Would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States?

Whereas Obama replied the U.S. would "stand with Israel," Romney replied, "if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily. That's number one."

On Pakistan, Romney contended the strained relationship between the United States and Pakistan was a necessary evil when it came to finding Osama bin Laden, but he noted "there was a great deal of anger even before that." Romney said the presence of terrorist groups such as the Haqqani network and the Taliban in Pakistan as well as the stockpile of nuclear weapons there means "we can't just walk away from Pakistan." But he said the more than $1 billion in aid the U.S. gives Pakistan "is going to have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met."

On drones, Romney asserted his support for the president's increased use of armed unmanned aircraft to kill terrorists. However, the governor used the question on drones to continue his attack on the president's strategy in the region, citing tensions with Iran, al Qaeda's resurgent and growing presence and continued unrest in the Middle East and North Africa.

"Let me also note that, as I said earlier, we're going to have to do more than just going after leaders and ... and killing bad guys, important as that is," said Romney. "We're also going to have to have a far more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and Islamic extremism."

Auge y decadencia de la actividad exterior del castrismo (I)

Cubanálisis El Think-Tank

Juan Benemelis y Eugenio Yáñez/
La baja prioridad estratégico-militar que África y América Latina tenían tradicionalmente para los Estados Unidos influyó en que este país no respondiera en toda su dimensión a los problemas que le planteaba Cuba. La incapacidad de Occidente para una respuesta de acción rápida en el área convencional pesó tanto como la pérdida de terreno ante Pekín, la guerra del petróleo, el ascenso político internacional de los estados africanos y la escasa importancia que Washington prestó a tal fenómeno. Todos estos factores se dejaron sentir cuando la URSS y Cuba llevaron a cabo la campaña angolano-etíope, la afgana, la salvadoreña, la de Namibia y la de Yemen del Sur.

Leer >>

Three Fundamental Mistakes in Dealing with Islam

FrontPageMaganize/ Daniel Greenfield

We made three fundamental mistakes in our dealings with Islam. First, we assumed that the only politically acceptable answer was also the right answer. This is the most common mistake that politicians make.

Second, we established a construct of a moderate and extreme Islam that reflected how we saw it from the outside. This construct had no theological relationship to any actual belief or movement within Islam. Had we made the division into modern and fundamentalist, we would at least have been using words that meant something. Instead we used moderate and extreme in a military sense to mean hostile and friendly or neutral. But as a Vietnam era president and military command should have known, in a guerrilla war not everyone who isn’t shooting at you is friendly or even neutral.

Our construct was black and white with few shades of gray. But the Muslim world is all shades of gray. The absolute choice we wanted them to make, “you’re either with us or with the terrorists”, was foreign to their culture and their way of life. Multiple layers of contradictory relationships and alliances are the norm in the region. You expect to betray and be betrayed, much as you expect to cheat and be cheated while bartering for a carpet at the souk. In a region where coalitions of Fascists, Communists and Islamists are doable, contradictions don’t exist, all alliances are expedient and built on an expected betrayal. The rise of Islam itself was built on broken peace treaties. So it is no wonder then that in response to Bush’s call, they chose both us and the terrorists. Appeasing America and the Islamists at the same time was their version of the politically safe middle ground, the path of least resistance and the only acceptable option.

And the more we prattled about the peacefulness of Islam, the more we looked like we could be easily appeased with a few gestures. And so it was the Islamists who were more threatening, who got the benefit of of their appeasement. We had asked Muslim countries for an alliance with no mixed allegiances, in a region where only kin could ask or count on such an arrangement. And we are not their kin, neither by blood and certainly not by religion. While we insisted that all people were the same, this was a statement of our belief, not theirs. And they did not believe that we believed it either.

Rather than learning what the Muslim world was, we had already decided what we wanted it to be. But our perspective was a foreign one. They might pander to it, but they would never dictate their own beliefs by it. We might talk of a moderate or extreme Islam, but that is our idea, not theirs. There is more than one form of Islam, they are not defined by their extremism or moderation. Nor by their approach toward violence. No more than we are.

Muslim theology is violent, because violence has always been a tool of its expansion. When we ask Muslims to disassociate themselves from violence, we are really asking them to disassociate themselves from Islam. And this they will not do. They will contextually condemn some acts of terror, depending on the identity of the perpetrators and the targets, and the impact of the acts on the nation and ideology of the Muslim or Muslims in question. But they will dub other acts of terrorist as valid resistance. The differences are not moral, but contextual. More >>

Another Disgraceful Apology Frenzy

FrontPageMaganize/ Bruce Thornton

Two recent news stories about Afghanistan reveal the delusional mentality of those conducting our foreign policy. The first is about some Marines who urinated on the corpses of Taliban fighters. Such behavior, of course, is mild compared to the sort of brutal treatment of both the living and the dead typical of all wars ever fought. Nonetheless, this act is contrary to the rules of war and the professional code of the Corp, and as such should be punished. That’s all our official spokesmen need to say about the matter, for it concerns a violation of our military’s high standards that have helped make it the most professional, lethal, and ethical force in the world.

The foreign policy establishment, however, has fallen all over itself issuing solicitous apologies. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed her “total dismay,” a reaction stronger than her comments about the Egyptian military slaughtering Copts. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta phoned the utterly corrupt and duplicitous beneficiary of our power and money, Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai, to assure him that those responsible would be found and punished for such a “deplorable” act. Of course, this is a part of the world where brutal violence against civilians is routinely used as a tool of politics, and where torture and mutilation of the living, let alone the desecration of the dead, are standard operating procedure. Yet we cede the moral high ground to Karzai, who said the soldiers’ behavior was “inhuman and condemnable in the strongest possible terms,” something I don’t recall him ever saying about the terrorists murdering our soldiers. Even more risible was the response of the Taliban, who condemned the “inhuman act of wild American soldiers,” one “in contradiction with all human and ethical norms.” This from a group that when it ruled Afghanistan, used a European-built soccer stadium to bury non-shari’a-compliant women up to their necks and then stone them to death, and to machine-gun and behead other miscreants. More >>

The #Kissinger Transcripts: The Top Secret Talks with Beijing and Moscow

by William Burr

WASHINGTON, D.C., 10 January 1999 -- The National Security Archive at George Washington University today released its new book of previously top secret transcripts of Henry Kissinger's meetings with Chinese and Soviet leaders while he served as national security adviser and Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including the full transcript of the historic first meeting between Nixon and Mao in February 1972.

The transcripts fill in major gaps in Kissinger's memoir version of his triangular diplomacy with Beijing and Moscow, revealing his previously secret attempt to create a "tacit alliance" with China while deceiving the Soviets about the relationship. According to the transcripts, Kissinger repeatedly offered satellite intelligence to the Chinese from 1971 to 1973, high speed computers in 1975, and even a hot line for early warning on Soviet troop movements.

These never-before-published near-verbatim transcripts, most of which were previously classified "Top Secret/Sensitive/Exclusively Eyes Only," provide scintillating detail on the personalities of world leaders like Mao, Brezhnev, Nixon and Kissinger himself, such as Mao's query to Kissinger (and then-Ambassador George Bush) about Jewish ownership of American newspapers.

Published by The New Press (distributed by W.W. Norton & Co.), the book resulted from a 6-year investigation by National Security Archive staff led by senior analyst William Burr, a Ph.D. diplomatic historian, who reconstructed this record through Freedom of Information Act requests and archival sleuthing. The only complete set of these transcripts remains locked in the Library of Congress under Kissinger's personal control, unavailable to the public without his permission until 5 years after his death; but Archive staff tracked down copies in Nixon and Ford presidential papers, State Department files, and in the papers of Kissinger's aides.

The National Security Archive is a public interest research library located at George Washington University. Founded in 1985, the Archive now holds "the largest collection of contemporary declassified national security information outside the U.S. government," according to the Christian Science Monitor. A project of The Fund for Peace supported by foundation grants and publication royalties, the Archive has become a "Nexis of national security," according to the Washington Journalism Review, and "a state-of-the-art index to history."

#Castrismo: La Comuna de Paris o Napoleon?

Dmitri Prieto Samsónov de la  Red Protagónica Observatorio Crítico  se muestra consternado con la reinauguracion del emblematico Museo Napoleonico, pero aun mas con la invitacion especial  para participar en la misma de Su Alteza Imperial la Princesa Maria Letizia Bonaparte Leer  mientras que el 140 aniversario de la Comuna de Paris paso inadvertido en los medios de propaganda del regimen. 

Lo que Dimitri no logra comprender aun, es que la lamentable “omision” del Dpto Ideologico y el jubileo kubiche en torno al Corso, se asocia al necesario atemperamiento de un clan ahora mas interesado en las listas de Forbes, el jet set y las realezas.