A Nation at War?
7/11/08 - 10:44AM
When Barack Obama becomes President, his worldview will collide with
reality. It doesn't look like it will be a smooth transition.
A world is at war, within the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan, against
Islamist radicals bent on countering the advance of freedom and democracy in
the those lands. It is also at war throughout the Middle East, where
the people will either embrace a civil society, or one where militias run
the streets. This war will be won or lost in the Palestinian
territories, in Lebanon, and elsewhere.
It can certainly be lost in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan if we fail to
meet our obligations there.
Senator
Obama's worldview does not yet accept a reality of fighting this war.
When he takes over, American troops will be engaged in combat, and so will
our allies throughout the region.
Mr. Obama wants American combat troops out of Iraq on his artificial
timetable of 16 months after he takes office. What evidence is there
that by April, 2010, Iraq's enemies will have surrendered? What if they
reconstitute their efforts? One might think he'd be interested in talking to
Iraq's elected leadership--something that hadn't existed before the 2003
liberation of that nation--once he became president to see what we could do
to ensure stability on an ongoing basis. Democracy in the Middle East
is actually a precious thing.
Instead of promising to lead our forces to victory, he is promising to
disarm them, and to abandon our allies on the field of battle. It is
disgraceful that U.S. efforts to develop a military alliance with Iraq and Afghanistan, while we spill blood together, are undermined by
a political debate. But clearly they are.
Nobody has asked Mr. Obama whether he favors a military
alliance with Iraq and Afghanistan. Somebody should. It's a good
question. The VRC is not convinced that he does.
Why should there be such an alliance? Because America has an international
obligation to fulfill in these lands. What happens after the UN
mandate in Iraq expires, for example, is a very important issue in this
campaign. It really ought to define the foreign policy debate in this
presidential campaign. Do we become ongoing allies in a war against
these militias and terrorist organiations, or not?
Regardless of who the next president is, these may be the most important
decisions he makes: An Iraqi-American military alliance or not? An
Afghan-American military alliance or not?
Iraq is a developing democracy in the heart of the Middle East. There
is another, too: Lebanon. The Palestinian territories aspire to
elected government as well. Afghanistan's freedom too depends upon
American security. These lands are not yet strong enough to counter
and defeat the forces that oppose them. They can be, but they will
need help. And we can help. In fact, we are helping. The
question is: Will we continue to help our friends?
Therefore, it is a real decision that will have to be made: Would a
President Obama protect them? Or turn his back on them? Does he plan on
winning the war on terrorism? Does he even believe it's a real war?
The reality awaiting Senator Obama should he win the election is a nation at
war. And so far, he appears to be unprepared to meet that challenge,
because it is unclear he even intends to fight it.
|
Incorporated as Sec. 527
Organization
8/10/07 - 1:25AM
The Victory Republican Committee has completed the process of incorporation as a
section 527 not-for-profit organization, which allows the Committee to
influence the nomination, election, appointment, or defeat of candidates for
federal office.
|
Rudy:
The Right Man for America
1/12/08 - 1:03AM
As the race for the presidency has entered into the nominating process of
2008, a battle for the heart and soul of the political parties has ensued.
The current process leaves in doubt if the Republican party will nominate a
standard-bearer to unite its conservative base behind the themes of staying
on offense and achieving victory in the world war on terror, preserving our
homeland security posture, securing our borders and all other points of
entry into America, strengthening our military and intelligence capacities,
simplifying the tax code, eliminating wasteful spending in Washington,
bringing strict textualists and originalists to the Federal bench, and
providing moral leadership to the free world. There has been much talk
of the splintering of the "fusionism" of the conservative movement which has
served the GOP well since President Reagan took office in 1981 by uniting
social, free market, and hawkish conservatives under a single umbrella, and
whether that coalition which also elected President George W. Bush twice can
be reunited in 2008 to help the GOP to retain the White House and reclaim a
majority in Congress.
What's worse, the current process also leaves little doubt that the Democrat
party will nominate a candidate who will revert to a defensive posture in
the war effort (if they care to admit that we are even at war), will roll
back much of the post-9/11 security reforms including the Patriot Act and
the terrorist surveillance program, who will have little interest or
incentive to ever secure our borders and meanwhile promote the legalization
of some 12 million illegal aliens, will weaken our military and intelligence
capacities, will undoubtedly raise taxes, will create billions of dollars of
new domestic spending, will appoint judicial legislators to the Federal
bench to create new "rights" instead of interpreting our laws as intended,
and instead of leading and protecting the free world will be led by false
promises and assurances from our enemies under the guise of making "peace."
But, at the risk of simply making a negative case against the Democrats, I
will dispense with discussion of their agenda, and instead focus on the
endorsement that the Victory Republican Committee will be making for
President of the United States on both moral and practical grounds.
There is one candidate who shares most of the ideals of the conservative
movement and the Reagan Revolution, who stands a chance at beating the
upstarts in the race who do not, and who has a shot at helping Republicans
to retake Congress if not this year then in 2010. There is one
candidate who will harness the capability and will of America to fight for
victory in the world war on terror, who will build on our domestic defenses
including securing our borders once and for all, who will strengthen our
military and intelligence capabilities, who is a proven tax cutter and has
proposed the largest tax cut ever in American history and a radical
simplification of our arcane tax code, who is a proven fiscal conservative
who knows how to reduce wasteful appropriations and can finally drain the
swamp of spending in Washington with across-the-board budget cuts, who will
appoint judges and justices in the tradition of Scalia and Thomas to ensure
the rule of law and preserve the separation of powers, and who will be the
right leader for the free world when we are in a mortal conflict with
terrorists and the tyrannies that support them. And that candidate is
Rudy Giuliani.
A comparison with other viable candidates in the GOP field will reveal that
they lack in some or more of these areas, and while are decent candidates in
some respects, do not share the record of former Mayor Giuliani's nor his
prospects for electoral victory in November. Governors Romney and
Huckabee were notable tax raisers, and Senator McCain opposed the Bush tax
cuts. Governor Huckabee has suggested that our foreign policy which is
in fact designed to protect America is somehow arrogant. And while the
commitments of Senators Thompson and McCain and Governor Romney to defeating
the Islamists are honest and admirable, none of them have the experience of
dealing with a major crisis like Mayor Giuliani. As Michael Barone
recently noted on NRO TV, when you choose a presidential candidate, usually
you hope that they'll handle a crisis well. With Rudy Giuliani, you
know he will.
The political reality playing out in the nomination process shows Governor
Romney faltering and both Governor Huckabee and Senator McCain surging ahead
with their mighty flaws, leaving mainstream Republicans to choose amongst
Senator Thompson and Mayor Giuliani as the process draws forward. For
one who shares the values described above, it is time for conservatives to
come to a consensus on the best candidate with the best shot at winning.
It is no mistake that Rudy Giuliani led virtually every national poll
throughout 2007; it was not merely out of name recognition. It is
because intuitively, before any real campaigning had begun, Republicans knew
that he was a great candidate for this office who shared their ideals.
There have been many who have questioned Mr. Giuliani's strategy to achieve
the nomination as being viable or not, and certainly a case must be made
that he himself is a viable candidate who could at least unite the base of
the party behind him if one were to make the case that he is the right man
for the job. The criticism against his strategy comes for conventional reasons, including
the traditional role that Iowa, NH, and South Carolina have served in
generating momentum for nominees. For example, Dick Morris has argued that
Rudy could have sealed the deal by competing and winning in Iowa and NH. And
almost certainly, as these early contests have come closer and passed and with it the
media spotlighting on the contenders in these contests, Giuliani has lost a
lot of points in the national polling which he was leading all throughout
2007.
Mr. Giuliani needs to continue to play to his strengths and keep national
media attention on not just his campaign's strategy, but on his very
important message which is the right path for America and the free world.
He himself needs to go on the offensive to distinguish himself from his
competition. If he falls in Florida to Governor Huckabee, his strategy
will be deemed a failure, and Republicans on Super Tuesday will be left with
the choice between Senator McCain and Governor Huckabee, neither of whom is
viable to keeping the conservative base of the Republican party together.
Voters in Florida ought to keep a close watch on the viability of the
mainstream Republican candidates: Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani.
Though all three are faltering at the moment, if Senator Thompson and
Governor Romney lose the battle for the early states, the best choice for
the heart and soul of the Republican party will be Rudy Giuliani. His
perceived weaknesses need to be weighed and in some cases forgiven for the
greater good of not just the party, but of America and the fate of freedom
in the world.
|
So,
Iran Did Have a Nuclear Weapons Program!
12/6/07 - 12:45PM
One thing missing from much of the reporting on the
recent National
Intelligence Estimate on Iran is clarification on a very important piece
of information: the intelligence community judges with high confidence that
Iran had a nuclear weapons program until fall 2003. Iran has never
admitted it had any such program which existed, at least not publicly.
And now, Iran is touting this intelligence estimate as a victory.
President Bush pointed out in
his recent press conference this fact, and is
making the case why we still need to be concerned. I don't think this
new estimate ought to change our specific policy against Iran's enrichment
of uranium one iota. If our intelligence community is highly confident
that Iran was indeed developing nuclear weapons until relatively recently,
and we all agree that Iran having a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous,
then we should also agree that Iran enriching uranium - the process which is
necessary to develop such weapons - is very dangerous and something we ought
to oppose. What the estimate does help us do is to have an informed
basis for our diplomacy, but our demands must remain consistent: uranium
enrichment needs to be halted. Libya also recently gave up its nuclear
weapons program in 2003. Does that mean we should be okay with them
enriching uranium just four years later?
The fact is, a covert nuclear weapons program by Iran was a violation of her
international obligations to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
That the program was suspended does not change that, nor should it give us
confidence that Iran is not going to resume the weapons program if or when
the international community lets it guard down. The intelligence
estimate notes as much when it points out this risk:
"...we also assess with
moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."
|
Another fact being neglected in reporting is that statements by our policy
makers have been based on our intelligence reporting all along. To
listen to some reports, we are given the impression that the Bush
administration had made up the fact that there ever was a nuclear weapons
program in Iran, when in fact, according to that very estimate, Iran had a
nuclear weapons program! As for our policy, it's not as if we ought to
suddenly trust Iran when it has not even admitted to this weapons program.
If the NIE's assessment that there was indeed a weapons program - which can
be restarted rapidly since Iran possesses the capability via its uranium
enrichment - is factual, that means our diplomacy must be geared toward
getting Iran to admit this, to admit to this violation of the NPT, and to
give us, the Security Council, the IAEA full confidence that it is fully
complying with its obligations. That Russia and China are rushing out
to defend Iran appears hasty when the document which is being touted
contains much nuance and is balanced so as to not underestimate the danger
posed by Iran's enriching of uranium.
We must make our policy based on informed analysis. The policies being
promoted in American media and overseas because of this NIE right now are
completely at odds with the NIE itself which states:
"Our assessment that Iran
halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to
international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are
guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to
a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and
military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some
combination of threats of intensified international
scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for
Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for
regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by
Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the
current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is
difficult to specify what such a combination might be."
|
Our own intelligence community's analysis suggests that the one of the main
reasons for the suspension of Iran's weapons program was because of
international pressure. President Ahmadinejad must think that his
people will never even read this intelligence estimate, which suggests that
in fact Iran caved into international pressure recently. What this all
suggests to the VRC is that the U.S. needs to keep up its pressure on Iran,
not to treat this intelligence estimate as if Iran had suddenly come clean
to the international community about a suspended weapons program. Our
diplomacy must insist on Iran's honesty about this program, the extent of
it, very importantly why it was in effect in violation of the NPT, and what
has been done to end it. Is it a latent nuclear weapons program, which
is awaiting the UN to lighten up on Iran? The first priority in developing a
relationship with the international community based on trust will be Iran's
honesty about having had a weapons program in the first place.
One
thing that should be very concerning to both our policy makers and the
intelligence community is how this NIE is in many cases being
misrepresented, in the media, by Iran, by Russia and China, etc. Our
leaders need to come forward and continue to carefully explain what the
estimate says and what it does not say. We also need to be clear to
restate what our policy is. The fact is that there is really nothing
in the estimate which should change the U.S.'s policy against Iranian
uranium enrichment, nor should it change the Security Council's approach to
this issue. The Security Council cannot be treated seriously if a
state, like Iran, was violating the NPT with a covert nuclear weapons
program right up until fall 2003, but then would state in fall 2007 that it
is now okay for said state to be enriching uranium when said state was not
even forthcoming about the weapons program in the first place. The VRC
is confident that the insanity surrounding this NIE will cease very soon,
and that more sober assessments and proclamations will be forthcoming.
Update: 12/7/07 -2:45PM
The
European Union and NATO have agreed not to change their previous position
against the enrichment of uranium by Iran in light of this new intelligence
estimate. So far,
China and Russia had apparently backed away from additional sanctions
against Iran over its nuclear program because of this new assessment.
However, there really is no reason for the UN Security Council to reconsider
its position without at least a full accounting of Iran's latent or former
or suspended nuclear weapons program and a full certainty of its
disarmament.
If powers want to treat this NIE as gospel that present policy will be based
on, then since the NIE suggests that Iran did have a covert nuclear weapons
program which was apparently halted just a few years ago, then the next step
should be to hold Iran accountable for having violated the NPT with said
program and to gain a full accounting of that program so as to be certain it
will not be restarted. Of course, that will not be possible without
Iran's full cooperation which will be contingent on its complete accounting
and verifiable disarmament of the program's components which may still be
around. The NIE suggests that Iran has put this program on hold.
We need to make sure that it's eliminated.
|
General
Petraeus' Progress Report
9/11/07 - 12:06AM
General David Petraeus yesterday reported to Congress on the progress of the
new strategy in Iraq. Read it
here.
|
The
U.S. Does Need a New Strategy
7/11/07 - 12:45AM
The recent political dialogue in Washington has demonstrated a withering of
political support for continued combat operations in Iraq, one of the hot
theatres we are currently engaged in the wider war on terror, instead
advocating for diplomatic and economic measures to achieve our objectives in
Iraq, as Senator Lugar recently did on the Senate floor. These types
of cold war measures are often utilized when two nations are not presently
engaged in hostilities. Can the world war against terrorism, which is
a hot exchange with our enemies, be won without military force? The answer
lies in the fact that the enemy is on the offensive, in Iraq, in
Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Lebanon, in the Palestinian territories, and
elsewhere, though the lands listed I believe are the theatres of prominent
importance for the U.S. in this war. The enemy's offensive is being
fomented, armed, and funded by Iran in particular. Syria also plays a
great role in allowing terrorism to operate out of its territory. Al
Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other organizations will continue wage war on
America and our interests in the region unless they are defeated.
It is hard to imagine how such a war will see a significant breakthrough
while the enemy is able to gather recruits and resources in lands with which
we are not engaged militarily to direct attacks against our forces where we
are, and still be able to operate elsewhere too. That is why the U.S.
must rededicate itself to eradicating not just al Qaeda, but terrorist
organizations across the region which are directing this offensive against
the coalition.
For example, as Senator Joe Lieberman, Connecticut's Independent Democrat,
noted in a
recent
July 2nd press release:
This morning, the U.S.
military in Baghdad provided new and disturbing details
about the proxy war that the government of Iran has been
fighting against the United States in Iraq.
According to Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been using
operatives from the radical Islamist terrorist group
Hezbollah to train Iraqi Shiite militias, who in turn
are responsible for the murder of American soldiers.
In addition, according to Brig. Gen. Bergner, groups of
up to sixty Iraqi militants at a time have been taken
out of Iraq and brought to Iran for military training at
three camps near Teheran, where they have been
instructed in the use of mortars, rockets, and
improvised explosive devices. The Iranian government has
also provided up to $3 million a month to fund attacks
on U.S. troops and allies in Iraq.
In fact, Brig. Gen. Bergner also provided new evidence
this morning that Iranian operatives helped plan a
sophisticated ambush in January that resulted in the
abduction and murder of five American soldiers.
These revelations should be a wake-up call to the United
States about the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of
Iran—as well as a reminder why Iraq is, in fact, the
central front of the global war on terror. Iran's
sponsorship of terrorism in Iraq fits into a larger,
dangerous pattern of behavior we see across the Middle
East today. From Lebanon to Palestine to Afghanistan,
the Iranian government is supporting the forces of
Islamist radicalism. Despite a mounting economic crisis
in its own country and growing international isolation,
the regime in Teheran is sacrificing the blood and
treasure of the Iranian people to fund terrorism against
its neighbors.
|
Senator Lieberman went on to ask his colleagues to reconsider their approach
in support of an American retreat from Iraq, which he says will be a
"catastrophic defeat for the United States, but an epic victory for Iran,
Hezbollah, and the forces of Islamist terrorism." He also supported keeping
as an option removing the terrorist infrastructure in Iran.
It may not appear politically viable at the moment to undertake direct
action against Iran, but it remains true that Iran is at war with America in
Iraq and elsewhere. The U.S. should employ a tougher diplomatic
approach against Iran, stacking atop the list of grievances Iran's
sponsorship of terrorism inside Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. The UN
has already employed sanctions on the question of Iran's nuclear program,
but the world has not sent Iran a strong enough message against its state
sponsorship of terrorism. The U.S. must counter Iran's proxy war
against us in Iraq, and I agree with Senator Lieberman that we need to
maintain a credible threat of force against Iran in carrying forward our
diplomacy on the nuclear question and on terrorism.
In addition, the U.S. should send a strong message that if this sponsorship
continues, the U.S. will destroy this terrorist infrastructure, bringing the
full utilization of our power against the enemy which we face, both
clandestinely and with the might of our navy and air force. Senator
Lieberman's argument applies no less to Hamas in Gaza, to Hezbollah in
Lebanon, to the Sunni terrorists who utilize Syria as a transit point, and
to al Qaeda in Pakistan, where the enemy is able to operate seemingly beyond
the reach of military force.
States that currently sponsor and harbor terrorism are not deterred by the
prospects of defeat, and that could be because we are not actively striking
against them. This is an obvious deficiency to our current strategy,
and the U.S. must not only retain the option to eliminate terrorist networks
which act against our interests wherever they spring up, we must actively
wage war against them. While these groups are able to operate with
impunity, they will be able to continue to recruit and accumulate resources
to continue their war, and fueling insurgency in Palestine, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Lebanon. Iran is expanding its influence
and spreading war across the Middle East. If we do not counter this
danger, perhaps no one will.
|
Senator
Lugar Politicizes the War
6/26/07 - 4:28PM
Essentially. Yesterday on the Senate floor, Senator Richard Lugar
(R-IN)
called for a recalibration of "our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic
political conditions", which includes an unsupportive majority Democrat
caucus which does not want to fund the war effort.
This is an interesting proposition, since under the current political
conditions in Washington, Congress could not defund the war effort.
They lacked enough votes to override the President's veto of the Democrat
plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. Using Senator Lugar's logic, so
long as the President remains committed to the current strategy in Iraq
under General Petraeus' leadership, then it is Congress that ought to
recalibrate its strategy to fit the current political conditions, since the
President can just veto bills which attempt to take his job of creating U.S.
strategy inside Iraq. Since the war has not been deauthorized or
defunded, Congress ought to be giving the President and the military the
tools it needs to succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world
war on terror. And in fact, after Congress failed to override the
President's veto, it voted to again fund the war effort.
One of Senator Lugar's basic arguments is that political considerations can
and perhaps should trump military necessity in executing a war effort:
Some will argue that
political timelines should always be subordinated to
military necessity, but that is unrealistic in a
democracy. Many political observers contend that voter
dissatisfaction in 2006 with Administration policies in
Iraq was the major factor in producing new Democratic
Party majorities in both Houses of Congress. Domestic
politics routinely intrude on diplomatic and military
decisions. The key is to manage these intrusions so that
we avoid actions that are not in our national interest.
|
Senator Lugar also cut past the argument between troop surge and immediate
troop withdrawal, and instead called for a "thoughtful plan B" which
downsizes U.S. military presence in Iraq over time, and instead uses
diplomatic and economic options to achieve the objectives of U.S. policy in
the region. His plan is a phased withdrawal from Iraq which might not
immediately destabilize the situation, but would allow al Qaeda, the Mahdi,
and other terrorists and militia in Iraq to reconstitute their capabilities
and direct their efforts to overthrowing the Republic of Iraq and creating a
new Islamist haven by which to direct attacks across the region.
Instead of immediate destabilization, we would have a gradual
destabilization. As the MNF presence in Iraq is drawn down in this
approach, the enemy could largely wait for our departure to unleash a
massive offensive against the Iraqi people. In the meantime, they
could time large attacks with the public American withdrawals from cities
and towns to create the impression of the insurgents driving the
"occupation" forces back and into retreat. This in turn would
effectively hand legitimacy to the insurgents, who would be in a
strengthened position in Iraq both militarily and politically by the
eventual departure of U.S. forces.
Senator Lugar is incorrect. Instead of simply managing these political
intrusions upon our national interests, we must reject political timetables
for military success in a conflict which is protracted. It was the
Athenian Assembly's micromanagement of military policy in its long war
against Sparta that may have been its undoing.
Victor
Davis Hanson notes as much in detailing Athenian interference with
military operations and the advantage Sparta had by giving its generals more
latitude:
It was the belief of
Thucydides that if democracies brought multifaceted
advantages to war, their raucous assemblies, constant
second-guessing, grandstanding, and hypercriticism
severely hampered military operations. Only a towering
figure such as Pericles could rein in the raw emotions
unleashed in open forums and, as first citizen, by sheer
power of his moral authority run the country by near at
and still take full advantage of democratic dynamism.
Whether that pessimism of the historian was warranted or
fair to democracy, it was certainly clear that Sparta
had more patience with an occasionally lax Brasidas,
Agis, or Lysander than Athens ever did with its own
generals.
True, Sparta could execute generals like Thorax and shun
the returning prisoners from Pylos, but in comparison to
Athens it gave latitude to commanders in a way unknown
at Athens. If Thucydides was exiled for failing to save
Amphipolis from Brasidas, later in the same theater
Brasidas most surely was not recalled to Sparta after
failing to reach Torone in time and thus losing the
entire city to Cleon. That the Athenian assembly exiled,
executed, or fined almost every notable general it
ordered on campaign did not make commanders more
accountable as much as timid and prone to
second-guessing. Thus, after any setback, whether in the
Delium campaign or at Arginusae, they would most likely
not come back to Athens, in fear of a trial. So the city
did not often learn from its mistakes but almost always
scared generals into being too cautious or reckless,
their decisions based on anticipating what the voters
back home might approve on any particular day.
|
Now, one might argue that Iraq is not Peloponnese. But neither is it
Vietnam. Senator Lugar is calling for more management from on high of
the war effort in Iraq. In contrast,
General Petraeus'
counterinsurgency strategy calls for less, and instead seeks to place
more decision-making in the hands of the troops in the field engaged in
counterinsurgency operations. Lugar's plan whether he realizes
it would leave insurgents alive in the field to fight another day, while
Petraeus' strategy calls for isolating the enemy and galvanizing the Iraqi
people to oppose the insurgents. The Iraqi government needs time to
establish legitimacy on a number of fronts, and this requires vast resources
to maintain security and "a firm political will and substantial patience by
the government, its people, and the countries providing support..."
according to Petraeus' counterinsurgency field manual. Without those
resources, which are provided by Congress to carry on counterinsurgency
operations, the Iraqi government may fail to achieve legitimacy and be
overthrown.
Lugar states four objectives of U.S. policy in the Middle East, which
includes preventing Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven and preventing the
insurgency in Iraq from spilling over into other countries in the region:
First, we have an interest
in preventing Iraq or any piece of its territory from
being used as a safe haven or training ground for
terrorists or as a repository or assembly point for
weapons of mass destruction.
Second, we have an interest
in preventing the disorder and sectarian violence in
Iraq from upsetting wider regional stability. The
consequences of turmoil that draws neighboring states
into a regional war could be grave. Such turmoil could
topple friendly governments, expand destabilizing
refugee flows, close the Persian Gulf to shipping
traffic, or destroy key oil production or transportation
facilities, thus diminishing the flow of oil from the
region with disastrous results for the world economy.
|
It is precisely because of the priority placed upon these objectives that we
must succeed in Iraq. But what if domestic political conditions
according to public opinion force policy makers to sacrifice these
objectives? On one hand, Lugar wants to redeploy our troops in accordance
with our domestic political conditions, and on the other, he wants a stable
Iraq and Middle East proper in accordance with our national interests.
If our forces are precisely engaged in necessary stability operations in
Iraq, how does gradually (or immediately, in the Democrat plan) redeploying
our troops enhance our prospects of achieving those objectives? The
political timeframe articulated by Lugar is controlled by the reluctant
Congressional majority. And their argument states that there needs to
be significant progress by September or else funding would be cut off.
Lugar addresses the complexity of the current debate, and his third way in
theory allows for there to be continued operations in Iraq while a phased
redeployment takes place. This is dubbed a bipartisan approach since
both parties would achieve their respective objectives of less troops in
Iraq and a stable Iraq. If this sounds like having your cake and
eating it too, that's because it is. The President has rejected
political timelines in the past, and other than rumors reported in the news,
there is no reason to believe that the President would fail to give the
military the tools it needs to follow through on its new strategy. If
that strategy does not call for a timeline for withdrawal, even a gradual
one, then neither should Congress' plan. We need to give General
Petraeus' plan a chance for success, not put immediate or eventual deadlines
for success which may be unreachable.
In some ways, a planned phased withdrawal is worse than an immediate
withdrawal. At least with an immediate withdrawal, the resultant
destabilization would be apparent for the eye to see. If we instead
opt for a gradual withdrawal without achieving the objectives of
counterinsurgency, including legitimizing the Iraqi government, we could
invariably and regrettably wind up with a similar situation as ended the
conflict in Vietnam. After the peace was signed in 1973 and the U.S.
phased withdrawal was completed shortly thereafter, it was two years before
North Vietnam swept into the South and completed its overthrow of the
U.S.-supported government in Saigon. Whether our troops' redeployment
is immediate or gradually takes place, both plans could wind up leading to
the elected government of Iraq being overthrown and replaced by Islamists.
Lugar is right about one thing:
The third
factor inhibiting our ability to establish a stable,
multi-sectarian government in Iraq is the timetable
imposed by our own domestic political process.
|
No kidding.
|
Hamas
Conquers Gaza Strip, President Abbas Dissolves Palestinian Government
6/16/07 - 4:12PM
The Islamist militia
Hamas has practically conquered the Gaza Strip, taking over security
headquarters there which were controlled by Fatah and executing several
members of the militia loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas, and in response
Abbas has dissolved the Hamas-Fatah coalition government. Both Hamas
and Fatah have been fighting in the streets for primacy in the Palestinian
territories for several months, and Hamas' conquest of Gaza followed by
President Abbas' decision to declare a state of emergency marks a dramatic
escalation in the war there:
Hamas terrorists
effectively took control of the northern Gaza Strip on
Tuesday when they captured the regional headquarters of
official paramilitary forces loyal to Palestinian
Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
At least 25 people were killed and another 62 wounded
during a series of assaults and counter-assualts by
Hamas and Abbas' Fatah faction. At the height of the
fighting, Fatah forces fired a rocket-propelled grenade
at the Gaza City home of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail
Haniyeh. Hamas retaliated by attacking the home of a
senior Gaza-based Fatah lawmaker.
The fighting continued unabated Monday morning, when
another 10 people, including a 16-year-old boy, were
killed.
Abbas has accused Hamas of attempting a coup against his
overall leadership, and has suspended Fatah
participation in a unity government forged just two
months ago.
|
In response the
U.S. and Israel will be backing Abbas' emergency government in the West
Bank:
Washington will urge Israel
to reconsider loosening its military grip on the West
Bank. Israel will also be requested to unfreeze the
Palestinian tax funds it has been withholding from the
PA. The money and further funding will help boost Abbas'
new emergency government.
Abbas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and U.S. President
George W. Bush are reportedly in favor of deploying
multinational forces in the Strip to maintain order, as
Hamas has consolidated near-absolute control of the
area.
Political sources in Jerusalem were skeptical yesterday
of the prospect of deploying multinational forces in the
Strip any time soon. Egypt has made it clear it does not
intend to send troops. "No one will come there", a
senior political official said.
|
The ascension of Hamas in Gaza follows a troubling trend: the rise of the
militias in the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, and al Qaeda and
Mahdi in Iraq. These militants all represent the Islamist ideology in
practice, and their goals include overthrowing Fatah in the Palestinian
territories and the representative governments in Lebanon and Iraq, and also
in Afghanistan, and destroying Israel. All of these efforts are backed
by Iran and Syria, and should be viewed as a coordinated offensive against
U.S. allies in the region.
The deployment of multinational forces in Gaza is long overdue, and should
extend into the West Bank as well to prevent a similar uprising there, to
increase security, and to bolster the new government under Abbas. The
"peace process" will remain nebulous because Hamas not only presents a
diplomatic concern, but a real military problem which must be countered
militarily. The U.S. should build a coalition comprised of regional
allies to complete an important mission: bringing peace and stability to the
Palestinian territories, disarming Hamas and dismantling its political wing
as well as disbanding all other non-government militia, and facilitating
coordination between the government under Abbas and Israel. Without
bold action, militias such as Hamas will be emboldened to continue to
destabilize the region.
The world cannot afford to continue to ignore the rise of Hamas in Gaza as
well as plight of the Palestinian people, who are held hostage by the
rivalry between Hamas and Fatah, and whose territories have often been a
staging ground for attacks against Israel. Israel can disengage from
the West Bank, but doing so must not create the same power vacuum that has
culminated in Hamas' conquest of Gaza. Such a disengagement should be
followed by the rapid deployment of multinational forces with an Arab face
to help stabilize the situation. Since past UN missions in the region,
such as in Lebanon, have been ineffective at quelling violence, the U.S.
should seek to build the coalition directly through our allies in the region
and should have the necessary authority to use force in disarming the
militias. Many states may not have a political interest in becoming
involved on the ground in the Palestinian territories, though the U.S. may
be able to bring in reluctant partners by demonstrating that as militias
rise in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere, that soon they will spread
throughout and further destabilize the region.
While some have suggested that conflict in the Middle East is fueled by U.S.
interventionist policies in the region (such as in Iraq), that argument is
rapidly being discredited by the independent emergence of power groups being
backed by Iran and Syria in several countries in the region, including Iraq,
Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. A wider regional war is not
a possibility, it is already underway and is being fought by proxy.
The U.S. can either counter the offensive of militias like Hamas, or allow
them to continue to make gains for Hamas is not waiting for international
intervention to carry on its designs. It is a general reluctance to
get involved that has allowed terrorist groups to grow in the region, and
the conventional doctrine of non-intervention in the Palestinian territories
must be reconsidered.
|
Iran Arming Taliban in
Afghanistan
6/07/07 - 11:26PM
ABC News has revealed that
Iran has escalated its efforts to counter the U.S. offensive in the war on
terror, this time in Afghanistan:
NATO officials say they
have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4
explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban
for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say
is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the
United States and Great Britain... The coalition
analysis says munitions recovered in two Iranian
convoys, on April 11 and May 3, had "clear indications
that they originated in Iran. Some were identical to
Iranian supplied goods previously discovered in Iraq."
|
This disclosure comes amid U.S. efforts to engage Iran diplomatically, and
may make it harder to achieve any progress to counter Iran's efforts to
destabilize Iraq, to achieve the release of U.S. prisoners by the
government, or to halt uranium enrichment in compliance with UN Security
Council Resolutions.
The danger posed by Iran will continue to be a problem for the West, and the
U.S. requires a strategy to counter Iran. Recent leaks also reported
by ABC News have revealed that the
U.S. has engaged in covert operations against Iran, though such measures
have stopped short of military intervention. It is unclear if these
actions will be enough to achieve progress on the fronts which the U.S. is
confronting Iran, though they may indicate that the U.S. is getting on a war
footing with Iran.
Recent disclosures reveal that Iran may be as close as two years away from
developing a nuclear weapon as it has increased its pace of production.
Politicians openly debate about the necessity to take preemptive military
action against Iran should it come into possession of or very close to
producing nuclear weapons, and eventually, the President or his successor
may have to assume the worst in order to prevent Iran from completing its
production of a bomb. Clearly, efforts to counter Iran's
destabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan would be hampered by Iran's
possession of nuclear weapons, and Iran can eventually cross a point of no
return if it actively develops such weapons. The only thing which
perhaps prevents the U.S. from acting is that there is still a perceived
amount of time before Iran finishes its work, however these signals of
escalation on the part of Iran reminds us that time may be running out.
The U.S. must possess the political will to confront Iran should they
proceed with building nuclear bombs. Iran is the worst state sponsor
of terrorism in the world, and possessing nuclear weapons is an unacceptable
risk in a pre or post-September 11th situation. Iran's active arming
of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with its ongoing threats to
destroy Israel simply confirm that the troubles which plague the Middle East
will not be resolved while Iran remains on this path. Iran is
challenging the world much in the way that Germany did prior to World War
II, or North Korea after that conflict. President Bush must consider
whether he may eventually have to deliver an ultimatum to Iran, promising
serious consequences should Iran fail to change its path. Clearly the
situation is escalating rapidly: Iran is at war with the U.S., but are we at
war with Iran?
|
President Bush Demands
Unconditional Release of U.S.-Iranian Citizens by Iran
6/05/07 - 11:25PM
On Friday, the President issued a
statement calling for the immediate and unconditional release of four
U.S.-Iranian citizens being held by Iran on apparent charges of
espionage, and also to demand information on the whereabouts of another
citizen:
Several of our fellow
American citizens -- including Haleh Esfandiari, Parnaz
Azima, Kian Tajbakhsh, and Ali Shakeri -- are being held
against their will by the Iranian regime. I strongly
condemn their detention at the hands of Iranian
authorities. They should be freed immediately and
unconditionally.
These individuals have dedicated themselves to building
bridges between the American and Iranian people, a goal
the Iranian regime claims to support. Their presence in
Iran -- to visit their parents or to conduct
humanitarian work -- poses no threat. Indeed, their
activities are typical of the abiding ties that
Iranian-Americans have with their land of origin.
I am also disturbed by the Iranian regime's refusal so
far to provide any information on Robert Levinson,
despite repeated U.S. requests. I call on Iran's leaders
to tell us what they know about his whereabouts.
The United States is committed to protecting its
citizens at home and abroad. We will maintain our
efforts on behalf of these citizens until all of them
are reunited with their families.
|
In response the Iranian government has accused the U.S.
of intervening with Iran's domestic affairs and also
of kidnapping and torture. It sounds like the prisoners may have
been engaged in political speech against the government of Iran, but that
obviously would not be substantial grounds for detaining anybody for
espionage. Governments are organized to protect the right of citizens
to speak up, not to detain citizens who exercise that right.
|
U.S. Offers
Normalization of Relations with Iran Conditioned on Suspension of Uranium
Enrichment
5/31/07 - 1:36PM
The U.S. has restated its standing offer to Iran that if the uranium
enrichment program is suspended indefinitely, that the U.S. and Iran can
normalize diplomatic relations, and that the U.S. would join diplomatic
negotiations on Iran's nuclear programs. This tests Iran's willingness
to deal diplomatically with a growing crisis, and also puts to test
bipartisan suggestions here in America that we deal directly with Iran.
After meeting with Iranian diplomats on a limited basis to discuss the
stability of Iraq and Iran's role in destabilizing Iraq,
the U.S. has renewed an apparently open-ended offer to Iran for renewed
diplomatic contact and dialogue with one condition: suspend uranium
enrichment. Speaking yesterday at a press conference in Vienna,
Secretary of State Rice restated publicly the offer:
"I repeat again that if
Iran is prepared to take that course [suspend enriching
uranium] then we are prepared to change 27 years of
American policy and sit with Iran to talk about whatever
Iran would like to talk about," Rice said.
|
Iran has previously rejected this offer, claiming a right to nuclear
technology. The offer is remarkable in the sweeping change to policy
it proposes, and yet if building nuclear weapons is precisely what Iran
wants, they may have no incentive to take it. The UN has already
imposed sanctions against Iran for its continued uranium enrichment without
the regulation of the IAEA. Iran's refusal to suspend uranium
enrichment makes it look like the program is military, and the U.S. is
essentially telling Iran what it could do to ease fears:
"The international
community is united on what Iran should do, which is to
suspend; to demonstrate that it is in fact not seeking a
nuclear weapon under cover of civilian nuclear power,"
Rice said. |
aaaa
"I think the question isn't why
won't we talk to Tehran. The question is why doesn't Tehran
want to talk to us." |
It seems unlikely that Iran would take this offer, and it is unclear that
diplomatically engaging Iran will achieve suspension of its nuclear
programs, arming the insurgency in Iraq, sponsoring terrorism, releasing
captive U.S. citizens, or bring an end to disqualifying candidates from its
elections based on ideology. The bar set by the U.S. to reopen
diplomatic channels with Iran could have been much higher to include more
than the suspension of uranium enrichment.
Those who originally suggested that the U.S. deal directly with Iran to
achieve stability in Iraq need to state what we have to bargain with, and
what we shall place a higher priority on. If we maintain a tough stand
against Iran's suspected development of nuclear weapons, it appears likely
that Iran will continue to arm the insurgency in Iraq. Would we be
willing to trade a cessation of U.S. casualties in Iraq for an Iranian
nuclear bomb? If we maintain our presence of troops in Iraq, Iran may
continue to arrest U.S. citizens living in Iran. Should we cede entire
territories to the enemy for the liberty of a few Americans? When it is
suggested that the U.S. deal with Iran to achieve stability in Iraq, what
stakes are we willing to accept as a nation? If Iran succeeds in creating
its nuclear deterrent, that could give the regime the unlimited power it
seeks to sponsor terrorism throughout the region without consequence, and
further destabilize the region more so than it already has.
It seems probable that diplomacy with Iran will remain unproductive, and
potentially may just buy the regime the time it needs to complete work on
nuclear weapons, just like North Korea did. As we flirt with
appeasement as a nation, we must make some big decisions about where we
stand in the world. The national dialogue we engage here domestically
must include how to deal with Syria, Iran, and North Korea as well as Iraq.
Candidates, especially presidential candidates, need to answer the question:
should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and what should the U.S. and
the rest of the international community do to prevent the regime from
acquiring the ultimate deterrent? In addition, how should arms and military
aid coming across Syria and Iran's borders into Iraq to kill our soldiers
and the Iraqi people be countered? Is talking enough?
America needs a strategy to deal with these dangers. It is often said
that we must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it would be.
We may hope for the best as it relates to achieving success diplomatically
with Iran, but we must be prepared for the worst. Iran may say it
wants Iraq to be stable, but do its actions back up its words? Iran may say
its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes, and if so, will it
cease enriching uranium?
|
