HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Commissioner Sarnoff-Op EdSubmitted into the public
From: Marc Sarnoff record for item(s) •
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:24 PM on q • 1 1 , q- City Clerk
To: 'nancrum@miamiherald.com'; 'mmarquez@miamiherlad.com'
Cc: 'opedmiamiherlad.com'; 'marquezelnuevoherald.com'; Marc Sarnoff
Subject: Op By Commissioner Sarnoff
I am submitting the following op ed for consideration by the Herald and Nuevo Herald, I merely ask
that you acknowledge receipt not that you will publish:
Is America's new policy of unilateral disengagement creating America's window of vulnerability
described by Reagan in the 80's? No elected official occupies office without the virtues or baggage of
its prior incumbent's successes or failures. There is no clean slate to write a vision without the
restraint of its predecessors' decisions. The President had much to overcome from his predecessor,
with time; ownership of the office is transferred without qualification. Bob Schieffer's recent words are
a wake up call: "I don't want to sound like an alarmist but in my 40 years as a journalist I have never
seen the world in so much conflict and America so disengaged," or former Secretary of State
Madeline Albright's statement on Face the Nation: "the World is a mess." We lose credibility when we
draw lines and fail to take action when crossed. The Gaza underground tunnels afford Hamas the
movement of Iranian supplied missiles to rain down on Israel. In failing to negotiate a Status of Forces
agreement from Iraq, the United States lost the opportunity maintain a military force not to engage but
capable of directing the Iraqi military to coordinate defensive positions against Isis. If Isis is too radical
for Al Qaeda, what will Syria, Iraq, and Iran look like in 3 years, and who will control some of the
largest oil reserves in the world. Finally the downing of Flight 17 by a Russian manned and operated
BUK SAM 11 surface to air missile with the loss of 298 lives (let alone the unilateral annexation of
Crimea) dictates that a bully needs to be put in his place. Although imposing sanctions, there is and
will be no real effect by limiting a few friends of Putin's movement of money from one international
bank to another.
Putin denies the installation of a sophisticated listening base in Cuba and opening of the military base
in Venezuela, despite incontrovertible satellite imagery, placing Russia right back where the Soviet
Union was in the cold war, as an American hemispheric influencer. The world learned through Neville
Chamberlain the doctrine of appeasement (or non -engagement) is a delay tactic inevitably seeing a
more brutal end. Putin was raised on the edge of Russian bully politics and he is for all essential
purposes a bully. As a senior his time is limited, demonstrating the acuteness of the dilemma. Putin
has less than a decade to restore the Soviet Union/Russia to its world power. He unfortunately has
the economic machine to do so as Russia is the world's largest supplier of energy and Europe is
hooked to its supplier, muzzling its actions. China has recently signed a long term agreement with
Russia for its energy needs and is now muzzled in its response to the killing of 298 civilians on a
commercial airline.
The President's policy of unilateral disengagement can be traced back to the savings envisioned for
peace (no large military to feed, clothe, or pay —no large weaponry to further drag down our
economy), arguably allowing for the rebuilding of America. However this logic is skewed with the
world supply of energy coming from Russia and the Middle East the imagined savings will be paid at
the pump by every American, rich and poor, with the effects visited directly to the poor, through $6 to
$7 dollars a gallon in gas.
America has always been a world leader and at times, mistakenly, a world cop and nation builder. We
should not make the same mistakes again (those who fail to know history are doomed to repeat it),
but we must lead and take bold moves to prevent the creation or recreation of Putin's vision of Russia
through his Soviet eyes, or the spread of radical Islam. We must engage in smart selective
IA-40995 - 5uwil-tol - CQmmoliGner 50\r nor±- op Ed
engagement which embraces real politic as opposed to ideal politic. Selective containment of those
who oppose America's interests must be practiced. We must become more strategic and less
ideologic in our view of Islamist expansionism. Our goals must be realistic and focused. We must
unqualifiedly support Israel.
In 2007 the City of Miami passed a law preventing the City from investing either directly or indirectly in
Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. At the next commission meeting I will ask the resolution be amended to
include Russia, Syria, and Venezuela. Sanctions have their place but they must be directed and
effective. Europe's recent sanctions do not ban existing sales of Russian arms, energy (sale of
technology to Russian oil companies), and finance, by blocking 3 additional banks.
The policy of non -engagement must not create a window of vulnerability whether actual or perceived,
because to a bully perception is the same as reality. Fathers' study war so their sons can study
engineering and so their sons can study arts and culture.
Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff
35500 Pan American Dr.
Miami, Fl. 33133
MARC DAVID SARNOFF, ESQ.
915 Miami Center
201 S Biscayne Blvd
Miami, Florida 33131
T 305.371.2223
F 305.373.2073
msarnoff@salawmiami.com
UTO ,SHE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
geci ON -LVLOI'
L1L' V TALL J 11VWULI dVV. &I. L.
OPINION
Leaving U.S. Allies Adrift as Chaos Rises
y Joseph Lieberman
When I was getting into
politics in Connecticut
a long time ago, an
experienced politician
counseled me: Be loyal
your friends and people who have
ipported you. Take care of them
henever you can. You should also
y to convince people who opposed
nu in the last election to support
)u in the next election, but never
3 that by being disloyal to your
iends or you will end up without
zybody you can depend on when
)u need help.
n Eastern Europe, Asia and
he Middle East, America's
iends are on the defensive
nd increasingly feeling alone.
I have been thinking of that wise
)unsel as numerous crises threaten
to world's security —from Ukraine to
;rael, from the Senkakus to Syria.
ormer Secretary of State Madeleine
lbright spoke for a lot of us when
:le recently observed: "The world is
mess." In the midst of a mess, there
a natural tendency to avoid getting
evolved or take sides. That has been
ie reaction of many Americans and
teir leaders.
But it is at just such times when it
most important to get involved, to
ike sides, and make clear that we
now who our friends and foes are —
rid that we will stand with our
iends and against our foes. Over
istory that has proved to be an
ffective way for a superpower like
le U.S. to clean up the "mess" of
eopoities and
p event r gio
Submitted into tie pu lic
record for item(s) .Cl
on q • 11 • I� . City Clerk
conflicts from becoming wider wars.
Unfortunately, in recent years that
has not been the foreign policy of the
U.S. and our closest European partners
in NATO. When other powers —Iran,
Russia and China —have acted aggres-
sively, we have reacted ambivalently,
slowly or not at all. Too often we
have sent a message of uncertainty
to our allies and enemies, making the
former more anxious and the latter
more ambitious.
The conflict in Syria is a painful
example. When the uprising against
Bashar Assad began, it was domi-
nated by patriotic Syrian freedom
fighters who pleaded for our help.
Saudi Arabia and other American
allies in the Arab world urged us to
provide arms to the rebels and
offered to help. We laid back. Iran
and Russia did not. They saw the
larger importance of the Syrian
conflict and poured in weapons and
personnel to support Assad.
The result has been enormous loss
of life, the "re-election" of Assad, and
a big opportunity for Islamist
extremists who now control large
areas of Syria and Iraq that they have
declared an Islamic caliphate from
which they plan to attack America.
The worst of that would likely have
been avoided if we had supported
our natural allies in Syria early on.
The disappointment and anxiety of
our Arab allies and Israel have only
grown as the P-5+1 nuclear negotia-
tions with Iran have gone forward in
a way they believe gives too much to
their foe, Iran, and listens too little
to their counseL In the clearly stated
opinion of friends like the Saudis, we
and the Europeans have been naive
and ineffective and, as a result, they
have begun planning how to deal
with a nuclear Iran. Those plans
include obtaining their own nuclear
weapons.
N
4
The actions of the U.S. in response
to the current war between Israel,
our closest ally in the region, and
Hamas, a violent, extremist organiza-
tion, have further divided us from
our allies. The Obama administration
has rightly supported Israel's right to
defend itself against Hamas's missile
and terrorist attacks, but the
administration's recent efforts to
broker a cease-fire sent an unsettling
message. The White House seemed to
be siding with Qatar and Turkey,
supporters of,Hamas, and against not
just Israel, but also Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab
Emirates and the Palestinian
Authority, who don't want to see
Hamas emerge stronger from the
conflict. The U.S. succeeded in
infuriating Israel, encouraging
Hamas and Iran, and once again
shaking the confidence of our friends.
In the Asia Pacific, our closest
allies are following events in the
Middle East to determine whether
they can rely on U.S. support if they
are threatened by China. They are
not encouraged by what they see.
Allies around the South China Sea
were shaken by our tepid response
when China moved a giant oil drilling
rig into waters that they and we have
considered to be Vietnamese. When
China asserted its sovereignty over
the Senkaku Islands, which Japan and
the U.S. have long considered to be
Japanese, the Japanese government
accelerated the development of its
military capabilities. They no longer
have confidence that we will protect
them, even though President Obama
declared a few months ago that he
would come to Japan's defense if
China seizes the Senkakus.
In Eastern Europe, our soft
response to Vladimir Putin's seizure
of Crimea, and our slow reaction to
his deceptive and treacherous
support of Russian separatists in
eastern Ukraine before the shoot -
down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
unmasked him, stirred disappoint-
ment and anger among Ukrainians
and anxiety among NATO allies in
Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and
Latvia. This week President Obama
and the European Union did the
right thing in imposing much
tougher economic sanctions on
Russia. But why haven't we given
lethal assistance to the Ukrainian
military and redeployed more NATO
troops to Poland and the Baltics?
Those are actions that Mr. Putin is
more likely to understand.
Today, in the Middle East, Asia
and Eastern Europe, America's allies
are on the defensive and increasingly
feeling alone, while Iran, the Islamist
extremists, Russia and China are on
the move. In response, our allies may
be tempted to seek out a different
partner or build up their military
capabilities, making the world much
more dangerous.
This is self -evidently not good for
America's security, prosperity or
freedom. It can be turned around if
we stand more clearly with our allies.
Some will say that the U.S. cannot
and should not be the world's
policeman. But if we want our allies
to join us when we ask for their help
in protecting order and freedom in
the world, we must take sides and be
there when they need our help.
As my mentor in Connecticut
politics would have understood,
strong and -consistent support of our
allies must be a foundation of U.S.
foreign policy in this unstable and
unpredictable world —for America's
good and the world's.
Mr. Lieberman, a former four -term
U.S. senator from Connecticut, is
senior counsel at Kasowitz, Benson,
Torres & Friedman.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 14, 2014
Gaza Crisis: Israel Outflanks the White House on Strategy
White House Now Scrutinizing Israeli Requests for Ammunition
Benjamin Netanyahu, left, looks on as President Barack Obama speaks at the White House in March. Bloomberg News
JERUSALEM—White House and State Department officials who were leading U.S. efforts to rein in Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip were
caught off guard last month when they learned that the Israeli military had been quietly securing supplies of ammunition from the Pentagon without their
approval.
Since then the Obama administration has tightened its control on arms transfers to Israel. But Israeli and U.S. officials say that the adroit bureaucratic
maneuvering made it plain how little influence the White House and State Department have with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu —and that both sides know it.
The munitions surprise and previously unreported U.S. response added to a string of slights and arguments that have bubbled behind the scenes during
the Gaza conflict, according to events related by senior American, Palestinian and Israeli officials involved. (See photos and maps surveying the
destruction in Gaza.)
In addition, current and former American officials say, U.S.-Israel ties have been hurt by leaks that they believe were meant to undercut the
administration's standing by mischaracterizing its position and delay a cease-fire. The battles have driven U.S.-Israeli relations to the lowest point since
President Barack Obama took office.
[[ The Destruction in Gaza
* * * * * CAPITAL JOURNAL * * * * *
• Gaza Cease -Fire Holds After Extension
• Sign Up: Get Capital Journal Daybreak email
ruourk P`COD
!IBgee• q
TEM
Now, as Egyptian officials shuttle between representatives of Israel and Hamas seeking a long-term deal to end the fighting, U.S. officials are bystanders
instead of in their historic role as mediators. The White House finds itself largely on the outside looking in.
U.S. officials said Mr. Obama had a particularly combative phone call on Wednesday with Mr. Netanyahu, who they say has pushed the administration
aside but wants it to provide Israel with security assurances in exchange for signing onto a long-term deal.
As a 72-hour pause in the fighting expired at midnight Wednesday, a senior Hamas official said negotiators agreed to another cease-fire, this one of five
days. The cease-fire was holding on Thursday.
The frayed relations raise questions about whether Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu can effectively work together. Relations between them have long
been strained over other issues, including Mr. Obama's outreach to Iran and U.S.-backed peace talks with the Palestinians.
Today, many administration officials say the Gaza conflict —the third between Israel and Hamas in under six years —has persuaded them that Mr.
Netanyahu and his national security team are both reckless and untrustworthy.
Israeli officials, in turn, describe the Obama administration as weak and naive, and are doing as much as they can to bypass the White House in favor of
allies in Congress and elsewhere in the administration.
While Israeli officials have privately told their U.S. counterparts the poor state of relations isn't in Israel's interest long term, they also said they believed
Mr. Netanyahu wasn't too worried about the tensions. The reason is that he can rely on the firmness of Israeli support in Congress, even if he doesn't
have the White House's full approval for his policies. The prime minister thinks he can simply wait out the current administration, they say.
"The allegations are unfounded," said Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer. "Israel deeply appreciates the support we have received during the
recent conflict in Gaza from both the Obama administration and the Congress for Israel's right to defend itself and for increased funding of Iron Dome."
A senior Obama administration official said the White House didn't intend to get into a "tit for tat" with the Israelis when the war broke out in Gaza. 'We
have many, many friends around the world. The United States is their strongest friend," the official said. "The notion that they are playing the United
States, or that they're manipulating us publicly, completely miscalculates their place in the world."
American officials say they believe they have been able to exert at least some influence over Mr. Netanyahu during the Gaza conflict. But they admit
their influence has been weakened as he has used his sway in Washington, from the Pentagon and Congress to lobby groups, to defuse U.S. diplomatic
pressure on his government over the past month.
r RECORD 70
�E. q q-► I -poi
Israeli soldiers fire a mortar toward the Gaza Strip. Reuters
Tensions really started to flare after Israel launched Gaza ground operations July 17 and the civilian death toll started to rise sharply, prompting U.S.
officials to complain that Israel wasn't showing enough restraint. Israeli officials rejected that notion, saying Hamas was using civilians as human shields.
U.S. officials say Mr. Netanyahu told them he was interested in a cease-fire from the start, but the two sides clashed over the process of achieving one
and the players who would take part.
Bracing for a longer military campaign than expected, Israel approached the Defense Department within days of the start of the ground fighting to
request money for more interceptors for the Iron Dome, which shoots down rockets aimed at population centers.
After consulting with the White House, Defense Secretary Chuck Hegel told aides to submit a proposal to Congress for $225 million.
Within the administration, the request was deemed noncontroversial because the Iron Dome was defensive and couldn't be used in Gaza ground
fighting, U.S. officials said.
In meetings at the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, Israeli officials told the Americans Israel had enough Iron Dome interceptors
for the current Gaza operation, but wanted to replenish its stocks, according to U.S. officials who attended. So with Israel's consent, the administration
didn't seek immediate emergency funding, Pentagon officials said, adding that they expected Congress to approve the request sometime in the fall.
Unknown to many policy makers, Israel was moving on separate tracks to replenish supplies of lethal munitions being used in Gaza and to expedite
approval of the Iron Dome funds on Capitol Hill.
On July 20, Israel's defense ministry asked the U.S. military for a range of munitions, including 120-mm mortar shells and 40-mm illuminating rounds,
which were already kept stored at a pre -positioned weapons stockpile in Israel.
The request was approved through military channels three days later but not made public. Under the terms of the deal, the Israelis used U.S. financing
to pay for $3 million in tank rounds. No presidential approval or signoff by the secretary of state was required or sought, according to officials.
A U.S. defense official said the standard review process was properly followed.
While the military -to -military relationship between Israel and the U.S. was operating normally, ties on the diplomatic front were imploding. For the
Americans, they worsened dramatically on July 25, when aides to Secretary of State John Kerry sent a draft of a confidential cease-fire paper to Mr.
Netanyahu's advisers for feedback.
The Americans wanted the Israelis to propose changes. The U.S. didn't intend or expect the draft paper to be presented to the Israeli cabinet, but that
was what Mr. Netanyahu did. U.S. officials say Mr. Netanyahu's office breached protocol by sending back no comments and presenting the paper to the
cabinet for a vote.
The paper was also leaked to the Israeli media. U.S. officials say they believe the Israeli government publicly mischaracterized Mr. Kerry's ideas with the
intent of buying more time to prosecute the fight against Hamas because Israeli officials were angry over outreach by Mr. Kerry to Qatar and Turkey.
Israel and Egypt had sought to sideline Qatar and Turkey —two countries that backed Hamas—rather than increase their influence. U.S. officials say Mr.
Kerry reached out to the two because they had leverage with Hamas that would be critical to getting the group to agree to another cease-fire.
From Israel's perspective, Mr. Kerry's cease-fire draft reflected an approach "completely out of sync with Israel, not just on a governmental level but on a
societal level," said Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. under Mr. Netanyahu.
"The best thing that Kerry can do is stay out... We need time to do the job, we need to inflict a painful and unequivocal blow on Hamas. Anything less
would be a Hamas victory," Mr. Oren said.
The watershed moment came in the early morning in Gaza July 30. An Israeli shell struck a United Nations school in Jabaliya that sheltered about 3,000
people. Later that day, it was reported in the U.S. that the 120-mm and 40-mm rounds had been released to the Israeli military.
"We were blindsided," one U.S. diplomat said.
White House and State Department officials had already become increasingly disturbed by what they saw as heavy-handed battlefield tactics that they
believed risked a humanitarian catastrophe capable of harming regional stability and Israel's interests.
They were especially concerned that Israel was using artillery, instead of more precision -guided munitions, in densely populated areas. The realization
that munitions transfers had been made without their knowledge came as a shock.
"There was no intent to blindside anyone. The process for this transfer was followed precisely along the lines that it should have," another U.S. defense
official said.
Then the officials learned that, in addition to asking for tank shells and other munitions, Israel had submitted a request through military -to -military
channels for a large number of Hellfire missiles, according to Israeli and American officials.
The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, or DSCA, was about to release an initial batch of the Hellfires, according to Israeli and
congressional officials. It was immediately put on hold by the Pentagon, and top officials at the White House instructed the DSCA, the U.S. military's
European Command and other agencies to consult with policy makers at the White House and the State Department before approving any additional
requests.
Cease -Fires in Gaza
An Hour -by -Hour Breakdown of Cease -Fires in Gaza
Several cease-fires have been proposed and broken since the
most recent conflict began in Gaza on July 8, 2014.
Planned cease-fire periods are identified in light blue; observed cease-fire periods in darker blue.
UBUC uECORD FOr'.
RE.9
A senior Obama administration official said the weapons transfers shouldn't have been a routine "check -the -box approval" process, given the context.
The official said the decision to scrutinize future transfers at the highest levels amounted to "the United States saying 'The buck stops here. Wait a
second...It's not OK anymore."'
White House and State Department officials were worried about public reaction.
The Palestinians, in particular, were angry, according to U.S. diplomats.
"The U.S. is a partner in this crime," Jibril Rajoub, a leader in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Western -backed Fatah party, said of the decision
to provide arms to Israel during the conflict.
Even as tensions with the White House and the State Department were spilling over, Israeli officials worked to expedite the Iron Dome money on Capitol
Hill.
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said Israeli officials told lawmakers the money was urgently needed because they were running out of
interceptors and couldn't hold out for a month or more.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Congress's goal in approving the money quickly on Aug. 1 was to send a message to the
administration to stop calling Israel out about civilian casualties.
A senior Republican congressional aide said Israeli officials told senators they wanted the money sooner rather than later. He said Israel's main purpose
in accelerating the vote in Congress to before legislators' August recess was to provide an overwhelming "show of support" for the military operation.
The last straw for many U.S. diplomats came on Aug. 2 when they say Israeli officials leaked to the media that Mr. Netanyahu had told the U.S.
ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, that the Obama administration was "not to ever second-guess me again" about how to deal with Names.
The White House and State Department have sought to regain greater control over U.S.-Israeli policy. They decided to require White House and State
Department approval for even routine munitions requests by Israel, officials say.
Instead of being handled as a military -to -military matter, each case is now subject to review —slowing the approval process and signaling to Israel that
military assistance once taken for granted is now under closer scrutiny.
A senior U.S. official said the U.S. and Israel clashed mainly because the U.S. wanted a cease-fire before Mr. Netanyahu was ready to accept one.
"Now we both want one," one of the officials said.
A top Israeli official said the rift runs deeper than that. 'We've been there before with a lot of tension with us and Washington. What we have now, on top
of that, is mistrust and a collision of different perspectives on the Middle East," the official said. "It's become very personal."
—Joshua Mitnick contributed to this article.
Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com
QED u h,
UBLIC RECORD FOE
�112E- q C a-ikaDii-