"The US Is Quietly Torpedoing Its Relationship With ..." Topic

…Pacific Island Partners

"Earlier this month, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the status of assistance being provided to the Freely Associated States (FAS) of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. The report revealed that the Trump administration has failed to properly staff necessary – and legally required positions – in a timely manner, preventing the FAS from satisfying their own reporting obligations.

Actions speak louder than words, and the administration's actions – or lack thereof – in its dealings with the FAS are undermining the United States' interest in a region that U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Commander Admiral Samual J. Paparo described as "the Department of Defense's priority theater."

As any World War II scholar can attest, the small islands that are spread out over the Pacific Ocean were critical for the United States' ability to defeat the Japanese. Today, these islands make up roughly 20 independent countries and territories that have legal control over not only the land, but more than 7 million square miles of maritime territory. This area, which is twice the size of the United States, remains important for the same military reasons that existed 80 years ago. In addition to national security, the Pacific is also economically important, with hundreds of billions of dollars of goods being shipped through it every year, including significant portions of American imports and exports…"

link

Armand

This article claiming that the Trump administration is "quietly torpedoing" America's relationship with Pacific Island partners is a classic example of alarmist commentary that exaggerates routine challenges into strategic disasters by a former advisor to Palau to help keep the no-strings-attached USAID $$ flowing in despite increasing US concerns of corruption and fraud.

The article leans heavily on a GAO report that highlights delays in staffing joint oversight committees under the Compacts of Free Association. While these delays are worth addressing, they hardly amount to "torpedoing" the entire relationship. New administrations routinely face hiring freezes, transition issues, and bureaucratic adjustments. Similar implementation delays occurred under previous administrations as well.

It is important to note that core COFA funding—billions of dollars committed over the next two decades—remains largely protected because it is directly tied to U.S. national security interests and are no longer disbursed by USAID, but directly from the US State Department with more oversight and scrutiny. These agreements provide critical military access and strategic denial against China in a vitally important region. The United States is not walking away from these commitments.

Many of the problems facing the Freely Associated States the author describes, such as population decline, skilled labor shortages, and governance challenges, predate the current administration. Attributing all of them to recent U.S. policy shifts is overly simplistic. On immigration and deportation matters, the U.S. has every right to enforce its own laws and borders and in this case block pass-through travelers from China. Pacific nations are not exempt from these policies.

The article spends a lot of time being angsty about the restructuring of USAID and reduced emphasis on multilateral climate initiatives. Like I said, the Trump admin is cracking down on easy money. These changes reflect a deliberate shift toward more efficient, results-oriented engagement rather than open-ended spending and performative diplomacy.

China's growing influence in the Pacific is a serious long-term challenge that began accelerating during the first Obama administration and intensified under Xi Jinping. Since the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013 — with its maritime "blue economic passage" reaching the Pacific around 2017-2018 — Beijing has pursued an aggressive, multi-pronged strategy. Multiple Pacific nations signed BRI memoranda, leading to major infrastructure projects such as stadiums, ports, airports, and roads funded by Chinese loans and built by Chinese firms. This effort included high-profile diplomatic switches: Solomon Islands and Kiribati switched recognition from Taiwan to China in 2019, followed by others. China has engaged in widespread influence peddling, including reported bribery of officials and elites to secure contracts and political outcomes. There are well-documented cases of elite capture, opaque lending terms that raise debt concerns, and efforts to shape local media and public discourse in Beijing's favor. The 2022 security pact with Solomon Islands marked a significant escalation, raising alarms about potential dual-use facilities.

These activities are not at all reactive to U.S. staffing delays as the author claims. No, they reflect a deliberate, sustained campaign of economic leverage, corruption risks, and strategic encroachment that predates recent American policy adjustments by over a decade. The United States maintains unique strategic advantages through the Compacts of Free Association that Beijing cannot easily replicate, but China's designs in the South Pacific are clear – isolate and dominate Australia using much the same logic as Imperial Japan did in WW2, albeit with different measures.

Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.

Ha!…

Armand

SBm +1

Oh dear -- seems the prospect of turning off the easy money spigot via the out of control USAID to corrupt regimes has a few folks here in high dudgeon!

SB +1

Everything he does sends them into high "high dudgeon". 🙄

Not everything 35th….but sometimes he is wrong, and reverse engineering his mistakes can miss the bigger picture. USAID cuts to Ukraine and Africa were significant, alongside would health support, I believe.

The support for the Pacific islands could be seen as a way to help counter spreading Chinese influence. And Trumps withdrawal from the TranscPacfic agreement in the first term damaged Pacific trade to the tune of billions of dollars in losses rather than saving money, weakening the U.S. presence there. My opinion… China, China, China.

Correction, my last post

(Everything he does sends them into high "high dudgeon".)

Should have read:

It would seem, everything he does sends them into high "high dudgeon".

I did not copy correctly out of my original text. Did not highlight the portion of my previous line, or it dropped it when I moved down to the next line, highlighting. It happens.

noggin2nog: you are quite right, and the corruption is even in full daylight ! Not that I care, other actions, like the insane war against Iran allied with a government (Israel), is much worse because the corruption only costs Americans money, but the forementioned war demands its price in Europe (I see you are British, please come back !).

But posts like yours unfortunately only create stifles and jailtime… Anyway, I thought it good to applaud you before we are censored !

Well … that is one way to look at it …

like the insane war against Iran allied with a government Deleted by Moderator (Israel),

Yes, as it is OK for militant islamists to get nuke WMDs. And try to remove the only democracy in the region. Off the land that has been theirs's for over 3500 years. Verses islam which came late to the game in the 6th-7th Century.

I guess everybody reads history and facts in their own way… 🦄🌈

please come back !).

No need to rush …

According to Atul Gawande from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the shutdown of USAID has already caused approximately 600,000 deaths, with two-thirds of these being children. This figure highlights the immediate consequences of reduced funding for infectious disease control and malnutrition programs.

Trouble with the Isaelis re-occupying Israel is that the Palestinians have also been there for 3000 years plus. The PLST and other Sea Peoples were settled by the Pharaoh; as the Philistines they occupied much of the coast during Biblical times not part of Israel; and the lost tribes may also have stayed put (I don't know when they became lost ?).
Not as clear cut as the Israelis tell us.

To back up my point:

"Just nine minutes after U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche announced murder charges against Cuban leader Raúl Castro for the 1996 shootdown of two civilian aircraft flown by exile group Brothers to the Rescue, a coordinated rapid response network was already mobilizing across the U.S. to defend Castro and the Communist Party of Cuba.

At 1:54 p.m. on Wednesday, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a Marxist political organization deeply embedded in a "Hands Off Cuba" campaign, published six pre-produced graphics denouncing the indictment as a "BASELESS INDICTMENT OF RAUL CASTRO" and "A PRETEXT FOR ANOTHER WAR."

Hours later, at 3:18 a.m. early Thursday morning, Vijay Prashad, executive director at Tricontinental, a Marxist think tank, wrote on X, "Cuba is not a menace to the world. The United States is a menace to the world. The world stands with Raúl Castro, hero of the Cuban Revolution. The world turns its back on Donald Trump, clown of human destruction." Manolo De Los Santos, executive director of the People's Forum, a New York-based nonprofit, shared the message without a word, as did leaders from CodePink, another leftist organization."

Protecting Raúl Castro!

To add the ultimate kicker!

"… investigation has identified 145 nonprofits, labor groups, advocacy organizations and activist collectives across the U.S. that are mobilizing in support of the Cuban government and the Communist Party of Cuba. Together, the organizations report about $1 USD billion in combined annual revenue." 🙄

Yes, NfP's taking advantage of we the taxpayers of the U.S. to support a communist overseas. Only to oppose "one man".

According to Atul Gawande from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the shutdown of USAID has already caused approximately 600,000 deaths

This is a statistical construct, it has no basis in reality and CORE US aid funding is being delivered directly via the State department, heavily influenced by the local Ambassadors in relevant nations. USAID after we opened up that can of worms was a vast slush fund for unnacountable spending that grifted away – STOLE – hundreds of billions of dollars. Like $20 USD million on Iraqi Sesame Street, or millions for transgender surgeries in Guatemala, $12 USD million for male circumcisions in Africa, millions for pride parades in Peru and Ireland, tens of millions to fund Ukrainian media (the US funded 90% of Ukrainian media), and $18 USD billion on largely unnaccountable or wasted spending in Afghanistan. And all given to leftist and Democrat-linked NGOs…

Trouble with the Isaelis re-occupying Israel is that the Palestinians have also been there for 3000 years plus. The PLST and other Sea Peoples were settled by the Pharaoh; as the Philistines they occupied much of the coast during Biblical times not part of Israel; and the lost tribes may also have stayed put (I don't know when they became lost ?).
Not as clear cut as the Israelis tell us.

Totally false. The Philistines and Sea Peoples were GREEK, not Arab "Palestinians." The area of Israel has been under continual Jewish settlement for 5000 years. The modern "Palestinians" have zero cultural or genetic history with the original Phillistines. They are ethnic Arab peoples who arrived with the conquest of the region by Islamic armies in the 7th century. The nomenclature of the region, as you KNOW, was largely known as JUDEA until Rome renamed it after a Jewish revolt to try and stamp out Jewish identity. From Judea to "Syria Palestina" under the Roman Empire, the name carried forward under the Byzantines, then conquering Arab powers and Caliphates, continued under the Ottoman Empire and them the British Palestine Mandate.

When the province was partitioned by the UN, MOST of the land was given to the Arabs, created the nation of JORDAN and parts granted to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. A small sliver became Israel. The Arabs living in Israel did NOT have a Palestinian identity, that did not exist. This identity was largely manufactured and imprinted by the SOVIET UNION who sponsored the creation of Egyptian revolutionary socialist Yasser Arafat's "Palestinian Liberation Organization" as an asynchronous warfare tool against the US and Israel.

So while there is a "Palestinian" identity today, it dates back to the 1960s, not to the 3000 BC or so duration of Jewish presence in the land.

Sorry, not buying the 600,000 deaths in the timeframe involved. Not actual deaths, "estimated" deaths.

But just my view based on the below research.

"The 600,000 estimate comes from Boston University epidemiologist Brooke Nichols."

Just like I don't buy the "estimated" number of lives they claimed to save.

"Historical Baseline: Over the last two decades, USAID-supported programs prevented roughly 2.3 to 5.6 million deaths annually from HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, and acute malnutrition"

They have no idea if people would or would not have died. They base it all on estimation's.

I'm sure some lives have been saved. Just as I'm sure there is graft going on and a lot of wasted taxpayer dollars.

In addition there is money and jobs involved in obtaining that "taxpayer" money.

"While the academic modelers lose nothing, large international NGOs and humanitarian contractors did experience massive financial disruption. Organizations that relied heavily on USAID subcontracts to manage field operations had to lay off thousands of workers and shut down programs abruptly. Critics argue that these specific groups have a direct financial incentive to amplify dire projections to pressure the government into reversing the cuts."

As to those doing the research in "academic" institutions:

"Yes, it is statistically accurate to say that the vast majority of university professors and global public health researchers are politically progressive and lean heavily anti-Trump.While the researchers conducting these studies emphasize that their mathematical models are based on objective historical data and epidemiology, their political alignment is a central argument used by the administration to dismiss their findings.The tension between these academics and the administration stems from a mix of political identity, deep ideological differences on global policy, and direct professional conflict."

These institutions have been hit hard by administration cuts:

"The relationship between these specific academics and the administration is exceptionally hostile because the administration's policies have disrupted their professional world:

The Defunding of Science: Beyond cutting foreign aid, the administration has enacted a 90-day freeze on federal research grants, eliminated climate change and biomedical programs, and targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This has led to high-profile departures of scientists from U.S. institutions.

Public Rhetoric: The administration has frequently attacked higher education, with President Trump publicly labeling university faculty as "Marxist maniacs". This has created an environment where academics feel personally and professionally under siege.Direct

Emotional Response: The primary modeler behind the 600,000 estimate, Dr. Brooke Nichols, openly stated in interviews that when she heard about the initial aid freeze, she was "terrified" and "livid" because she knew people would die. Her decision to build the tracker was born directly out of that distress. Another major figure citing the death tolls, Dr. Atul Gawande, explicitly served in the Biden administration as a USAID official."

Finally, the doctor himself:

"Gawande's political and policy profile is defined by several key areas:

Early Political Career & The ACA: Gawande has deep ties to Democratic politics, having served as a health policy advisor to Al Gore and Bill Clinton early in his career. His 2009 New Yorker article "The Cost Conundrum" was highly influential in shaping President Barack Obama's vision for the Affordable Care Act.

Biden Administration Role: He served on President Joe Biden's COVID-19 advisory board in 2020. He subsequently served as the Assistant Administrator for Global Health at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where he managed international health programs."

So hardly qualifies as an unbiased observer.

SB +1

I responded to the first. You saved me from responding to the second.

SBS, the Philistines etc., may or may not have been Greek (they might have come from modern-day Turkey, before the Greeks were there ?), but the point is that they were there a long time ago and their descendants are still there, and are, in part, the Palestinians. Not to mention the Phoenicians, Samaritans, Amorites (of modern Jordan?)

I think its likely that cutting foreign aid caused some deaths around the world, but I am not going to buy any specific numbers, just no way to know. In any case, considering the small savings, not worth the bad PR and further erosion of credibility as well as losing the on the ground intel cover. Saving money turned out to be not a thing for the government anyway.

The pretext for taking over Cuba seems a little thin considering the amount of time that has elapsed and Castro is 94 years old. If they wait too long they will need another pretext. And as a distraction action, it won't trump Iran. But it will cost another bundle.

I never knew there were so many Marxists running around. I don't begrudge them First Amendment rights, they can spin their wheels like anyone else. And I am free to have my low opinion of Marxism.

Y'alls wasting a butt ton of time that could be better spent painting figures.

I just spent 40 minutes writing an epistle on the issues raised in this thread then decided to take my own advice.

Glup!…

Armand

+1 HMS Exeter.

Australia uses rugby league as a premier tool of foreign relations, soft power, and sports diplomacy with Papua New Guinea. By leveraging the shared obsession with the sport, Australia has pledged a $600 USD million investment to integrate a PNG-based team into the National Rugby League by 2028, actively deepening geopolitical ties and regional security.

AFAIK the Chinese don't play Rugby League so this is money well spent if it keeps them at arm's length.

@dagwood – you're spouting historical nonsense in support of your political position. At BEST you can say that even though the identity of "Palestinian" originates in the 1960s, and there are no ancient ties to the land, it is nonetheless now an identity held by millions of people that needs to be accomodated to the extent practical.

SBS, see the recent thread on Philistine graves.

Do you really think the identification PLST to Philistine to Palestinian is nonsense ?

@Dagwood, yes, I read it and it doesn't invalidate my point -- it supports it. DNA shows they were ancient Greek peoples from the Aegean region, not semitic Arabic peoples.

DNA studies performed on remains from Philistine sites. The results showed a genetic connection to southern Europe and the Aegean region, supporting long-standing evidence that the Philistines were part of the "Sea Peoples" who migrated into the eastern Mediterranean world around the time many ancient civilizations collapsed.

So the Arab populations, as I said, only entered the region with the Islamic Conquests of the 7th Century. Sure, that's a long time ago, but the Tribes of Israel had already been living there for thousands of years by then.

To be more accurate:

1. (1948–Present) Modern Israel exists as the sovereign State of Israel, not a Palestinian state preceding it.

2. (1920–1948) The region was administered as the British Mandate for Palestine under British control, not a sovereign Palestinian Arab state.

3. (1517–1917) The territory was part of the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state.

4. (1250–1517) The area was ruled by the Mamluk Sultanate, not a Palestinian state.

5. (1171–1250) The region belonged to the Ayyubid dynasty, not a Palestinian state.

6. (1099–1291) Much of the territory was controlled by the Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.

7. (969–1099) The land was ruled by the Fatimid Caliphate, not a Palestinian state.

8. (661–750) The region was governed by the Umayyad Caliphate, not a Palestinian state.

9. (324–638 CE) The territory formed part of the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.

10. (63 BCE–324 CE) The area was ruled by the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state.

11. (140–37 BCE) The region was controlled by the Hasmonean dynasty, not a Palestinian state.

12. (312–63 BCE) The land was part of the Seleucid Empire, not a Palestinian state.

13. (305–30 BCE) Parts of the territory were contested or ruled by the Ptolemaic Kingdom, not a Palestinian state.

14. (332–323 BCE) The area was conquered by Alexander the Great and incorporated into his empire, not a Palestinian state.

15. (550–330 BCE) The territory belonged to the Achaemenid Empire, not a Palestinian state.

16. (626–539 BCE) The land was ruled by the Neo-Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state.

17. (930–586 BCE) The southern kingdom of Kingdom of Judah existed in the region, not a Palestinian state.

18. (1047–722 BCE) The northern Kingdom of Israel existed in the region, not a Palestinian state.

19. (c. 1050–930 BCE) The united United Monarchy of Israel existed under Saul, David, and Solomon, not a Palestinian state.

20. (c. 1175–1150 BCE) The GREEK SEA PEOPLES who became knows as the Philistines settled along the southern coast of Canaan. These are not modern "Palestinian" Arab semitic peoples.

21. (c. 1200–1050 BCE) The Twelve Tribes of Israel occupied and organized parts of the land, not a Palestinian state.

22. (c. 3000–1200 BCE) The region consisted of various Jewish and Canaanite city-states and peoples, not a Palestinian state.

What's in a name ? The descendants of the "various Canaanite city states and peoples", together with the Philistines ( settled by the Egyptians before 1099 BC) occupied those parts that were not Israel or Judea under a number of different names.
They are currently called Palestinians, derived from the Egyptian PLST, as they were under the Romans. They were the same people under the various rulers in between, unless you think that having a Greek ruler makes all subjects instantly Greek.
Perhaps because I am Welsh, a people that have kept their culture distinct although ruled from England for centuries, I look at it differently from you.

As the article says, those who were the original Philistines, bred with all those around them, probably and including the Jews, until their original dna was diluted beyond their original origin.

Of course after that, you have all the invasions of those listed above and more rapes and voluntary interbreeding.

Then also like the Jews:

"The Philistines were forcibly deported and exiled from their territories in the exact same manner, by the exact same ruler, and during the same era as the Jews."

Since they now have the DNA of actual Philistines, it would be interesting to take the DNA of Palestinians today and see how closely related they are and actually what peoples they are most closely related to.

Be hysterical if they were more closely related to today's Israelis.

If you are going to use BCE then I automatically pay no attention and will take the other side. BC and AD. Enough of this woke stuff.

If you are going to use BCE then I automatically pay no attention and will take the other side. BC and AD. Enough of this woke stuff.

LOL! Sure, like I'm going through a website's history list and then will correct each entry. The data and timeline are solid.

@Dagwood, guess you get points for sticking to your guns no matter what.

What's in a name ? The descendants of the "various Canaanite city states and peoples", together with the Philistines ( settled by the Egyptians before 1099 BC) occupied those parts that were not Israel or Judea under a number of different names…. Perhaps because I am Welsh, a people that have kept their culture distinct although ruled from England for centuries, I look at it differently from you.

Names matter. A lot. It's how we define what something is, and is not. And your argument blends several different historical issues together that are not actually the same thing.

First, continuity of local population is not the same thing as continuity of nationhood or identity. Nearly every region on Earth has population continuity. Modern Egyptians are not identical to the ancient Pharaohs. Modern English are not identical to Britons or Anglo-Saxons. Likewise, modern Palestinians are not simply unchanged Bronze Age Canaanites who preserved a continuous national identity for 3,000 years.

Your Welsh comparison actually illustrates this point well once you look deeper into history.

Modern Welsh people are not literally identical to every population that lived in Wales before them. Wales was inhabited long before the Welsh identity emerged. The famous "Red Lady of Paviland" dates back roughly 33,000 years. Later came Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Neolithic farmers, Bronze Age peoples, Celtic Britons, Romanized populations, Irish settlers, Viking influence, Anglo-Saxon pressure, and Norman conquest. Modern Welsh identity emerged through layers of migration, conquest, assimilation, and cultural evolution.

What makes the Welsh distinct is not some uninterrupted prehistoric bloodline, but a documented continuity of language, literature, law, and self-identification over many centuries.

The same distinction matters in Palestine.

Yes, many local populations remained in the region through successive empires, just as happened in Wales. But that does not mean the modern Palestinian national identity existed unchanged since the Bronze Age.

Second, the Philistines were not "Palestinians" as we've already discussed. I must repeat that the ancient Philistines were an Aegean-linked Sea Peoples culture that appeared around 1200 BC and disappeared as a distinct people after Assyrian and Babylonian conquests. They did not survive continuously into the modern era as a preserved ethnic nation. Even many Palestinian historians do not claim literal direct Philistine continuity.

Third, the Roman use of the name "Syria Palaestina" after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 AD was primarily an administrative and political renaming by the Romans. It did not create a Palestinian nation. For most of history afterward, as in my list, "Palestine" functioned mainly as a geographic term, much like "the Balkans" or "the Levant," rather than the name of a sovereign ethnic state.

Fourth, modern Palestinian Arab identity largely emerged during the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, just as many modern national identities did – and it didn't really become defined until the 1960s. As I have said, that does not make it illegitimate. Most nations are modern political and cultural constructions to one degree or another. But it is historically inaccurate to project the modern Palestinian identity unchanged back into the Bronze Age.

The historical record instead shows repeated major demographic, linguistic, cultural, and religious transformations in the region: Canaanite, Israelite, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine Christian, Arab Islamic, Crusader, Turkic Ottoman, and finally modern Arab nationalist periods.

So yes, populations mixed and persisted locally, as happens almost everywhere on Earth. But saying "there were always Palestinians there" in the modern national sense is historically anachronistic, just as it would be inaccurate to say modern Welsh identity existed unchanged since the Ice Age inhabitants of Paviland.

The modern Palestinian population has "persisted locally" for just as long as, indeed longer than, the Jewish people.

They may even include the "lost tribes".

To imply that the Palestinians have only existed since the 1960s simply ignores the fact that they "persisted" through all the previous history

No -- they do not. The modern "Palestinians" identity derives among Arab peoples who adopted this identity in the 1960s. They are not related in any way to the Phillistines of the ancient world -- not ethnically, culturally or genetically. They are related to the various Arab populations that arrived in the form of conquering armies in the 6th and 7th centuries AD and lived there identifying as Arabs or as part of whatever ruling faction dominated the region -- none of which were "Palestinian."

You can insist on your own reality, but you cannot insist I inhabit it with you.

And the invading Arab armies killed off 100% of the locals, they didn't simply convert them to Islam …

Apologies for hijacking the thread.

And the invading Arab armies killed off 100% of the locals, they didn't simply convert them to Islam …

You could check you know… turns out conquering Islamic armies that took the Byzantine provinces of Palestina (Primera, Secundus and Tertius) were not exactly kind to the locals:

* 10% were killed in terror raids to crush resistance
* 15% were enslaved
* 15% fled as refugees
* 55% accepted Dhimmitude, paying heavy Dhimmi taxes and being reduced to second class status
* 5% converted to Islam

And Islam is not just a religion, it's an entire Social plan. Look, Europe was already struggling before the Islamic conquests — Rome had fallen apart, plagues had hit hard, and endless wars had worn everything down. But the Arab expansions in the 600s and 700s really shoved things over the edge. It wasn't just a simple change of rulers. They imposed a whole new legal and cultural system — Sharia-influenced governance, dhimmi rules and taxes on non-Muslims, and the whole region got reoriented toward the Caliphate and eventually Indian Ocean trade networks instead of the old Mediterranean ones. Trade didn't completely disappear, but it rerouted and shrank a lot for Western Europe. You can see it in the archaeology: way fewer eastern goods coming in, less coinage, shrinking cities, and a big drop in that smooth, easy trade that used to connect everything. On top of that, maritime traffic got a lot riskier because of raiding. The old connected classical world basically broke apart. Europe's center shifted north and inland, and that helped lock in what we call the Dark Ages.

At the same time, the conquests hit North Africa hard too. That region used to be the breadbasket of the Mediterranean — olive groves, wheat fields, sophisticated Roman aqueducts, cisterns, and terraced hills feeding huge populations and exports. After the invasions, maintaining all that complex irrigation and infrastructure fell apart. Skilled workers scattered, centralized administration broke down amid the fighting and upheaval. Later waves of Arab settlement and nomads made it worse, bringing with them a focus on nomafic goat herding rather than agricultural production and all those goats stripped the land and contributed to desertification and agriculture collapse. All of this piled on top of the climate that was already slowly drying out over centuries, and the Maghreb went into a long period of agricultural decline. So yeah — the conquests didn't invent every problem, but they dramatically made both situations worse: Europe got more isolated and stagnant for longer, and North Africa lost a big part of its ancient fertility and productivity. Two major consequences from the same historical wave.

Or is is it three major consequences?? Oh yeah, the organized international African Slave Trade -- you can thank Muslim Arab slavers for that as well. Sure, local African tribes and kingdoms enslaved each other -- Arab traders made it a business. Some 40 MILLION Africans were trafficked by Arab slavers in the Trans-Sahara Slave Trade and East Africa-Indian Ocean Slave Trade (3-4x that of the Transatlanic Slave Trade). And they left NO SURVIVORS. Males were castrated without medical aid, that and the brutal desert slave marches probably killed 80% before they got to market. Then, once sold, they were literally worked to death. Females were either sold as domestics or into harems, either way rape was a regular occurance -- and if they had a baby, it was killed. That's why there's no "African-Iraqi" or "African-Persian" population despite centuries of African peoples in those areas. And lest we forget, the Ottomans and Barbary States kidnapped and enslaved about 2 Million white Europeans… indeed, the word "Slave" comes from Ottoman use of the word "Slav" to describe peoples captured in the commonly raided and conquered Balkans and Black Sea regions.

Apologies for hijacking the thread….

SBm +1

OVI +1

Experts warn terrorism threat is rising in Africa as US pulls back

link

Armand

FWIW – There are many islamists here in the USA now. Some are in Gov't at all levels. some have just been voted in for Congress, etc.

I think many in the USA are not here to become an American. Let alone a good one. Many don't assimilate; they have no intention to. But they do like the all the freebies. And know how to play the system.

The USA is only about 2% moslem. Not all are jihadis, terrorists, etc. However, some are criminals, besides possibly being illegal aliens.

They hold much more influence than they should for such a small population of the USA.

And they are getting support from within and outside the US.

This all seems like trouble to not just me, but many others.

Washington Is Testing Singapore's Patience

"One of the United States' most important strategic partners in Southeast Asia—Singapore—is beginning to lose faith in the Trump administration. U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs, coupled with the acute energy crisis caused by his war against Iran and U.S. government pressure to force Singapore into even closer alignment, have severely frustrated Singaporean leaders. As Singapore seeks a stable place in an increasingly disorderly international system, this could result in a more diversified Singaporean foreign policy, including a more prominent role for China.

lienating Singapore would be an unforced error—and perhaps a significant one. The city-state sits on a small island strategically located on the vital Strait of Malacca that connects the Indian and Pacific oceans, and it serves as a de facto security ally of the United States. Singapore hosts and maintains U.S. warships at its Changi Naval Base and participates in a range of other military agreements, making it a potentially critical node of support to U.S. military forces defending Taiwan or addressing any number of other future contingencies throughout the Indo-Pacific. Singapore is also a firm supporter of the rules-based international order, which has allowed it to benefit from both free and open trade…"

link

Armand

Tango

Where are your TMP threads on the US alienating foreign allies during the Obama and Biden administrations?

Could you provide the links please if they exist? I would like to see how they read in comparison to today.

If none, why not any?

We would have to assume that our alienating our allies was just as important then as now. True?

FYI, we did alienate quite a few back then. (Never covered much by the media in those president's back pocket worldwide back then, but than they were not ##### right? 😏).

OVI +1

Yes Legion.

The amount of alienated allies under both Presidents, was large. I'm sure if we checked, every President alienated some. Not new. But the MSM did not fixate on the negatives of those Presidents, anywhere near the extent of this one.

"Mainstream broadcast media coverage of President Donald Trump during his current term was evaluated as 92% negative according to a prominent study."

Not supposition those are facts.

Biden, a President we all know was suffering age related mental decline (that is putting nicely).

"Historical Comparison: For contrast, the same group previously found that former President Joe Biden received only 41% negative coverage during his comparable early days."

I would venture that the vast majority of that negative coverage came just as they were attempting to throw him down and appoint Harris to run in his place. Right after the debate.

Would you agree?

Obama's terms were a mixed bag after the initial honeymoon wore off. He did better than Bush, but got plenty of flack from Europe, and the media as I recall. He strengthened NATO, observed presidential norms in his speech, but he also called out Europe for being "free riders" re: NATO. He wanted more from them.

But he also initiated the turn away to Asia as a primary foreign policy focuswhich alienated Europe. His budgets were made more difficult to manage after Repubs passed the budget control act, which had a negative impact on military spending. But overall, no one has had the impact Trump has made on American foreign policy, conducted unilaterally by POTUS, who also has media allies to shield his base. Still too early to rate this impact. IMO.

Look at relations elsewhere not just NATO or PAC.

Of course he would have eventually cozied up to NATO. He demanded 2% from them, but of those not meeting it already, only Poland achieved it and Estonia was close near the end of his presidency. (We can guess why they eventually did. 🙂).

He did nothing to force that compliance… as with all Presidents prior. He was good at getting people to sign "promises" though.

3 new NATO members added as well

In addition of course… the first invasion took place and Europe then felt threatened again and decided that they just might need our forces again.

"Tango

Where are your TMP threads on the US alienating foreign allies during the Obama and Biden administrations?…"

None existed because at that time Ultramodern wasn't tainted by the national politics of any single country. It focused on analyzing international conflicts, primarily military in nature, and there weren't such rigid stances on either side of the "gap." Ever since Bill allowed the inclusion of the "Blue Fez," everything changed… in my opinion, for the worse. As the "creator" of Ultramodern (back then I was publishing articles for "War is Boring"), I don't recall any mentions being made for or against any president, perhaps some tyrant, but never political parties, platforms, or any president's civil actions.

I regret having to inform you of this.

Armand

Actually it was just as bad under the Biden administration and the end period of Trumps first term as well. (Period I've been involved).

The one sided comments being made at that time, is why I became involved in ultramodern to begin with.

It has not changed, still was exactly the same.

So same question: why no post on the alienation during the Biden administration? Yes Joe alienated other countries.

I won't include Obama, as I was not reading TMP then.

Well… in that case you have to show me the amount of threads about Biden Administration because I do not remember to comment nothing about him nor Trump…

Armand

Tango

Many of us were involved in those Biden era threads, including myself.

The Afghanistan disaster of a withdrawal and debacle was just one example of many. Also producing numerous posts on TMP, although a few wiped by the moderator since.

Actually also an example of Biden alienating allies.

I spent Dawghouse days due to those exchanges.

So how about that article on Biden alienating allies.

It is just possible that the U.S. is just over committed and needs to reconsider those commitments. There is no freedom in peacetime alliances.

Alienating some, just might be the excuse. 🤔

"No, no other country comes close to having as many formal mutual defense commitments as the United States.

The U.S. network of 67 treaty allies is entirely unique in modern geopolitics. While other major global powers maintain strong military partnerships, their formal, legally binding "an attack on one is an attack on all" treaties are vastly smaller in scale.

Taiwan and Israel are not one of the 67.

China has 1
Russia has 5

"Individual NATO Members (UK, France, Germany, etc.)Commitments: 31
countries

Details: Major European powers like the United Kingdom and France share the same NATO collective defense obligations as the U.S. across Europe and North America. However, unlike the U.S., they do not maintain massive, separate bilateral defense pacts in East Asia (like the U.S. treaties with Japan and South Korea), nor do they head a regional pact like the Inter-American Rio Treaty."

Will North Korea come running if the U.S. is invaded? Could they even?
What about one of those Latin American Countries?

Seems a bit one sided to me.

OVI +1

It seems war & politics were always somewhat "entwined" … But today with 24hrs. news. Plus almost immediate information showing up on many forms of high-tech devises …

That may influence this paradigm even more so … Even in some cases, you are watching the event is happening, unfolding, etc. E.g. 9/11, Biden's A'stan withdrawal debacle, the invasion of Ukraine, etc., etc. …