URGENT PRAYER REQUEST- Update on Kenneth Bae: "US Ready to Bargain with N. Korea for Bae's Release,"- CBNNews.com, Aug 14, 2013 http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/August/S-Ready-to-Bargain-with-N-Korea-for-Baes-Release/ - The United States is willing to engage North Korea to secure the release of imprisoned American Christian Kenneth Bae. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the United States is "willing to consider a number of different options" to bring him home.In a video recently released by a North Korean newspaper, Bae requested the United States send a high-ranking official to North Korea to seek his pardon. It is unclear if he spoke of his own volition in the video. Bae, 45, was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for sharing his faith. He suffers health problems such as diabetes and is currently hospitalized.[PRAY for 1) God's healing of and presence with Pastor Bae, 2) His earliest release by the North Korean government, and 3) God's comfort for his family and friends.]
“Abandoned” For Christ" - Graham Calls On White House To Support Abedini - By Dr. Tom Askew, Aug.8, http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/opinion
Franklin Graham is the latest to join the chorus of voices calling for U.S. State Department and White House officials to take a more vocal role in protesting the Iranian imprisonment of American pastor Saeed Abedini. September 26 will mark the one year anniversary of Abedini’s imprisonment for allegedly “endangering the national security” of Iran.
Graham pointed out that, in contrast to Iranian accusations, “Pastor Saeed was in Iran trying to help children. With the permission of Iran’s government, he was working to build an orphanage. But his humanitarian mission led to an arrest on bogus charges and nearly a year of inhumane treatment, simply because he loves Jesus Christ.”...
Behind the scenes, more than 600,000 people around the world have signed a petition sponsored by ACLJ in support of pastor Abedini. A concerted movement this past May brought together Christians from many nations to set aside Pentecost to pray for Abedini. On June 13, demonstrations were held at Iranian embassies in at least six countries to protest Abedini’s treatment. And, on July 29, Arizona Republican Representative Trent Franks spoke on the floor of the House to urge other Congressmen to join him in “adopting” Pastor Abedini through the bipartisan Defending Freedoms Project.
Saeed’s response…and yours - Through his family living in Iran, Pastor Abedini has been made aware of these efforts on his behalf, and is grateful. “I heard that the persecution, my arrest and imprisonment has united churches from different denominations, from different cities and countries. That the churches have united together in prayer to put one request (my freedom) on one day (Pentecost) before God,” he wrote in a letter.
The story of Saeed Abedini, the jihad against Syrian Christians, the attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt, and the ongoing desecration of churches in Nigeria and India should cause every American to reflect on the blessings of freedom still enjoyed in this nation.
PRAY: - For comfort and peace for Saeed’s wife and children here in the U.S.
- For a strong witness and testimony from Pastor Abedini in the prison where God has placed him
- For Christians around the world who are being persecuted for their faith in Christ
- BOLDly (Beside Our Leaders Daily) for leadership from the White House and State Department in defending the freedoms of Abedini and other Americans
Go to SaveSaeed.org to sign a petition over 600,000 others asking for his immediate release.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"What to Do in Syria," - By Amy Payne, August 29, 2013
Reports are rampant that the Obama Administration will call for U.S. missile strikes against the regime in Syria at any time now. That country is embroiled in a civil war, with opposition forces fighting dictator Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. has interests to protect in the region, but becoming directly involved in this civil war isn’t the answer [1], Heritage experts say. And the question of what to do in the conflict isn’t as simple as giving aid to the Syrian people, because Islamist terrorist groups are blending with the opposition and jockeying for power.
Heritage Middle East expert James Phillips has called the Obama Administration’s policy on Syria “a strategic and moral failure [2].” Here, Phillips and Heritage’s E. W. Richardson Fellow, James Carafano, answer some key questions about the Obama Administration’s current decision point.
Why is President Obama talking about using U.S. military force in Syria?
Assad has reportedly used chemical weapons against his own people, killing hundreds in an August 21 attack. This attack came a year after President Obama stated that chemical weapons use would be a “red line” that would trigger more active U.S. involvement.
Since Assad reportedly crossed the “red line,” what is happening now?
Reports of chemical attacks in December [3] and March [4] indicated that the Assad regime was testing the Administration’s red line, but the White House slow-walked [5] its investigation into the attacks to buy time to formulate a response. Now, Assad has defiantly called Obama’s bluff. Boxed in by the President’s statements on the red line, the Administration has struggled to respond.
The fact that the Administration remains in disarray about how to respond more than a year after the President laid down his parameters is a disturbing sign that does not inspire confidence. The National Security Council staff should have hammered out a response plan before the President put his own credibility—and that of the United States—on the line.
What should America be doing?
We should not be doing missile strikes [1], as many reports have indicated could be a possibility.
Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups have been the principal beneficiaries of Obama’s passive, “hands-off” approach to the worsening Syria crisis. The Obama Administration urgently needs to develop a strategy [2] not only to counter Assad’s use of chemical weapons but prevent those weapons from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, or other Islamist terrorist groups that have flocked to Syria. Rather than attempting to intervene directly in the conflict, the U.S. should be working with other countries in the region to hasten the end of the Assad regime and deal with the refugee crisis and terrorist strongholds..
[portions above only in bold my emphasis]
Heritage Middle East expert James Phillips has called the Obama Administration’s policy on Syria “a strategic and moral failure [2].” Here, Phillips and Heritage’s E. W. Richardson Fellow, James Carafano, answer some key questions about the Obama Administration’s current decision point.
Why is President Obama talking about using U.S. military force in Syria?
Assad has reportedly used chemical weapons against his own people, killing hundreds in an August 21 attack. This attack came a year after President Obama stated that chemical weapons use would be a “red line” that would trigger more active U.S. involvement.
Since Assad reportedly crossed the “red line,” what is happening now?
Reports of chemical attacks in December [3] and March [4] indicated that the Assad regime was testing the Administration’s red line, but the White House slow-walked [5] its investigation into the attacks to buy time to formulate a response. Now, Assad has defiantly called Obama’s bluff. Boxed in by the President’s statements on the red line, the Administration has struggled to respond.
The fact that the Administration remains in disarray about how to respond more than a year after the President laid down his parameters is a disturbing sign that does not inspire confidence. The National Security Council staff should have hammered out a response plan before the President put his own credibility—and that of the United States—on the line.
What should America be doing?
We should not be doing missile strikes [1], as many reports have indicated could be a possibility.
Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups have been the principal beneficiaries of Obama’s passive, “hands-off” approach to the worsening Syria crisis. The Obama Administration urgently needs to develop a strategy [2] not only to counter Assad’s use of chemical weapons but prevent those weapons from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, or other Islamist terrorist groups that have flocked to Syria. Rather than attempting to intervene directly in the conflict, the U.S. should be working with other countries in the region to hasten the end of the Assad regime and deal with the refugee crisis and terrorist strongholds..
[portions above only in bold my emphasis]
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/29/morning-bell-what-to-do-in-syria/
URLs in this post:
[1] becoming directly involved in this civil war isn’t the answer: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/25/top-5-reasons-not-to-use-missile-strikes-in-syria/
[2] a strategic and moral failure: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/syria-s-chemical-weapons-us-should-engage-syria-s-opposition-to-defuse-threat
[3] December: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/05/syrian-crisis-escalates-amid-renewed-concern-over-chemical-weapons/
[4] March: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/20/new-report-of-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-as-president-obama-lands-in-israel/
[5] slow-walked: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/09/syria-obama-administration-slow-walks-decision-on-chemical-weapons/
[6] Heritage Libertad: http://www.libertad.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Top 5 Reasons Not to Use Missile Strikes in Syria," - by James Carafano On August 25, 2013 There are press reports that the White House is considering missile strikes on the Assad regime in Syria to punish it for the use of chemical weapons. That is a bad idea for five reasons.
1. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is not adequate justification for direct military intervention. This dangerous doctrine, promoted at the United Nations, undermines U.S. sovereignty by arguing for an obligation of nations to intervene. As Heritage’s legal expert on sovereignty matters, Steve Groves, explains [1]: ''a doctrine that compels the United States to act to prevent atrocities occurring in other countries would be risky and imprudent. U.S. independence—hard won by the Founders and successive generations of Americans—would be compromised if the United States consented to be legally bound by the R2P doctrine. The United States needs to preserve its national sovereignty by maintaining a monopoly on the decision to deploy diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, political coercion, and especially its military forces.
2. A vital U.S. interest is not at stake. The U.S. does have an interest in the resolution of the conflict, but military force should be reserved for areas where the U.S. has a compelling need to act in defense of its own interests. There are other and more prudent options [2] for advancing U.S. interests to help resolve the conflict.
3. It would not be a wise use of military force. Military force should be used only if there is a clear, achievable, realistic purpose. Missile strikes are unlikely to deter the Assad regime and prevent further abuses. Rather, the U.S. risks escalating its involvement in the crisis.
4. Missile attacks would only make President Obama look weaker. Much like President Clinton’s ineffective cruise missile strikes on Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps, strikes would only be seen as a sign that the U.S. is lacking a clear, decisive course of action. The Middle East would see this as another effort from the Obama Administration to look for an “easy button” and lead from behind rather than exercise real, constructive leadership.
5. It would distract from what the U.S. should be doing. Rather than attempting to intervene directly in the conflict, the U.S. should be working in a concerted manner with other countries in the region to hasten the end of the Assad regime and deal with the refugee crisis, the resurgence of al-Qaeda, and the destabilizing efforts of Iran and Hezbollah.
[all portions in bold alone my emphasis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/25/top-5-reasons-not-to-use-missile-strikes-in-syria/
URLs in this post:
[1] explains: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/05/the-us-should-reject-the-un-
responsibility-to-protect-doctrine
[2] other and more prudent options: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/01/us-policy-for-a-post-assad-syria
No comments:
Post a Comment