Steele's Loose Lips Sinks Us All

"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.... if [Obama] is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?"

-Micheal Steele

Micheal Steele must go. Now.

I'm not exactly a GOP activist. I joined the party last year because I felt I could do more in the system than out by supporting libertarian-leaning and/or national defense hawk GOPers in Utah primaries (I supported Mike Lee, for those who care). I'm not usually a party guy, but today I am because Micheal Steele is a giant idiot.

Afghanistan wasn't a war of Obama's choosing. It was a war brought to us by Al-Qeada and the Taliban. It was brought to us way before 9/11 (WTC Bombing, Embassy Bombings, USS Cole), but it was 9/11 that brought us to Afghanistan. We defeat the Taliban and drove it back to its Pakistani base. We've harassed Al-Qeada for almost a decade now, keeping it on its toes and killing major players. While we've yet to capture or kill Osama bin Laden or his deputy, we've done so much damage that AQ's branch in Yemen is working harder than is core in Pakistan.

Afghanistan was never going to be an easy war, no matter what anybody said. It was always going to be a long-haul, decade(s)-long counter-insurgency against a fanatical grouping of terrorists. They're dug in there forever. They want to rule and expand their ideology, no matter what. Its a battle of wills, as a great general said a few days ago.

Everyone who says no one has ever conquered Afghanistan forgets that we're not there to take it over. We're there to deny it as a base to our very active enemies. We're not the British or the Tsarist Russians or the Soviets. We're there to deny access, not to rule. If we were there to rule and reap, would we allow Karzai to dictate our air war policy? To insult us publicly? To mismanage his government? No.

Honestly, Steele is talking like the fringe libertarian/far left. Ever since Iraq, the anti-war crowd has crowed that Iraq took away from winning Afghanistan. The President ran on that issue, even though he said we were slaughtering civilians as well. Now that Iraq is inching every closer to complete victory, we hear from them that Afghanistan is lost. It's not. Its just that the anti-war folks have no knowledge of this kind of war and have no backbone. Or worse, they've always wanted us to lose.

The long and short of it is that:

1) Afghanistan is important enough to GWOT that we must stay in for decades. Maybe not at the levels we have now (98 000), but we cannot abandon it as we did right after the Soviets left. This is one nation building project that's actually vital to our national security.

2) With Russia throwing its weight around and Iran following suit, having Afghanistan in our geo-political pocket is vital to our ability to hold off Russia and its Iranian client in Central Asia. Unlike the rainbow-dreaming folk in the White House, Russian dominance in the region will not bode well for us in the next decade or so. If this means pulling out of Western Europe (Oh God, pretty please), then so be it. If NATO has to be dissolved, so be it. The key to the next two decades of geopolitics is Central Asia, not Europe. This means turning places like Afghanistan to us. Also, countries like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Georgia (especially Georgia), Armenia, Azerbaijan, and so on are all perfect for us in both anti-terrorism and counter-Russian planning. We need allies more in tune with our goals, not in tune with their navels.

3) Micheal Steele is a giant moron and needs to resign from his position as head of the party for his comments. Really now, when you can't tell the difference between the head of the GOP and Code Pink, you're pretty much screwed.

If the GOP doesn't do anything about Steele, his flubs will sink the party even further than it's already fallen.

Ideas Matter

Late night, scatterbrained post. Engage!

I'm one that believes ideas (principles, core beliefs, etc) are the life's blood of the human soul. Even those who proclaim apathy to politics still have views and convictions. Ideas matter. They always matter. So when it comes to Israel, why do the left's support of tolerance, unity and pan-ethnic love take second fiddle to the goals of the Islamists?

If you question a liberal or a leftist on their support of Islamist groups, they'll deny it. They don't support Hamas, they support the people of Palestine. They don't support Iran, but they don't want anyone interfering with its drive for nukes either. Most of the people on the left that I'm friends with are not supporters of Islamism, which is the antithesis to most of their goals, they're just not supporters of Israel. Enemy of my enemy and all that.

Yet, the chorus on Israel isn't strategic, its moral. The Guardian, the socialists and the rest aren't saying they're supporting the Islamist-led attacks on Israel because Israel is a “racist” state and “oppressive”. I'll grant that from a far-left humanism/world love perspective, a nation solely dedicated to Judaism is pretty repulsive (aside from the fact Israel has a very open society and a healthy political culture that spans the entire spectrum). As would a nation solely dedicated to Islam... like Hama's Gaza, Hizbullah-occupied territories in Lebanon or Iran. Yet, we don't hear much about them and their homophobia, their anti-woman ideology or their extra-judicial violence.

It doesn't do the left any good to build it's high ground on sand.

Ideas matter. Your convictions matter. If you believe in secularism and unity and unicorns turning the world's religions into pillows, you goddamn well better have the stones to shoot in all directions at all times. You may fool the media. You may get the handshakes of terrorists and tyrant leaders. You may get your face ironically plastered all over merchandise sold at anti-capitalist fairs. But in the eyes of the the truly passionate and truth-seeking folk like we have here at Generation Patriot and across the anti-partisan blogosphere on all sides, you aren't heroes. Ganhdi was a hero. MLK was a hero. The wannabe shaeed on the flotilla were douches and their Western kin were douches with strings connected to their ideological polar opposites.

What Do Hollywood and Turkey Have in Common?

They're both awesome at creating publicity.

Questions, Questions... No Answers

So, yeah... they "needed" those supplies, eh?

When I yesterday morning drove through Gaza City, I was immediately surprised that there are almost as many traffic jams as there always has been. Is there not a shortage of fuel? Apparently not. Gasoline is not even rationed.

Many shops were closed yesterday, Hamas has declared a general strike in protest against Israel's brutal and deadly attack on the Turkish flotilla with pro-Palestinian activists on board. So it was difficult to estimate how many products were on the shelves. Therefore I went over to the Shati refugee camp, also known as Beach Camp. Here is one of Gaza's many vegetable markets that sell much more than just fruits and vegetables.

I will not say whether, in better times has been a larger product range than there was yesterday. But there was certainly no shortage of vegetables, fruits or any other ordinary, basic foods. Tomatoes, cucumbers, corn, watermelons, potatoes - mountains of these items in the many stalls.

Dangerous Words

Are you frickin' kidding me?

The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

[...]

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

So what do we call it, genius? Radical extremism? That's more vauge than Islamism or Jihadists. The wrongers of Islam? What name would fit the politically correct (and dangerous) view of the Obama administration on the issue of radicalized Muslim terrorists?

The fact is that Islamism is an ideology with religion at its core. It has political (imperalism) and social (Sharia) aspects to it as well, but when people quote the Koran in videos of exploding trucks or terroristic threats, one may think religion has to do with it. Or are we to assume every dark skinned person is a devout Muslim and its just part of their culture? Kind of like how the Left assumes every white conservative is a Baptist bigot driven by "hate" and "greed".

Honestly, I want to know how the Obama White House wants us to identify this religiously-driven ideology?

The Syrian Scud Problem

Obama and the Assads

Michael Young, the opinion editor of the Beirut Daily Star, has a fine column parsing the latest developments on Syria, Lebanon, and the Obama administration. He confirms the interpretation I made recently on this blog, that the administration is puzzled at the failure of its opening gambits and unsure of what to do next:

The problem is that Washington is of several minds over what to do about Syria…because there is no broad accord, and because the president has not provided clear guidance on resolving Mideastern problems, there is confusion in Washington. And where there is confusion there is policy bedlam, with everyone trying to fill the vacuum. That explains why the Syrians feel they can relax for now, and why the Iranians see no reason yet to fear an American riposte.

Lebanon should be worried about American uncertainty. When there is doubt in Washington, it usually means the Israelis have wide latitude to do what they see fit here. With much of the Lebanese political class openly or objectively siding with Hezbollah, rather than shaping an American approach to Lebanon that might reinforce its sovereignty, we can guess the calamitous effect of that abdication.

Young’s worry is confirmed by this remarkable report from Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin:

As for why Syria seems to be playing such an unhelpful role, “that’s the million-dollar question,” the [Obama administration] official said….”We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem,” the official said. “Until then it’s all damage control.”

This is quite simply amazing. The Assads, father and now son, have run the same foreign policy for decades. It is a very simple model, and one that gets discussed in detail on a regular basis: They are the arsonists who sell water to the fire department. The administration official should start his odyssey of discovery by reading Bret Stephens’s 2009 Commentary essay, “The Syrian Temptation — and Why Obama Must Resist It.”

As a man with family in Lebanon and a connection to the beautiful, fragile country, I'd like President Obama to take a stand, as President Bush did, against Syrian aggression. This isn't just an emotional plea. The defeat of Hezbullah and its expulsion from Lebanese politics would be a first step in allowing Lebanon, for the first time in its history, to be truly independent. An independent Lebanon with its pro-Western culture is a needed addition to Israel and Iraq.

Israel Needs To DIY

It looks like the President may be attempting to push his own peace plan on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Apparently, David Ignatius of the Washington Post isn’t the only recipient of White House leaks about an Obama peace plan. Helen Cooper of the New York Times chimed in with her own piece this afternoon about the president’s desire to jump into the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

According to Cooper, the trigger for this latest instance of administration hubris was a recent gathering of former national-security advisers including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Samuel Berger, and Colin Powell, who were called in to consult with the president and his adviser General James L. Jones. The consensus (only Powell seems to have dissented) was that Obama must put forward his own scheme that would state exactly what the parameters of a peace deal would be. The idea is that peace can only be obtained by the United States imposing it on the parties. The plan is, of course, along the lines of past Israeli peace offers rejected by the Palestinians, plus extra Israeli concessions. The Palestinians give up their “right of return,” and Israel “would return to its 1967 borders,” including the one that divided Jerusalem, with only “a few negotiated settlements” as an exception. The supposed sweetener for Israel is that the United States or NATO, whose troops would be stationed along the Jordan River, would guarantee Israeli security.

This plan solves nothing other than vanity. The 1967 borders are indefensible for Israel and logistically impossible for Palestine. Israel has stated over and over it will not negotiate on Jerusalem. Hamas and Fatah are still at war. Hamas is still at war with Israel and is supported by Iran. There is so much wrong with this plan.

Israel needs to start making plans do solve this 60 year old problem itself. It has the firepower and the justification to do it. While I personally believe that Gaza should be turned over to the Israelis for a land swap involving Jordan, Israel and Palestine (fantasy, but hey, so is this plan), this conflict is rotting the state as well as providing fodder for terrorists fighting the West. 30 year of peace plans has gotten nowhere. This thing needs to end now, not in another 30.

Selective Justice

A few days ago, Wikileaks, the site dedicated to exposing secrets, let loose a video showing the deaths of two journalists in Iraq 2007. The video, named “Collateral Murder”, starts with several minutes of text fluffing the situation for the reader. When the video actually starts, the casual watcher has already been told what happens is a crime, so when the event does happen the shock and indignation has been already planted. The viewer isn't looking for weapons, suspicious behavior or even reading the context of the comment made by the soldier. All that has already been dismissed by Wikileaks, who rather you notice that the American military is evil for shooting journalists and kids and little bunnies. So very, very evil.

Alas, if you are a viewer who likes knowing the truth rather than tow a narrative, you'd notice that several men in the group are carrying weapons. You'd also notice that one of those weapons is an RPG (Russian: “ruchnoy protivotankoviy granatomyot”), not something a security detail carries. The streets are empty indicating a battle is in progress or nearby. The video itself, from an Apache helicopter, is extra proof that the situation in the area required air cover. Then there's the after action report (emphasis mine):

We remained above the engagement site while Bushmaster sent ground forces to the site. Bushmaster arrived and reported 11 x AIF KIA and found RPGs and RPG rounds at the site. We also witnessed a loaded RPG lying 2-3 blocks south of the engagement site. Bushmaster reported that the first child was wounded and pulled from the van. We were unable to determine that there were children in the vehicle and never saw any children prior to or during the engagement. After viewing the gun tape, were able to determine that both wounded children came from the van. Bushmaster immediately MEDEVAC'd both girls to FOB Loyalty for medical care.

All this points to that group of men being armed insurgents, not innocent civilians as Wikileaks wants you to think. The journalists were embedded with the enemy, without the knowledge of the military, and there was little to no way that the Apache gunner or his commanding officer who authorized the strike could of known. If the journalists hanging with the insurgents didn't want to be shot, they should of marked themselves as such with a giant “TV” taped to their vests, helmets or clothing. The same goes for the van that flew in to aid the fallen insurgents. If you want to go help folk in a war zone, you need to mark yourself as such, even if you're an insurgent sympathizer. A giant cross or crescent on your roof, or the word medical or doctor, would give the soldiers reason to hold fire. Yet, that wasn't on the van, so there was no reason to believe that the van was civilian, nor was there anyway to know the man who drove the van in had his kids in it.

The reaction of the left to this has been bloodthirsty. Condemnation as murders, trigger happy, blood crazed racists and so on. A field day on the military based on a pre-written script as instigated by Wikileaks and the left's narrative of the American military.

Now, compare this to the most recent person to be elevated to hero status on the left: Constance McMillian. The Mississippi student, a lesbian, was denied entry to her prom because of her desire to dress in a tux and because she wanted to bring her girlfriend along. The school, in my opinion, acted like a group of little vindictive school girls trying to ostricise an unwanted. The story rightly made news and the school is rightly being lambasted for its childish ways.

I have no qualms with homosexuality. I'm no expert on social justice theory or conservative social tradition or any other social things. It's not something I like to argue about. But, I cannot fathom the moral corruption of those who think Constance is the shining new hero of America while also condemning soldiers as murderers for doing the right thing. They'll support the ruling that makes prom protected under the First Amendment ("The court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment."), but they won't lift a intellectual or rhetorical finger to support those who defend that right. They won't admit that the ruling, accurate or inaccurate, says she was making a political point at a school function, but they will admit that American soldiers like the Apache crew are wrong, so wrong, for firing on armed insurgents in a war zone.

This is selective justice beyond a doubt. Constance was mistreated by the school and is being given the benefit of the doubt, as well as justice. The military was wronged by Wikileaks's bias and its vendetta, yet it is not being given any benefits whatsoever by the left. It's being given two barrels right to face with every know-nothing comment by bloggers and TV pundits despite the evidence disproving Wikileak's narrative.

Justice is for all persons not just those who fit the political agenda. Justice is for all, otherwise its just political and moral corruption.

General David Petraeus is a Badass

Oh yeah. Emphasis mine.

You would not want to be at war with General David Petraeus. He plays to win, and it’s personal. Last fall it was revealed that, months earlier, he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The general had quietly undergone two months of radiation treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, maintaining his full schedule throughout—“It was like it never happened,” said one of his aides. And that’s the way the general planned to leave it—as if it had never happened—until a reporter from The New York Times got a tip and asked a direct question.

So his Central Command staff in Tampa drafted a terse press release, laying out the bare facts. As with everything that comes from his office, Petraeus reviewed the statement. It disclosed the diagnosis and the successful treatment, and explained that the general had declined to announce his ailment because it was a “private matter.” But the general added a line of his own. He added one more reason for not disclosing his condition: “to avoid giving al-Qaeda hope.”

The staff balked.

“Absolutely not, sir” was the gist of the response from his public-relations advisers.

“Leave it in,” ordered the general. “End of discussion.”

But, as in all things, what's more badass than a badass general?

There was only one avenue of appeal. The staff felt strongly enough about it to send the release to the only authority in-house capable of overruling the general. Holly Petraeus returned it without comment, but with her husband’s addition deleted.

A badass general's wife.

Stick to Destroying the Constitution. Kay? Thanks.

Winner!

This hope [ending Afghan corruption] is delusional, as the remainder of the editorial makes clear (Karzai's most important political allies, as well as members of his family, are among the corrupt). No amount of jawboning is going to cure the systemic corruption that plagues the Afghan government. Building the rule of law, moreover, takes decades even under favorable circumstances.

But the greater error in this policy is that our military presence in Afghanistan is making the terrorism problem worse (see this essay), not better, because it inflames Islamic radicalism worldwide--including homegrown terrorism. (Meanwhile, Al Qaeda has other places to seek refuge and locate training camps.)

The author is correct about Afghan corruption, but he should stick to his legal wet dreams and not counter-terrorism.

The idea that we should stop fighting Islamist radicals because fighting them pisses of Islamic radicals is old, worn and comes from the festering bowels of far left ignorance. Islamist ideas aren't knee-jerk reactionary burps. It's a well thought out ideology born of the combination of anti-Americanism, anti-Western civilian and Islamic superiority. Sayyid Qutb, the father of modern Islamist terrorism, wrote volumes of theory and ideology. The goal? Islamic supremacy. Not the liberation of Palestine. Not the ending of American friendships with the Saudis. Not stopping Danish cartoons. Absolute and total supremacy of Islam. Some, like Hibz ut Tahir, try to do it politically. Others, like Al Qaeda, see themselves as the vanguard force of the new Islamic caliphate. Either way, being nice to the radicals won't stop them. They have goals, power structures, ideals; an entire state all planned out when they win. They hunger for power vacuums, they do not abhor them.

The greatest thing Al Qaeda could have is a base of operations as large as Afghanistan. Currently, Al Qaeda is trapped in the tribal areas of Pakistan with its leaders in hiding, not an ideal situation for the group. Before 9/11, they trained tens of thousands, financed themselves through drugs, had the protection of the Taliban and, by proxy, the protection of Pakistan. After 9/11, we captured major players in the group, forced them into a remote area of a new ally, tracked their calls, killed their leaders and constantly harassed them. Unless Al Qaeda gets a new country as a base (like Afghanistan for instance if we leave prematurely) they are stuck as moral support. The groups capable of attacks are stuck in their respective areas. Al Qaeda in Iraq was soundly defeated by the surge, but they are still a problem. Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb was formerly an Algerian Isalmist group that has plans of going global, but remain an Algerian problem for now. Al-Qaeda in Yemen has been the biggest problem of the last year. They armed and trained the infamous Christmas Day Pantybomber. All of these groups would just adore us if we left Afghanistan open to establishment of a central Al-Qaeda base.

Just like they adore the left-wing idiots that represent them in courts they had no right to be in.

Fear, Politics and the War on Terror, Part 1: The Truth of “Torture”

Fear and War will be a three-part series showing how fear and politics, not idealism and morality, are the driving force behind those who oppose the covert operations of the War on Terror. Part I will show that the CIA interrogation program was not torture and describe how it saved lives. Part II will delve into the opposition to covert action by the anti-war crowd, and how their opposition is based on falsities. Part III will explain how and why covert action is needed to fight terrorism and how it is within our ideals to do so.

“Because when America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops. So as Americans, we reject the false choice between our security and our ideals. "
- President Obama

Americans are idealistic people. Our Founders believed in the rule of law, even when it comes to a monarchy, as well as the well-known mantra of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When it comes to war, we Americans want to believe they are on the good side of history. We hold our soldiers to higher standards than others. We reflect on wars past and try to change the mistakes that brought us to crimes like Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib. We do our best to make sure we don't turn into the monsters that we are fighting. Alas, in the realities of war, we can't always stop bad things from happening. The best we can hope for that when crimes do occur, they are not systemic and are punished accordingly when they happen.

The problem with President Obama's words is that he is speaking about the so-called systemic “torture” done by the CIA terrorist interrogation program, not about the fractional percentage soldiers and contractors that've been convicted of crimes during the War on Terror. This “torture” is an interrogation program that disrupted several plots against the United States and has left its “victims” intact both physically and mentally. Far from the horrors of the Imperial Japanese, Nazis or North Vietnamese, in which those few who survived interrogation had scars, neurosis and missing limbs for proof, the CIA program's detractors only have the words of the terrorist themselves and they are not the most reliable of people. In fact, our “victims” are so undamaged by their ordeals that they are able to fully mount court cases competently with the help of their lawyers. Or, most grievously, in the case of those previously called to be tried by civilian courts (now a defunct venture), they are so damaged that they can threaten to turn the trial into a circus with advanced polemics.

The fact is the CIA terrorist interrogation program has not tortured anyone. In 2009, the International Red Cross leaked a report to the press that accused the CIA of busting the heads of detainees against hard walls with the help of a leash. These accusations came from the detainees themselves, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who said, after being asked about future attacks, “Soon, you will know.” Along with the so-called “torture memos” released by the Obama administration, the media ran wild with the story, accusing the CIA of bringing back the Spanish Inquisition and other inane comparisons. With all this negative press, some conservative publications like National Review were shocked at what became known as “walling”[1], asking their counter-terrorism friends if it was really true, and if so, how could we have let it get so bad.

The real story is that the “walling” as described by KSM and his cohorts is only a quarter-truth. “Walling”, as practiced by the CIA, meant that “detainees were placed with their backs to a "flexible false wall," designed to avoid inflicting painful injury. Their shoulder blades -- not head -- were the point of contact, and the "collar" was used not to give additional force to a blow, but further to protect the neck” [2]. The point of walling, just like the point of waterboarding, was to break the resistance of the detainee to interrogation, not to punish him. Once resistance was broken, debriefers, agents totally separate from interrogators, took over. These agents knew their subjects inside and out, terrorist experts called in to ask, analyze and verify what the detainees had to say.

The success of the interrogation program cannot be understated. After being given enhanced interrogation techniques, KSM spilled the beans on more than just attacks he had planned, he and others in the interrogation program “provided our first window into the operations of the terrorist network that had just attacked our country. They explained who al Qaeda's top leaders were, how they interacted, how they made decisions, how they moved money, deployed cells, communicated with their operatives, and planned terrorist attacks” [3]. Critics like Timothy Noah of Salon, who harp on the usefulness of KSM's information with no critical thinking (something I will expand upon in Part II) [4] totally miss the point. Even if there were no plots planned, KSM and his fellow detainees still gave us mountains of information on al Qaeda's command and control, financial network and tactics. Information that has led to countless other captured terrorists as well as the deaths of hundreds of high level al Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden's son.

These are just few of the plethora of facts available to the public on the CIA interrogation program. President Obama's release of the “torture memos” gave the public a deeper insight into how we humanely treated, interrogated and questioned terror suspects, despite the obvious intention of the release of such sensitive information, which was to demonize those who authorized it: the Bush administration. In the repeatedly claimed false choice between our security and our ideals, President Obama chose a third, highly self-interested and devious option: politics.

Sources:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031502724.html

2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018665408933455.html

3. Thiessen , Marc. Courting Disaster. Hardcover. 2009. p.101

4. http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

The Enemy of My Enemy of My...

This article by Efraim Halevy in The New Republic has an interesting idea. Talk with Hamas.

For all their recent disagreements, Israel and the United States share a common view of the Palestinians. They have jointly affirmed their resolve to coax the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) to the negotiating table, while ignoring Hamas. This is a policy that has now lasted close to four years—with, by and large, the support of the international community. Hamas, it is commonly agreed, will only make an acceptable partner for negotiation if it undergoes an ideological transformation, a transformation that is very unlikely to ever occur.

But now might be the right time to reconsider this policy, especially in light of the recent behavior of the PA. To take one recent example: When the Israeli cabinet recently designated two sites in Hebron and Bethlehem to be preserved as national heritage landmarks, the PA joined Hamas in issuing inflammatory statements exhorting the populace to demonstrate against the Jewish appropriation of Muslim holy sites. Stone throwing and violence quickly ensued. Abu Mazen, the self-styled moderate president of the PA, provocatively warned of an impending religious war. Only a stern warning sent by Israeli security authorities brought the “moderate” Palestinian leadership to its senses. And even then, it was only the Israelis who were capable of becalming Jerusalem and the West Bank, with sustained and daily operations in Palestinian-controlled areas. In a time of crisis, the shortcomings of the ruling Palestinians were exposed.

[...]

Before President Obama and Premier Netanyahu proceed to negotiate with their dispirited Palestinian interlocutors, why not reconsider the options? Bringing Hamas to the table could relieve pressure on the Palestinians—who would no longer need to worry about the Islamists attacking their credibility. It might create space for a less ideological approach to peacemaking, and it might allow for the negotiation of a more achievable agreement with Israel. Why not hammer out a temporary arrangement between the three sides that would, say, extend for 25 years with a clause for renewal? Such an agreement would make for a practical second-best outcome--a durable interim understanding.

Current policy, after all, sends Hamas the signal that it is doomed to exclusion come what may and forever. But the more that Hamas is permitted inside the tent, the better the prospects of a modest (yet historic) success. Of course, there will be those who say this is impossible. They will say Hamas is inhuman, and why would the Iranians ever allow this? The answer is that Fatah hardly behaves much better than Hamas. Besides, Fatah has limited ability to deliver any sort of peace without the consent of Hamas. As far as the Iranians go, once you start talking with Hamas, you soon discover how much they hate the guts of those renegade Shiites in Tehran. I could be wrong about all of this. But given the unworkable alternatives, surely this is worth putting to the test.

Efraim Halevy is a former head of Mossad. As soon as I read that, I could see where his thinking is coming from. I don't dare think I'm more intelligent than a man who lead one of the most feared spy agencies on the planet. He'll have a tome full of reasons why this policy may/will work. I simply wish to make a point that bringing Hamas to the table legitimizes it. To legitimize a terror group, like Lebanon has with Hizbullah, only makes it hungrier for power, as Hizbullah has proven. I can see the advantages of bringing Hamas to the table, as Halevy says "this is worth putting to the test", but the risks are high as well.

My idea is to re-legitimize and prop up the PA as much as possible, grind on negotiations with them and have them declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank. This would totally undercut Hamas' legitimacy to the cause of a Palestinian state and, hopefully, create enough schism within Hamas between hardliners and tag-a-longs to allow for the PA to reoccupy Gaza. Risky, yes, but as much risk as I see in making Hamas a real partner for peace. Peace to Hamas has always been the destruction of Israel from top to bottom. Not a very good negotiating position, at least when the goal is to end a war going on for almost 70 years.

Dealing with Iran, Part 2: Paths to Resolution

In part 1, I spelled out the situation with Iran and the positions the major players are in. This final part of Dealing with Iran will detail several potential outcomes of this crisis. They are in no particular order.

Iran Gets Nukes – This is one of the most likely outcome due to the weak action by the Obama administration and the international community. With Russian and Chinese backing, along with suspected North Korean technological advice, Iran will be able to create its first nuclear weapon before this new decade is out, most likely by 2015. Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons will be one of the most drastic geopolitical changes in the Near and Middle East since the Iranian Revolution 30 years ago. No longer just a regional superpower, Iran will be able to start dictating terms and spread its influence farther with a deserved credibility of a world power. Israel would be under a new, constant threat of attack by Iran's anti-Semitic leadership, probably driving it to push the US and Europe for extending its missile shield into the Middle East. If European leadership doesn't chance, it will most likely attempt to increase its standing with the new player with trade deals and other political gifts. The United States would try to increase the sanctions on Iran, at minimum. If hawks have the ear of the White House, a blockade or some type of physical show of power may be considered. But with Iran's oil industry, its ability to strike at almost any Western target in the Middle East and its increased conventional military, the world will probably have to learn to live with a new, radical and imperial-driven nuclear power.

Israeli Strike – It is my opinion that this is the most likely of outcomes if the current path is kept. Israel had shown over its history that its willing to do whatever it takes to defend itself from threats physical and potential. It came out around President Obama's inauguration that President Bush had repeatedly denied the Israelis any material or moral support for a strike on Iran. There are stories from as far back as 2005 that the Israeli Air Force is practicing flying the 1200 miles it would take to strike the main Iranian nuclear sites. It's almost guaranteed that the Israelis are ready to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites into oblivion on the first sign of a successful completion of a nuclear warhead. The aftermath of a strike are uncertain, but it can be reasonably guessed that Iran will, at minimum, order Hezbullah and Hamas to strike at Israeli targets en mass. It's less likely that Syria, Iran's military and political ally, will get involved, but it does not mean that it won't. The weaker the retaliatory position of the United States at the time of an Israel strike, the more likely Iran will take the opportunity to cripple Israel as much as it can. The success of any Israeli strike will be based on its human intelligence within Iran, which I believe, based on Israel's much more ruthless intelligence service, to be much better than that of the CIA's.

Iran Backs Down – On a scale of 1 to 10, from most likely to least likely, I'd give this resolution a 3.5. While it's not impossible for the Iranian leadership to recognize that their pursuit of nuclear arms is harming their ability to interact with the rest of the political world, its not in the best interest of the radical Islamist and the Iranian military to give up on the prestige of having nuclear weapons. Iranian designs for the Middle East are based on Iran's ability to escape any catastrophic retaliation for their actions. For example, the Iranians have backed numerous terror groups and native Iraqi militias to harass and kill American soldiers in Iraq. The military has present tons of evidence to prove this, but even with the proof, Iranian assets were barely touched. There were sanctions, diplomatic punishments and the loss of some influence in Iraq, but overall, Iran has gotten much stronger and bolder in their moves. Unless there is a major change in Iranian leadership, like the purging of the Revolutionary Guard's interference in civilian matters, the Iranians will not back down from their goal of attaining nuclear arms.

Israel-American Strikes – While the Israeli strike is the most certain of all actions, America joining in on the strikes is not as likely. Depending on the political situation, America may abstain from participating military, but its almost certain (unless the President is a extreme leftist or a isolationist libertarian) that the US would provide some kind of logistical support. The ability of American participation in the strikes will be based on Israel's trust of the American government as well as the position of American forces. If the US has come to terms with Iranian nuclear ambitions, it will most likely have moved forces out of the immediate area (save support troops in Iraq) and be less able to participate without having to use long-distance bombing. If the US has kept with its current policy of isolation and military preparedness at the time of an Israeli strike, it will have at least once carrier in the area and be able to coordinate. Like most modern American military choices, it will come down to the resolve of the president and the political situation at home.

American Invasion – The least likely of all outcomes. America is currently in no position to mount an invasion of Iran. The American public is tired of occupations and would quickly resent an occupation of Iran, even if it is based on years and years of evidence of Iranian nuclear wrongdoing. Iran is twice the size of Iraq with more difficult terrain and a much larger and stronger army. Even with the backing of its Iraqi invasion allies (including all 49 members of the Coalition of the Willing), the ability of American troops to successfully occupy Iran is pretty low. America does not have enough troops, the political backing nor the reinforcement ability to hold Iran longer than a year or more without having significant problems with its allies. Such a short time span would not lead to a successful nation-building mission unless a miracle shadow government is already planned by the Iranian dissents, waiting for the US to topple the mullahs.

Green Revolution – While there is much hope for revolution in Iran by the democratic dissents of the Green Revolution movement, a lack of true international support has left them with little ability to take hold of any Iranian institutions without being beaten back and executed. This outcome is above the likeliness of an American invasion, but well below Iran backing off its nuclear ambitions. There simply isn't enough political momentum at the moment for a successful overthrow of the theocracy or a chance for reformists to take power, although that is more likely than a political overthrow. In fact, the more likely internal political scenario would be a total transition from the semi-democratic structure of the Islamic republic to a straight out military dictatorship run and enforced by the Revolutionary Guard and blessed by hardline mullahs.

Total Regional War – Around a 4.5 to a 5 on the likely scale, this worst-case scenario comes in the aftermath of an Israeli strike. If American influence and power is waning to the point of out-and-out weakness, Iran will take the opportunity to strike hard at its mortal enemy with all it has. Its Syrian ally, along with its connected terror groups in Lebanon and Palestine, would expand its retaliation to cripple Israel's ability to project its power in the region. Air and ground-to-ground missile strikes, terror attacks and a possible invasion attempt would sent a strong message to other Western powers as to the willingness of Iran to take on its enemies. Like other scenarios involving America, the political atmosphere will be a major factor in dictating its actions. Unlike the invasion scenario, America is better equipped to fight a defensive war than an offense one. Forces in the Mediterranean area could strike fast and hard at Syrian and Hezbullah targets while Iraqi and American forces would be able to resist any Syrian attempt to invade. While Iran could try to invade Iraq, that would put its position as big brother to the Shia in jeopardy as not every Shia is keen on seeing Iranian overlords rule its new, hard fought liberal democracy. The possibility of American air strikes and naval strikes on Iranian forces both on the sea and in Iranian territory would depend on the strength and military advantage of the Iranians and the actions of the Iranain proxies near Israel. The war would be devastating to Israel with military losses reaching at least 1000 if Syria attempts an invasion. Civilian losses would be almost as large, if not larger, due to the choice of Iranian proxies to target civilian areas. If Iran-Syria achieve an upper hand and America is unable or unwilling to bring a large amount of force to its defense, Israel may be forced to unleash its hidden nuclear arsenal and the world would witness its first nuclear attack since Nagasaki. We can only hope that this scenario, no matter how likely it may be, never comes to pass because the use of nuclear weapons on Arabs and Muslims, no matter how legitimate the use, would put back the ability for peace between Western civilian and Muslim-led nations back to the starting point.

Dealing with Iran, Part 1: The Persian Pickle

America's relationship with Iran hasn't been a good one for the past half-century. The Cold War situation and Mossadeq's insistence of aligning himself with the Soviets led to his overthrow. The return of the Shah wasn't a popular request and Shah's rule wasn't exactly perfect (torture, secret police, oppression; that kind of thing). Then came the Shah's overthrow by a coalition of leftists, Islamists, democratic reformers and other dissidents of the monarchy. That wouldn't have been a bad thing except the alliance of revolutionaries rallied behind Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini, one of the top leaders of Islamic revival at the time. He was famous for his opposition to the Shah, but after coming to power he betrayed the other factions and established an theocracy in which clerics and himself had the final say on almost everything in the nation. He rallied the country under the slogan of “DEATH TO AMERICA!” and “DEATH TO THE GREAT SATAN!” Needless to say, they weren't exactly our friends after that.

Since 1979, Iran has expanded its role in the Middle East and Near Asia. Aside from the Iran-Iraq War, Iran has created or co-opted several terror groups including Hezbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. It has a vast network of intelligence operatives across Europe and is currently making headway in South America through Venezuela. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been killed by Iranian-backed or Iranian-committed terrorist attacks. This does not include the tens of thousands that have been killed by Iranian-backed militias and terrorists in Iraq since 2003.

Iranian expansionism has been mostly covert for the last 30 plus years, but with the Global War on Terror expanding past simply defeating Al-Qeada to the rooting out of WMD programs by rouge states, the Iranians were put into a bind when their nuclear program was flushed out into the open by dissidents in 2002. The IAEA demanded that they be allowed to inspect the program. After negotiations, the IAEA was allowed to inspect Iran's nuclear sites in early 2003. The IAEA determined that Iran had not lived up to its agreements concerning nuclear material and that there had been a pattern of deception. Since then, Iran has had many offers thrown its way so it could have a peaceful nuclear power infrastructure, but the Iranians have insisted that any deal must allow them to enrich uranium. Enriching uranium is essential to both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Despite calls to allow the international community vindicate Iranian claims of a peaceful program, it continues to both deceive the West as well as antagonize it, creating a situation where all the players are put into places they do not want to be, save for Russia. Russia has the singular position of coming out on top in almost any realistic scenario. I'll summarize these positions:

Iran - The country is destabilizing due to the recent fraudulent re-election of President Ahmadinejad. Since the election last summer, millions have protested and thousands have been killed on the streets or executed by the regime. A vast internet-based campaign to free Iran from the mullahs has taken root and the campaign is supported by millions of people across the world. Iranian dissidents who used to be cowed by the state's security forces have upped the ante by confronting them and, in some cases, killing them. While the “Green Revolution” has not panned out as hoped, it has made its mark on the Iranian political structure, creating an air of uncertainty around the ruling Iranian elite. This makes Iranian brinkmanship with the West much more precarious if it turns on them. On the bright side for Iran, if it can get nuclear weapons, it will have completed its goal and would cement its rule over the Near East and Middle East. If a conflict were to happen, it benefits from a rugged terrain, vast territory and a military that has been modernizing for a while. Also, its ability to reach American and Israeli targets with its ballistic missiles and its terrorist network gives it ample room to maneuver if foreign troops start landing on its shores.

United States – Debts, deficits and nearly ten years of continuous low-level war against Al-Qeada, the Taliban and Iraqi sectarians have made the American people tired of war. While its no guarantee that Americans won't initially support a strike or invasion of Iran because of the nuclear threat, the aftermath of any attack will involve hardships the American public would not tolerate. The cost of another war domestically, let alone geo-politically, is currently too much for the US to burden itself with. Its options for dealing with Iran are very narrow, which is never a good position to be in.

Russia – Russia has the best position out of any of the countries involved. If Iran backs down and accepts internationally enriched uranium for its nuclear power program, Russia would be the country most likely to be building those plants and supplying the Iranians with the technology to maintain them. If a conflict erupts between Iran and any of the Western powers, Russia can easily bring Europe to its knees with gas and oil embargoes, which puts pressure on the US and Israel (the most likely combatants with Iran) to end the conflict quickly without regard to the goals of the conflict being met. After any conflict, Russia would have ability to quickly help Iran rebuild.

Western Europe – Over the decades, Western Europe has put itself into a position of energy servitude to Russia. Most of Europe's gas and oil needs comes from its big neighbor and by that, its negotiation position with Russia's ally Iran can only do so much. Already, Italy has been caught dealing with Iran in the face of sanctions and European unity. Russia has already shown it can force the Europeans to their knees with gas shortages. Any conflict with Iran, even if the Europeans don't participate, will end up harming them greatly (gas price rises, forced gas shortages) unless they do the unthinkable and side with Russia/Iran in the conflict.

Israel – Israel is in the best position if Iran backs down, but worst position out of all other nations if conflict erupts. If Iran ends its arms program, Israel's goal of security would be met and it would not have to risk striking Iran and inciting war. But if Iran doesn't back down, then it is near certain that Israel will strike any and all Iranian nuclear facilities and maybe even attempt a decapitation strike on the Iranian civilian, religious and military leadership. Israel has no less than three Iranian allies on and within its borders: Hamas, Hezbullah and Syria. There is no doubt that Israel would suffer heavy, if not enormous, losses during a war with Iran and its allies, but the Israeli military is one of the best armed and best trained in the region and while it for sure it would suffer greatly, there is a high chance it could come out on top. The aftermath for Israel of any conflict would be moderate unrest within the country due to the diversity of Israeli politics as well as the ethnic tensions created by any war Israel has with its Islamic/Islamist neighbors. Also, even if Israel successfully attacks Iran without any overt military retaliation by Syria (something that is very unlikely), it will absolutely face a ramped up terrorist assault by Hamas and Hezbullah, and maybe even the more radical factions within the Fatah movement.

As you can see, this situation is very much skewed against war if any of the nations save Russia wish to come out on top. There are many alternatives to war which should be considered, and which I will expand upon in part 2, but it should be very clear that while Iran's nuclear arms program is very dangerous to world stability, its also very dangerous to attempt to stop it by force. There is very little the West can do right now without creating a worst situation, but that does not mean they should stop trying to prevent an expansionist and radical government from acquiring one of the most horrific weapons on the planet.

Disgustingly Cute

That's what this DailyKos post is. Here's the meat of it:

Really, I couldn't have said it better than MinistryOfTruth's Recommended diary: "President Obama has caught more Taliban Leaders in 1 month than Bush/Cheney did in 6 years."

These are the same folk who think interrogations are torture and the war is wrong. Now it's so boss it rocks the socks off anything the Bush administration did.

Reminds me of a certain presidential candidate that blogs at DailyKos.

These people are truly TSTAP

Major Blow to Taliban

Yes!

The seizure of the Afghan Taliban's top military leader in Pakistan represents a turning point in the U.S.-led war against the militants, U.S. officials and analysts said.

The arrest of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar represents the most significant Taliban capture since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, a senior Obama administration official said Tuesday.

Baradar has been a close associate of Osama bin Laden's and is seen as the No. 2 figure in the Afghan Taliban, behind Mullah Mohammed Omar.

Also on the case are And So It Goes In Shreveport and Report on Arrakis. As well as Legal Insurrection.

If true, this could be the biggest blow to the Taliban since the start of the war.

Charlie Wilson Dies

Former Texas Democratic representative Charlie Wilson has died.

Charlie Wilson, the former U.S. congressman from Texas whose funding of Afghanistan's resistance to the Soviet Union was chronicled in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," has died. He was 76.

Wilson died Wednesday at Memorial Medical Center-Lufkin after he started having difficulty breathing while attending a meeting in the eastern Texas town where he lived, said hospital spokeswoman Yana Ogletree. Wilson was pronounced dead on arrival, and the preliminary cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest, she said.

Wilson represented the 2nd district in east Texas in the U.S. House from 1973 to 1996 and was known as "Good Time Charlie" when he was in Washington.

Actor Tom Hanks portrayed Wilson in the 2007 movie about Wilson's efforts to arm Afghani mujahedeen during their war against the Soviet Union. Wilson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, helped secure money for weapons.

Our hearts go out to his family.

Real Men Have Black Sites

Follow this line of reasoning: In poverty stricken areas of Muslim nations run by dictators that are friends of the US government, poor men are taken advantage of by terror groups the United States funded during the Cold War and brainwashed to kill Americans by use of real crimes the US has done to Muslim nations (Iraq War, Gitmo, Blackwater, etc). When these young men are caught trying to kill Americans, they should get all the rights of American citizens so as to not inflame the already boiling anger they have for us. Also, as an added gesture, we should close down the prison we have unlawfully kept these people in and send them back to their homeland where the central government can reform them.

Until very recently, this was the stance of the Obama administration. Then a silver-spooned Nigerian man trained and equipped in “reformed”Yemen tried to blow up a plane with his panties. The government's plan was (and still kinda is) to make Islamists feel better about America by releasing terrorists, closing our only prison for terrorists and saying sorry a lot. Nothing defeats ideologically and religiously driven mass murderers like understanding, ya know?

This absolute stupidity comes from eight years of venomous hate directed at the Bush administration's ad hoc plan to deal with terrorists captured mid-plot or in the act. Strangely enough, government adapts to situations very slowly, especially in our system of checks and balances and especially with the egregious number of bureaucratic layers the feds have when it comes to national security. The first contestants in “Who Wants To Be An Enemy Combatant” were Richard “Shoe Bomber” Ried, the American Taliban John Walker Lindh and the 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. All three men fit the profile to be tossed into Gitmo under the status of enemy combatants and interrogated, but the Bush administration was unsure about the legal issues and handed them over to the civilian courts for prosecution.

At the time, it seemed a good idea to toss these men to the courts. As Andy McCarthy says:

These cases happened very close to 9/11. I was still in government, so I know we were scrambling. The November 2001 executive order authorizing the military commissions did not get them up and running. That took time — and the Defense Department had to do it while trying to fight a war. The Justice Department circa 2001-03 was thus in a very strong position to argue that it had significant experience handling terrorism cases while DoD still hadn't gotten its act together. That was true, and remember that Reid and Lindh pled guilty, so the cases were basically over before you knew they were on.  But Justice vastly overrated its ability to control the amount of intelligence that the courts would order disclosed in the Moussaoui case. It was a circus, and if he hadn't pled guilty it might have been a disaster

.Moussaoui, already of questionable sanity, used the courtroom as a soapbox and pretty much everything else but a court of law. He ranted, raved, sang, switched lawyers, fired lawyers, defended himself, asked for witnesses that were either in Gitmo or still on the run from our troops. The man did all he could to screw up the legal system... and then he plead guilty, thank God.

The Moussaoui experience, along with the slew of arrests and need for intelligence secrecy and intelligence gathering, showed the Bush administration that tossing terrorists over to civilian courts wholly unsuited for a time of war would be a very, very bad idea. What if a saner terrorist got a sympathetic judge willing to expose state secrets so that an admitted terrorist can reap the treasures of American civil rights? It's not far fetched to think it would of happened, considering our courts have ruled that the civil rights of terrorists reach to the furthest observation post in the war zone. Shoot first, read rights later.

The fantasy land of the Left where we torture for fun, where we bomb for oil and where we are so racist that we corrupt the genetically imbued liberalism all minorities are born with doesn't match up with the reality of this nearly decade long war. Would it be nice if we could just prosecute the terrorists in civilian courts? Yes. Would it look better than military tribunals and Gitmo prisons? Yes. Would I like to have Lisa Edelstein and Jennifer Morrison as my personal french maids, outfits and all? Yes. Will it happen? Hell no.

Reality check: the civilian legal system, as well as the rules of modern warfare, DO NOT apply to trans-national terrorist groups like Al-Qeada or any other group who fight for the global or pan-Islamic caliphate. They do not fight for a country, they do not fight for a conquered country, they do not have uniforms, they do not have a recognized military structure, they do not fight by the rules of war and they do not care for the rules of war. They attack civilians en mass consistently as a overall strategy of political terror. They do not recognize the authority of the courts they may be prosecuted in. They are, pretty much, non-existent in any civilian or military legal sense. We could execute them on the spot and some court would have to make up a new law to prosecute the soldiers responsible. In fact, German saboteurs who landed in the US during WWII were picked up, tried in military tribunals, and then shot. Some even wore uniforms. The president at the time was liberal hero FDR. The same man who put hundreds of thousands of Japanese into concentration camps based on ethnic features.

But we don't do stuff like that in today's age of 24/7/365 coverage. A terrorist gets punched in the face during his capture and the soldiers who brought him in are the ones who get in trouble. An independent war journalist gets detained for not answering a non-security question for TSA, but the Pantybomber got through several layers of security in several different countries, including ours. You even think about doing secondary screenings of young men from Yemen, Iran, Lebanon or any other country crawling with Islamist terrorists, you're a racist and a profiler and you'll be getting a letter from CAIR and the ACLU. In today's world, real men placate the enemy, hoping that we won't piss them off more than they already are.

Bullsh!t. No one has ever won a war against savages such as the ones we fight with flowers and Christmas cards. Rome didn't defeat the Gauls with pots. Sparta didn't defeat Athens and Persia with politically correct security methods. The US didn't defeat Japan and Germany with stern words and international sanctions enforced by the United Nations.

This is sexist, but you can't call yourself a man if you're idea of winning a war is to fight it until everything is balanced out and fair. Real men kill the enemy. Real men interrogate at black sites around the world so that the enemy doesn't know what's what. Real men put dangerous terrorists with sensitive intelligence in military courts so to protect the country's intelligence apparatus.

Real men fight a war like a war, not like schoolyard misunderstanding.

Not Surprising

"Had [President Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Program" been in place before the [9/11] attacks, hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi almost certainly would have been identified and located."

Eye on Iran

Busy day. 1st Wedding anniversary. Also, happens to be the day the Mullahs tricks and lies finally come to a head. Some of the biggest protest since the Revolution are underway in Tehran due to the questionable victory of President Ahmadinejad. My phone has been blowing up with Twitter updates by pretty much everyone I'm following.

As of now, the updates say that power has been cut to Tehran and the protesters are having to circumvent the Iranian censors using any social networking software they can. Police have been seen going door to door trying to shut down all internet connections in the city.

Let us hope the freedom loving Iranians make their mark on the Mullahs.

Updates to come.

UPDATE: @change_for_iran is saying that the secret police are looking for a student activist at the Economics college and are actively trying to get inside the locked building.

UPDATE II: Secret police have been targeting female students. Over 100 have been arrested, including journalists and famous dissidents. Worst is that the MSM has barely covered it. During night, no station had complete coverage, but snippets. The BBC had a story about dogs and flowers when I tuned in.