The World After the NIE Report

If anyone wants to know what a brave new world the internet and 24 cable news has created they only need to look at the dynamics created by the release of the National Intelligence Estimate in regards to Iran's nuclear program. Six or eight years ago I would venture to guess that many in government wouldn't know anything about any NIE report. Now, the NIE is subject to water cooler discussion and is being used as spin material by politicians as far away as Iran.



The problem with this brave new world is that most of the people in it know just enough to be dangerous. First, as Fred Thomspon rightly points out, we should have a healthy skepticism toward this report.

The accuracy of the latest NIE on Iran should be received with a good deal of skepticism. Our intelligence community has often underestimated the intentions of adversaries, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea. And are all of the CIA detractors now going to take intelligence pronouncements at face value? It's awfully convenient for a lot of people: the administration gets to say its policies worked; the Democrats get to claim we should have eased up on Iran a long time ago: and Russia and China can claim sanctions on Iran are not necessary

Second, if the report is right, then the reaction is almost entirely spin and in no way relates to reality. There is a great deal of irony that most of the same people that are using this report to attack Bush for some sort of perceived misleading statements also attacked Bush for lying about Iraq. The final NIE report on Iraq painted a scary picture in which the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein was seeking a plethora of WMD programs. Even though that particular report concurred with the picture the President gave, that didn't stop his opponents from claiming that he lied about Iraq's WMD's. Now, most of the exact same people that ignored a previous NIE report to claim he lied are using another NIE report to claim he is now lying. They simply can't have it both ways. Either the NIE is the gospel or it isn't.



Finally, if this report is accurate, then it in fact validates Bush's entire foreign policy strategy. The NIE report says that Iran halted their nuclear program in 2003. Unless you are a believer in strange coincidences that means Iran stopped their program because they noticed their neighbor to the West was getting bombarded because of his own WMD program. In other words, the invasion of Iraq did in fact put tyrants and despots on notice and it changed their behavior. Remember, Lybia also gave up its WMD program in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.

Here is another view...

What did that pressure consist of? In the fall of 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency had not yet referred the civil Iranian nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council. That happened in 2006, and the Security Council finally agreed on (weak) sanctions later that year. In the fall of 2003, the European Union had barely swung into action with its negotiations--which have gone nowhere in four years. The quasi-urgency displayed by both the IAEA and the EU in late 2003 was a result of fear that unless they got engaged, the United States might act unilaterally and militarily. Why such fear?

Much as the U.S. intelligence community, the IAEA, and the EU might prefer to forget it, we did overthrow Saddam Hussein in April 2003. As Rosett puts it, that "was the year in which Saddam Hussein became Exhibit A of the post-Sept.-11 era for what could happen to terror-linked tyrants who ignored America's demands that they abjure weapons of mass murder."

Did anyone notice? Muammar Qaddafi did. Libya, in late 2003, gave up its nuclear weapons program (which was, incidentally, more advanced than the IAEA believed) and invited U.S. experts in to dismantle it.

Perhaps Iran's mullahs also noticed. Perhaps they noticed, too, a large U.S.-led military force just across their border.

Why then are some using this as bludgeon against Bush? Here is how Joe Biden put it...

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) Tuesday asserted that President Bush is not leveling with the country when he says that he did not know in mid-October that U.S. intelligence services believed at that time that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

“Are you telling me a president who is briefed every single morning, who is fixated
on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the United States government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in ’03?” Biden said in a conference call with reporters.

So, when accusing the sitting President of lying about matters of national security, Biden uses nothing but supposition. Of course, he isn't alone. Most of the entire MSM has claimed this.
Criticism was coming from nearly every single quarter.

The new National Intelligence Estimate — which says Iran had a nuclear weapons development program, but halted it in 2003 — made President Bush's week play out like a sad country song. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was smiling and called the report a victory. Rush Limbaugh blasted the report as a product of administration sabotage. And Democrats were accusing the president of being a flip-flopper.

The NIE drew fire from nearly all sides, including anti-war Democrats in Congress, foreign leaders the administration needs to hold the line against Iran, and conservatives usually supportive of the administration.

The root issue for many critics comes down to credibility: Credibility of the estimate, credibility of the intelligence community that developed it and the credibility of the administration for whom those agencies work. Bridging that credibility gap might prove difficult for an administration heading into its final months.

The most absurd criticism came from those that claimed this would slow down "Bush's rush to war". First, the only rush that Bush had to go to war with Iran was in the minds of the people that claimed he had it. For the last six years the only thing Bush has done is go back to the UN for an endless stream of useless sanctions. If anything Bush hasn't been tough enough, not too tough. Second, to claim that this proves that Iran isn't the threat that Bush claims is to ignore all reality. First here is how some of those think.

To be sure, the first reaction to the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is simple relief — the Bush administration is less likely to launch a unilateral, pre-emptive military strike against a nuclear program that doesn’t exist.

But then there are the second and third reactions, which are nearly as important in providing context. Matt Yglesias, for example, reminds us that in 2003, Iran reached out to the U.S. in order to strike a sweeping peace deal, which would have led the country to give up on a nuclear program that they then-realized would be too hard to develop. Bush wasn’t interested.

For anyone to treat Iran as anything short of a sociopathic regime that needs to be isolated and confronted until they understand that confrontation will only lead to their destruction is to ignore reality. Let's review some of the things Iran has done in the last couple years.

One of their proxies started a war in Lebanon with Israel. Another proxy started a war in Palestine with Israel. It is Iran that is responsible for the much of the alphabet soup of explosive devices currently killing our soldiers in Iraq . Let's not forget that the Iranians crossed into international waters, took fifteen British sailors hostage, and then paraded them on television for propaganda purposes. To claim that Iran is not a menace because some government report claims they halted their nuclear program (though interestingly not their uranium enrichment) is to ignore Iran's actions over the last few years. Iran is a menace. If this report is accurate then it proves that the only way to deal with them is with a hammer.

What is frustrating to folks like me is how the White House is again bungling the media handling of this report. Even though they have the bully pulpit of the Presidency you aren't hearing much response to much of this absurd criticism.

There you have the brave new world of the MSM and the NIE report. It is complicated by nature as the NIE report is really not meant for layman. That said, most people are asking all the wrong questions and coming to all the wrong conclusions. It is nothing short of absurd to have the same Joe Biden accusing Bush of misleading on Iraq, all the while ignoring the NIE report, and misleading on Iran, all the while treating this NIE report as the gospel. It is shameful that the MSM has focused solely on perceived misleading statements without even a thought that this report actually confirms Bush's policies.

Finally, and to me most importantly, it is no less shameful that the Bush admin allows all of this to happen even though they have the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

Dems and Iraq: Rock Meet Hard Place

Here is the latest "good" news out of Iraq as reported by the New York Times yesterday.

As Iraqi refugees begin to stream back to Baghdad, American military officials say the Iraqi government has yet to develop a plan to absorb the influx and prevent it from setting off a new round of sectarian violence.

The Iraqi government lacks a mechanism to settle property disputes if former residents return to Baghdad only to find their homes occupied, the officials said. Nor has the Iraqi government come forward with a detailed plan to provide aid, shelter and other essential services to the thousands of Iraqis who might return. American commanders caution that if the return is not carefully managed, there is a risk of undermining the recent security gains.

“All these guys coming back are probably going to find somebody else living in their house,” said Col. William Rapp, a senior aide to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, speaking at a two-day military briefing on measuring military trends for a small group of American reporters in Baghdad...

But Mike, that isn't good news... Sure it is. This is, after all, the New York Times. If all they can find in the way of bad news is the government's troubles in dealing with refugees. Well, that frankly is good news. Our goals in Iraq were to remove Saddam, install a representative government, and turn Iraq from an enemy into an ally in the GWOT. None of that has anything to do with their refugee situation. That is, with all due respect, entirely the internal problem of the Iraqi government. If the government fails in such tasks as dealing with refugees, well then, the Iraqis will quickly grow as cynical toward their elected officials as we do here. So what. That has nothing to do with any of our goals in the country. The good news is that the New York Times can't actually find any real bad news.

On the same day, we also had vocal war opponent Jack Murtha say this.

Murtha said he saw signs of progress and continuing chaos during his one day in Iraq. A hospital he visited had been hit by a mortar attack the day before, but more parts of the country are peaceful than before, and Iraqi troops in the Al Anbar province are rooting out the remnants of al-Qaida in their area, he said…

Murtha said that “surge” of troops is working, but it only underscores how poor planning from the Bush administration has hamstrung the war effort. Other examples include the slow response to protecting troops from roadside bombs and a shortage...

Despite the expected caveats, Murtha couldn't deny reality. The surge is working. Violence is down. Iraqis: Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and all others are turning against the insurgency and are working with our side. Even the Daily Kos is starting to admit reality.

As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have begun to quietly panic in recent days over this question: "Could George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan have possibly been right about the surge?"

Simply put, the answer is no. The surge is not working and George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan were not right. Despite what right-wing blogs are saying, and despite what conservative observers are noting, the plunge in violence is actually the result of an Iraqi political decision made by and implemented by Iraqis—and the drop has little to do with the "surge"—an infusion of 30,000 troops (which wouldn’t fill a Major League stadium) into Baghdad, a city of six million people...

It may in fact be desperately important for the Kossacks to prove to the world that the improved situation has nothing to do with the surge, however in reality, the arguement is silly, because it is not relevant. First, Bush's legacy will be set by history. Second, in the next election Bush won't be on the ticket.

Several anti war Democrats will be though. An entire Congress that tried to stop the surge before it got started will be. Let's take them one at a time...

Hillary Clinton

I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief...“In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view end up on the downside.’’

Barack Obama

I will not support funding for a failed policy. It is long past time for the Republicans to stop filibustering a responsible removal of our troops from Iraq, and for the President to stop threatening to veto anything that is not a blank check for his failed strategy.

"Our troops must not bear the burden for the failure of Iraq's leaders to reconcile, nor should they be kept in Iraq to counter Iran.

Harry Reid

I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week...

Nancy Pelosi

No statistic can capture the pain and loss endured by the families of the fallen in Iraq, particularly the children of parents who will not be returning home. Those who have lost loved ones, and those still serving in Iraq and around the world, are in our thoughts and prayers every day as we work to bring an end to the President’s disastrous war.

"While nothing compares to the loss of life in Iraq, the financial costs of the President’s policy are enormous and growing, with $10 billion being spent each and every month of the war. The total cost for the Bush Administration’s Iraq war could rise as high as $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office

"With every passing day, the President’s Iraq policy leaves the United States more isolated at a time when we must reclaim our moral leadership and rally the world to fight against terrorism. The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment of our troops and the President’s plan to spend another trillion dollars for a 10-year war in Iraq."

So, every Democratic leader is now on record as believing that what is happening would NOT happen. They called a policy failed before they even had time to assess it. They are now stuck between the perverbial rock and perverbial hard place. They must now convince the country that what is real isn't actually real.

That's why they are all fixated on the benchmarks which haven't been met. The Dems are reaching for anything out of Iraq that looks like bad news. It is a very difficult arguement to make though. It is hard to convince the public the surge isn't working because the central government hasn't reached agreement on some pre determined goals. Second, this is becoming more and more General Petreaus' war. Thus, in order to prove failure when there is success, they will ultimately have to show the country more credibility on this matter than General Petreaus (who they incidentally voted unanimously to install less than a year ago).

I pointed out that the Republicans are not in a great position either because they are handcuffed to a war that will likely never be popular, however their perverbial "pickle" is much easier to navigate. Here is how they are currently navigating it.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidates have a simple position on the war in Iraq: They want victory, and they want to talk about something else.

With the notable exception of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), they echo President Bush, and say the United States must remain in Iraq for an unspecified period until the country is stable, and that leaving before then would be a victory for al-Qaeda.

But they usually only say that when asked. The two leading candidates in Iowa, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts governor MittRomney, occasionally give entire speeches without even using the word "Iraq."

Unlike the Democratic candidates, who have competed over who can offer the most precise plan for withdrawing troops as president, the GOP candidates have offered limited visions about how they see Iraq's future, choosing instead to focus on howthey would enlarge the U.S. military to fight the broader war on terrorism.

The Reps want to minimize Iraq as an issue as much as possible. That maybe the appropriate strategy now, however as the war continues to get better, and especially after Petreaus' next report in March, this issue may even turn into a benefit for the Reps. All those quotes will be damning if our casualties fall into the teens or even single digits by the next election after all. For the Reps, the trick is easy. Divorce yourself from the failed strategy that Bush employed (relatively easy since it was Bush's strategy after all, and Bush isn't the first President to start with a failed war strategy, see Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Washington, etc.) Continue to back the current strategy and contrast that with the defeatist strategy that the Democrats are now married to.

News and Views from Iraq

Here is Michael Yon's latest.

One of the controversies I intended to explore on my second embed with the British is the claim that EFPs are flowing into Iraq from Iran, just miles down the road. Iran’s support for international terrorist groups is well established; and here in Iraq, Iran is believed to have intimate contacts with terrorists groups providing them with “lethal aid.” EFPs fall within that category, because they can destroy any vehicle in Iraq, including America’s and Britain’s best tanks. Warriors are fine vehicles [although they do need real air conditioners for Iraq] but an EFP can slice through the Warrior’s armor like bullets through beer cans. Webb became known for personally inflicting heavy casualties among the enemy, but today it was his Warrior about to rumble over an EFP.

Here is the latest from Michael Totten reporting on the ground from Fallujah.

Nobody was shot last night in Fallujah. No American has been shot anywhere in Fallujah since the 3rd Battalion 5th Marine Regiment rotated into the city two months ago. There have been no rocket or mortar attacks since the summer. Not a single of the 3/5 Marines has even been wounded.

“The only shots we've fired since we got here are warning shots,” said Lieutenant J.C. Davis. Another officer didn't agree. “We haven't even fired warning shots,” he said. “It's too dangerous.”

It's dangerous because anti-American sentiment still exists in the city, even though it is mostly passive right now. It isn't entirely passive, however. Someone has been taking pot shots at Americans. A few days ago somebody threw a hand grenade at Marines. Two weeks ago an insurgent was caught by Iraqi Police officers while planting an IED near the main station. He freaked out, accidentally connected the wires, and blew himself up. “That's what he gets,” Private Gauniel said...

Here is Omar's latest.

This is a great find by any standards but the timing makes it all the more significant.The significance comes not only from the quantity of bombs, cars and other resources that al-Qaeda has been denied the ability to use. It comes from the amount of frustration they have to deal with right now that all these preparations and resources are lost.

What makes me think that this will indeed frustrate them is that al-Qaeda chose to mass this great number of VBIEDs instead of deploying them to the streets one, or a few, at a time fresh from the factory. Two possibilities arise here; they either couldn't find the means and safe routes to deploy the bombs and so they had to wait for more favorable circumstances, which is good news since it means their ability to conduct missions has really been reduced to a great extent.

Bill Roggio talks about the continued hunt for AQI.

"Despite the recent loss of numerous cells across Iraq, the media wing of al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) has produced a second video product, which the al Fajr Media Center posted Tuesday night on the main Jihadi message boards," Nick Grace of Threatswatch reported. "The one minute video, called 'Destruction Of An-American Hummer Vehicle,' is the latest in the ongoing ISI media series 'Roman and Apostate Hell in al-Rafedain Land' and, according to the accompanying Web statement, shows an IED attack on a hummer in the az-Zobayer bin al-Awaam region of Diyala Province." The first video released showed the brutal execution of nine Iraqis, purportedly Shia who served in the Interior Ministry’s police commando unit in Diyala province...

Here is one from a different perspective. The L.A. Times is very upset that Bush is trying to negotiate a deal for bases in Iraq.

Despite the show at Annapolis, this week's main diplomatic initiative has concerned Iraq, not Israel. Without any fanfare, the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki announced that the United States and Iraq will begin negotiating a long-term agreement that will set the terms of Washington's Iraq policy for "coming generations."President Bush is again in legacy mode.

His White House "czar" on Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, explained that the administration intends to reach a final agreement between the two countries by July 31, 2008. In describing the negotiations, he made a remarkable suggestion: Only the Iraqi parliament, not the U.S. Congress, needs to formally approve the agreement.

Finally, the DOD has this story about a successful operation in Tajj.

Coalition forces captured a wanted individual during operations in Tarmiyah while targeting a foreign terrorist facilitator and associate of senior al Qaeda leaders. They also detained two other suspects without incident. --

Coalition forces captured a wanted individual north of Samarra during operations targeting foreign terrorist facilitators and senior terrorist leader associates. The wanted individual is believed to be an al Qaeda leader in the area. --

Coalition forces detained four suspects while targeting al Qaeda members responsible for assassination-style murders in Hawija. Coalition forces also targeted their associates in Mosul, detaining three suspects without incident.

To sum up, we remain cautiously optimistic about an ever improving though incredibly complicated situation. God bless our troops, stay safe, you are our best.

In The News

Rumors are everywhere that it was the Romney campaign itself behind the anti Romney phone calls. While the blogosphere is abuzz the rumors come from one source, Mark Hemingway of the National Review.

News broke Thursday that voters in New Hampshire and Iowa had received phone calls from pollsters raising questions about aspects of Republican Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Who made the calls? Although the Romney campaign denies involvement, evidence points in its general direction.

I don't have much use for rumors and I know nothing about Hemingway so I won't say anything about their veracity. You can read all the links and decide for yourself. I will say that, if true, his campaign is through.

Michelle Malkin reports that Fran Townsend is resigning. Townsend is a top advisor at DHS and most political junkies will remember her from several Sunday Morning talk shows she has done over the years. I don't know much about her though Michelle asks,

If you’re saying to yourself “Fran who?,” don’t feel bad. And if you’re also saying to yourself, “She’s not the only one who should be resigning,” you’re not alone:

For all you libs that consider Michelle a Republican shill. She is a shill for legal immigration and takes out venom against anyone she sees that isn't aggressive enough in such areas.



In what can only be described as delicious political theater, Robert Novak is sticking by his story. What story is that? According to Novak, Clinton operatives are spreading rumors throughout Democratic circles and that

the Clinton campaign is spreading the word that it's holding back on dishing dirt on Barack Obama, and charged the Democratic frontrunner with playing "Nixon tricks."

This must be true and I believe it hook line and sinker, however that is only because Robert Novak is a graduate of my alma mater and spoke at my commencement ceremony. All right, that really isn't much of a reason, so stay tuned.

The New York Times, of all places, has word of continued drop in violence in Iraq. They make sure to mention that it hasn't been met with political reconciliation however anyone who has read these pages knows this is frankly old news. The admin may have boxed itsefl in regarding the scope and nature of the reconciliation, however the bottom line is that in Iraq the politicians are no less incompetent than they are here. Most of the reconciliation is happening on the grass roots level. We see Sunni and Shia Sheiks coming together to work on strategies to quell violence. The admin has made some token appearances as well with different sects.

The admin made certain things a model of reconciliation: an oil law, De Baathification, etc. Those things are likely NOT going to happen anytime soon, however to say that without them means failure in Iraq, is like saying the U.S. will fall apart without comprehensive immigration reform.



The situation in Pakistan remains dicey. Musharaff hand picked new supreme court judges after dismissing others, and then they took two hours to dismiss appeals to his victory in the last election. Musharaff is certainly acting like a dictator however in that part of the world the devil you know is much better than the devil you don't. With Iraq calming down, Pakistan may become the new focal point for the jihadis.

Hillary's Grown Up Foreign Policy?

I have made it one of my missions as a blogger to find as many incidents of MSM bias and expose them. The most egregious example came with this hatchet job that masqueraded as political analysis of Rudy Giuliani from a Midland, Texas paper. The Washington Post shows its bias in many ways however burying good stories about Iraq while highlighting negative ones on the front page is one of their favorites. In fact, the bias can be so overwhelming that reporters will openly admit that when combat deaths fall in Iraq they don't consider it news but when they rise that is news.

Which brings me to this puff piece entitled Foreign Policy Grown Up about Hillary Clinton's supposed acumen in foreign policy. In reality, her acumen is measured against the rest of the Democratic field. There were a couple of questions that came to mind when I read this piece. The first is who is paying this guy's salary, and the second is who is paying that person's salary.

The thesis of the piece is that unlike her rivals Clinton bucked the far left and voted for sanctions against Iran.

Begin with the Iran debate. All the Democratic presidential hopefuls know that a nuclear Iran is scary. They know that the Europeans have been patiently negotiating with Iran to secure a freeze of its program and that the Iranians have been stalling. But Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who unequivocally embraces the obvious next step: Push hard for the sanctions that might change Iran's calculations. Unlike all her opponents, Clinton supported a pro-sanctions resolution in the Senate. Ever since that vote, Obama and the rest have attacked her mercilessly.

He then goes into a long winded explanation of the extreme pacifist philosophy of the far left. He also explains how sanctions do not mean a rush to war. Now, while I am happy that the Senator voted for sanction against Iran, it is hardly something that should be commended. In fact, by design or accident, Mallanby actually exposes the amazing power and radical agenda of the far left. I would say that slapping sanctions on Iran isn't courageous but rather obvious.

Let's go over what Iran has done just in the last year or so. They are responsible for the alphabet soup of explosive devices blowing up soldiers in Iraq. They started a proxy war in Lebanon with Israel. They went into international waters grabbed fifteen british sailors and held them hostage for propaganda purposes. They started another proxy war in the Palestinian territories. Wait, oh yeah, I haven't even talked about the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Now, Mr. Mallaby thinks we should be impressed because Hillary Clinton rounded up the sense and courage to actually vote for sanctions against this country.

I am reminded of the pinnacle scene in Quiz Show. Right after Van Doren confesses to his deeds the Senators one after another praise his candor, honesty and courage. Finally, one Senator brings things back some sanity.

I'm happy that you've made the statement. But I cannot agree with most of my colleagues. See, I don't think an adult of your intellegence should be commended for simply, at long last, telling the truth.

The same way here I don't think Hillary Clinton should be commended for doing what anyone with any intelligence can see is the sensible and obvious thing to do. Like the Senator, I am happy that she voted for the sanctions, but slapping sanctions on a country that has committed dozens of acts of war all over the Middle East just in the last year isn't corageous or "grown up" but obvious.

Mallaby then goes on to laud Clinton's position on Iraq.

Clinton's rivals are contemplating history and deriving only a narrow lesson about Bush: Don't trust him when he confronts a Muslim country. But the larger, more durable lesson from Iraq is that wars can be caused by a lack of confrontation. The Iraq invasion happened partly because the world had lost the stomach to confront Saddam Hussein by other means. By 2002, the sanctions on Hussein's regime had been diluted, and there was pressure to weaken them further. Hussein was no longer "in his box," to use the language of the time: If you believed that a resurgent Saddam Hussein presented an intolerable threat, it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force, sooner rather than later.

Alone among the Democratic candidates, Clinton has the honesty to insist that the case for war was reasonable at the time -- even if, with the benefit of hindsight, the invasion has proved disastrous. In sticking to that politically difficult position, Clinton is saying that, despite its awful risks, war can sometimes be the least bad choice. She is not running away from military power, even in a political climate that makes running attractive.

To this, I am not even sure what he is impressed with and frankly I don't care. Mallaby is a Bush hater, and he says as much.

Bush's record is disastrous, and on an emotional level, Bush hatred is understandable. But what we need in the next president is a vision of the world that's not distorted by the bitterness of recent times: a vision that accepts the limits of military force but also acknowledges that Americans face real threats, that feckless foreign powers can sometimes make the ideal of multilateralism unattainable and that war can sometimes be the least bad option.

He appears to be impressed by Clinton because despite her hate she has enough sense to slap sanctions on Iran and see sense for war at times. Frankly, the article is derelict not only in what it says, but frankly what it doesn't say. For all of the grown up talk, Mallaby doesn't seem to mention the multiple and muddled positions Hillary has on both Iraq and Iran.

In July, Clinton called Obama naive for suggesting he would negotiate with Iran with no pre conditions, but by October she was herself saying she would also negotiate with Iran with no conditions. As Rudy Giuliani rightly pointed out, Clinton refused whether or not Israel has the right to defend herself against Iran, and Clinton is not clear as to whether or not war is ultimately also an option for her own administration when dealing with Iran.

On Iraq her position is even more muddled, in the beginning of the year she was strenuously in favor of pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible.As we've come to the second half of the year, she has suddenly taken the position that she can't promise all forces will be out of Iraq by 2013. This continues a long and tortured evolution for Clinton on Iraq. Hillary Clinton was enthusiastically behind the effort. As the war turned for the worse, and public opinion turned for the worse, she turned against the war as well. She's even claimed that her vote for the Authorization to Use Military force in Iraq wasn't an authorization for military force but rather more diplomacy.

None of these shifting and muddle positions is ever addressed by Mallaby when he calls Clinton a grown up. In Mallaby's world, changing your position as often as the weather changes is perfectly fine and still being a grown up as long as you can muster up the good sense to vote for sanctions against Iran.

Finally, I would like to draw a metaphor. In my fantasy football league, every year all the teams that don't make the playoffs play in their own pseudo playoffs that we call the toilet bowl. Now, no one is lauded for winning the toilet bowl, we just all love fantasy football and want everyone to play as long as possible. To say that Hillary Clinton is the "grown up" among the Democrats vis a vis foreign policy is really the equivalent of congratulating the toilet bowl winner in fantasy football.

Let me end my analysis of Mallaby's piece with one word. I will clean it up since this is a family show and simply say: bolderdash.

E.N.D.A. To Move Through the Legislature?

A hat tip goes to Right March for bringing this story to my attention. The Employment Non Discrimination Act may find its way through the Congress soon. ENDA seeks to make gays, bisexuals, and transgenders a minority and treat their discrimination in the work place in the same manner that we currently treat age, sex, and skin color.

Now, according to this gay publication here is what Nancy Pelosi promised their lobby.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed Friday to fast-track a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act once there are enough votes to pass it.

Although a version of the bill that protects only sexual orientation will be marked up by committee and move to a floor vote next week, the San Francisco Democrat has promised to hold a floor vote on a fully inclusive ENDA without delay as soon as the political support is there.

According to Right March, the bill is making its way through House Education and Labor Comittees. The problems with such a bill are plentiful. For instance, while it protects religious organizations, it does not protect groups like the Boy Scouts. If this bill passes the Scouts may very well be force to hire openly gay scouts or face sanctions. It also violates people's freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Finally, and most importantly, homosexuality is a behavior which is totally different from someone else's skin color, age, or sex.

Let's put aside the wisdom or lack thereof of this bill. I think most people that read this page will agree with me on my position.

Instead, I want to focus on two things related to this bill. First there is the political tone deafness and utter lack of competence that the Democratic leadership continues to show. This bill is another in a long line of bills that has either been handled poorly or is simply a total political loser for them. Whatever your beliefs on this particular bill, most Americans will reject it. In fact, short of SCHIP, I can't remember the last thing the Democrats did that works for them politically.

Let's look at some examples. The Democrats tried to pass a NON BINDING resolution that condemned an act from almost one hundred years ago. As a result, our ally, the Turks, took great offense and threatened all sorts of diplomatic retaliation. Fortunately, critical mass was reached when this story saw the light of day and the bill was withdrawn. Also, A high school student wanted to include the word God in a message to his grandfather that accompanied a flag that he wanted flown over the Capitol. Initially, Nancy Pelosi resisted allowing the word God accompany the flag, however once again critical mass was reached. Finally, the leadership backed down and they let the word God stay in the message that accompanied the flag.

In August, the Senate tried to play chicken with the President on the terrorist surveillance program (known as warrantless wiretaps to most of you). Again, the leadership backed down at the last minute and extended the program for six more months. Just this past week, a bill that would outlaw sanctuary cities, something that is popular overwhelmingly with Americans, was voted down 52-42 in the Senate. All but one Democrat voted against it. Even on Iraq, the Democrats have been totally politically tone deaf and incompetent.

Which brings me back to the ENDA bill. This is another in a long line of political disasters for the Democrats. Once critical mass reaches on this bill, they will be forced to back down the way they have on everything else.

This brings me to my second point. It is now nothing less than shocking just how much the Democrat's agenda mirrors that of George Soros. This ENDA bill is right down his gay friendly secular progressive agenda, and it follows a long line of bills and maneuvers that are very friendly to his agenda.

Several months ago, The Supreme Court ruled to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. All the Democratic candidates came out against this ruling and some even swore to impose a litmus test of only pro abortion Supreme Court Justices.

At their last debate, the Democratic candidates agreed that teaching second graders a story about a gay couple was perfectly acceptable. Half the candidates refused to even acknowledge that the war on terror is really a war. Here is what Soros said vis a vis the GWOT.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.

In fact, this statement is eerily similar to one made by John Edwards who called the war on terror...

"bumper sticker slogan" used to justify the war in Iraq and "bludgeon political
opponents."

The two leading Presidential said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

In fact, when Senator Clinton voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards( responsible for among other things hijacking British sailors in international water) a terrorist organization, the rest of the Democratic Presidential contender pounced on her.

Even on the economy, the Democrats are marching in lock step with Soros. We are all well aware of the plethora of big government, quasi socialist, government giveaways. Including the granddaddy of them all, universal health care. How does this jive with Soros' view of the world? He believes in a "mixed economy". That is defined as such.

A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates the characteristics of several different economic systems. This usually means an economy that contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises[1] or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and planned economy characteristics

Of course, it should be pointed out which part of the mixed economy he fears.

Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.

Thus, anything that takes the decisions away from the market and puts it into the government's hands is something that Soros approves of.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, in unison with Soros open borders policy, the Democrats just this week killed a bill that would have outlawed so called sanctuary cities. Now, we have the Democrats, through ENDA, pandering to another of Soros' favorite groups, the homosexuals. The overlapping agendas of the Democrats and George Soros can be found just about anywhere you look.

Hillary Flips on Iranian Negotiations

To know if this is a true flip flop or just nuance we would need to get into areas where we will once again try and figure out what the definition of is is. I don't really want to do that. That is frankly par for the course for Madame Clinton as Charles Krauthammer points out. Instead, I just want to analyze the sensibilities of her current position vis a vis Iran.
Here is her current position .

[A]sked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran “with no conditions.”

“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said at an apple orchard.

To me this is just mind boggling. I have a metaphor and let me know if it is appropriate. By Hillary's standards, if I don't know anything about car engines, I should try and fix my car myself before taking it to the mechanic. She says we don't really understand how the Iranian system works and thus she wants to jump in with two feet and begin negotiations. She doesn''t understand the nature of the enemy we are dealing with and she sees absolutely no potential negative ramifications of talking to them directly. I have pointed out before that the ruling government of Iran is a network of sociopaths. Furthermore, I have pointed out that George Soros is trying to buy the next Presidential election and unconditional negotiations with Iran and Syria is one of the pillars of Soros' vision of the GWOT.

None of these points should be taken lightly. Sociopaths are master manipulaters because they spend their entire lives getting what they want without ever thinking about the well being of anyone else. The ruling elites of Iran want to rule the entire Middle East. They already have proxies in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. The control the world's fourth largest oil reserve. They will use whatever unconditional negotiations with her administration to further those goals, because that is what sociopaths do. They manipulate every situation to their advantage.

Finally, it is no wonder that the majority of Democrats running for higher office favor some sort of unconditional negotiations with Iran. Most of their entire agenda: whether domestic, economic, or in this case foreign policy, mirrors that of George Soros. He wields a lot of power in their circles and the Dem candidates would much rather kow tow to him than take him on, in my opinion.

Do you think I am paranoid and turning Soros into the Democratic version of Karl Rove? Maybe? Think about this. More than half the Democrats running for office favor teaching second grader a book about two Princes living together. More than half want to eliminate the don't ask don't tell policy in the military. None of them want to do anything about securing the border. These radical positions mirror the radical positions of George Soros exactly.

Update on the Mindless, Non Binding, and Yet Devastating House Resolution

Whatever momentum the ridiculous non binding resolution condemning the then Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) for genocide nearly 100 years ago had it is fading and fading quickly. First, Ike Skelton (D) of Missouri came out against this resolution.

But Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposing the resolution, and said the backlash threatened by Turkey could disrupt "America's ability to redeploy U.S. military forces from Iraq," a top Democratic priority

Now, Jane Harman has also come out against this. Here is what she said.

Yet that's exactly what I was accused of last week after I sent a letter to Rep. Tom Lantos, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, urging him to withdraw HR 106, which I had co-sponsored earlier in the year. Some Armenian Americans, whose passion I appreciate, have misinterpreted my determination that the time is not right to vote on such a resolution as "denial" of the Armenian genocide. Nothing could be further from the truth.

No question: The debate raging in Washington over the Armenian genocide resolution is personal. Similar resolutions have passed the House twice -- in 1975 and 1984 -- and we are poised to pass another before Thanksgiving. Whether it will be brought to a vote in the Senate remains unclear. I originally co-sponsored the resolution because I was convinced that the terrible crime against the Armenian people should be recognized and condemned. But after a visit in February to Turkey, where I met with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Armenian Orthodox patriarch and colleagues of murdered Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, I became convinced that passing this resolution again at this time would isolate and embarrass a courageous and moderate Islamic government in perhaps the most volatile region in the world.

So I agree with eight former secretaries of State -- including Los Angeles' own Warren Christopher -- who said that passing the resolution "could endanger our national security interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia."

Also, the Heritage Foundation weighed in...Here is what they said.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee vote on the genocide resolution unfortunately has harmed relations with Turkey, an important NATO ally, and set back efforts to stabilize Iraq, contain Iran, and fight the global war against terrorism. It is difficult to see any concrete benefits for the non-binding vote from the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy. If the full House follows suit and approves the resolution, the damage will be greater. Turkey has threatened to suspend its support for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The big losers would be American servicemen and the young democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congressional leaders should bear this in mind before they proceed farther down this road."

Now, it is your turn. Make your voice heard. Find your representative here. Tell them that a non binding resolution has no positive effect, and if Turkey cuts off air space and supply routes that will have real tangible effects.

Finally, here is an email from a fellow Redstater

I am very concerned that you have taken the "feel good" position in co-sponsoring H.Res. 106, making it Congressional opinion that the Ottoman Empire's treatment of Armenians was "genocide."

I've known Armenians ... in Chicago and California, not in Texas. All despise what the Ottoman Turks did to their people. It probably was genocide. But it happened around 1915; the Empire fell in 1923; and the term "genocide" was not even coined until 1946.

This "feel good" measure will likely cost us a critical ally in the war on terror whose government bears no responsibility for the acts of the Ottomans ... perhaps the only truly democratic government of a primarily Muslim nation in the Middle East ... a NATO member since 1952 ... who lost almost 1,000 men (721 KIA 168 MIA) fighting besides us in Korea ... a nation that has hosted US military bases, radar stations, and missiles for fifty years.

If Congress had the fortitude to declare more immediate events (Rwanda, Darfur) acts of genocide, I might sympathize. But Congress paying "lip service" to events of a century ago ... where their political fortunes are not involved, so it's "ok" ... THAT I cannot tolerate.Please withdraw your sponsorship ... or begin demonstrating again the foolishness of Congress by decrying the genocides of the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans ... or, closer to home, what might we call Texas versus the Karankawa(now recorded as "extinct")?

The Political Effects of Meaningless Resolutions

Today, the Turkish government removed their ambassador from the United States. What had them so upset you ask?

Turkey ordered its ambassador in Washington to return to Turkey for consultations over a U.S. House panel's approval of a bill describing the World War I-era mass killings of Armenians as genocide, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Thursday.

The ambassador would stay in Turkey for about a week or 10 days for discussions about the measure, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Levent Bilman.

"We are not withdrawing our ambassador. We have asked him to come to Turkey for some consultations," he said. "The ambassador was given instructions to return and will come at his earliest convenience."

So, what is all this brou ha ha over some non binding resolution vis a vis an event that happened nearly a century ago? Here are the details...

To understand the situation we need to travel back to 1915-1923 when what is now Turkey was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. During that time period tens of thousands of people were dislocated and murdered, including Armenians.

Since then, of course, the Ottoman Empire is no more and Turkey is a member of NATO and a close American ally. From what I understand, many of our supplies and fuel to our troops go through Turkish ports and air space.

So, basically what we have is the House wants to pass a resolution, non binding I assume, condemning the actions of a country that no longer exists for an event that happened almost 100 years ago. Turkey (the country that took its place), feeling slighted, is threatening a legitimate diplomatic response to this non binding resolution.

Now, a wiseman once told me "you can learn through trial and error or through experience". This is just a case where we can learn from experience, another country's experience. It turns out our good friends the French also tried just such a resolution and here is the response from the Turks. Here is what the Turks did in response to the French resolution

Bagis said no French planes have flown through Turkish airspace since a French Parliament committee passed a similar resolution last year.

Now, it seems to me that having real diplomatic sanctions leveled against us is really not worth passing a non binding resolution about an event that happened almost a century ago.

So, is there something more nefarious going on? I don't know. Let me give you the facts. First, this resolution is being sponsored overwhelmingly by Democrats. Democrats are overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq. Turkey just happens to allow the U.S. its airspace for a plethora of flight missions, and the use of its roads for our ground mission. Judging based on Turkey's response to the French resolution, we could safely assume that their response to our own resolution could be cutting off their airspace and highways, and that of course would significantly weaken our ability to manage the war in Iraq.

Obviously, I cannot get into the mind of the Democratic leadership, however I do know that the potential ramifications of a non binding resolutions could be devastating to our troops and to our country. If you feel the same, go here and find your Congress Person, and let them know how you feel.

An Alternative Iranian Policy

Joe Conason penned this piece explaining how he would deal with the Iranian regime. I will take things one at a time. First, he lays out the current policy as he sees it.

The loud, angry and sterile debate over the Iranian president's visit to
Columbia University raises a more serious problem that has long confounded
American policymakers: How to cope with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's real masters, the corrupt regime of mullahs who determine both foreign and domestic policy in
Iran. Their rule has meant awful suffering for the Iranian people, whose
democratic aspirations remain frustrated, and instability for the Middle East
and the world, as the leadership in Tehran constantly seeks provocations to
distract from its own failures.

Now the same geopolitical geniuses who promoted the invasion of Iraq -- and
thereby endowed the mullahs with more influence than they ever enjoyed before --
insist that the only solution is another war. They claim that we are already at
war and should begin bombing Iranian nuclear and military sites as soon as
possible.

Obviously, he has no use for Bush or his neoconservative administration and that is fine. Somewhere around two thirds of Americans and more agree with him. What is troubling about his assertion that the administration is marching toward war and that is the only solution. What I believe is closer to the truth is that Bush has relied on the UN and the Europeans for far too long and has put war so far on the back burner that the Iranian regime has become emboldened. It isn't that Bush has foresaken diplomacy, in my opinion, but that he has relied too much on it. The two countries have had several high level meetings vis a vis Iraq and all that has happened is that the weaponry from Iran used to kill our soldiers has only increased.

Conason believes that our isolationist policy has gotten no results but the Clinton admin made engagement their policy with regards to the Syrians and the Palestinians throughout the nineties, and I assert that those policies were significantly more counter productive than ours. I assert that the problem is that while we isolate the Europeans engage. If we can come together on a full court isolationist policy, that would have devastating results. While it isn't a perfect model, the South African apartheid government was brought down largely through coordinated isolation. I don't know any despot and tyrant who was brought down through engagement.
Conason continues...
"

Once merely a small-time populist politician in his hometown, Ahmadinejad has
become a folk hero throughout the Muslim and Arab worlds thanks to his
provocations against America, Israel and the West. Sunni Muslims and
secular-minded Arabs who might otherwise oppose Shiite authoritarianism applaud
him because they perceive him as standing up for them against Western
oppressors. Each expression of American outrage against the Iranian president
from afar, every screaming tabloid headline and radio rant, only inflates the
significance of this unimpressive and fundamentally unimportant man. And the
constant threats of war from within the Bush White House and its neoconservative
echo chamber intensify the effectiveness of his propaganda, both within his own
country and across the Middle East.

Here Conason is just merely engaging in misrepresentation or out and out lying. Ahmadinejad is no folk hero anywhere, especially not in his country. Fortunately, unlike, Conason, I have a little more than mere assertions to back up my case. For proof, let's take a look at a poll of Iranians conducted just this past July

Iranians oppose the institution of an "unelected Supreme Leader" by 61-27
and favor democracy by 79-14. So when liberals assail neocons for having a naive
faith in peoples' aspirations for freedom, they are just wrong - even in Iran.

* Iranians want nuclear power more than nuclear weapons. Suffering under
gasoline rationing and falling energy exports, three-quarters said that
developing nuclear power, without weapons, was "very important." By contrast,
only 37 percent said developing nuclear weapons was a similar priority. Since
the Iranian regime says that it wants nuclear power, not nuclear weapons, its
stated position accords with its people's views. (The government, of course, is
lying and wants to get a bomb.)

The survey underscores the need to separate nuclear power from weaponry in
the minds of the people and make clear that Western sanctions are designed to
prevent Iran from getting the bomb, not power or energy.

* Iranians would gladly agree to "full inspections and a guarantee that
Iran would not develop nuclear weapons" if other nations would increase overall
trade and investment (80 percent), increase investment in the energy sector (79
percent), give humanitarian assistance (80 percent) or assist in helping Iran
develop peaceful nuclear energy (80 percent).

* Only 33 percent said supporting terrorist proxies Hezbollah or Hamas was
a priority, and 55 percent are ready to endorse full recognition of Israel and
of a Palestinian state if they could get "normal trade and full recognition"
from the United States. Almost two-thirds - 64 percent - said that they are
willing to end Iranian assistance to armed groups in Iraq and 51 percent would
forgo nuclear weaponry and accept full international controls and inspections in
return for normal relations with the United States.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has been roundly criticized for his own domestic economic policy

At the same time, the traditional conservatives and their natural allies, the
bazarries, the country's small merchant class who control much of the Iranian
economy, are increasingly alarmed about Ahmadinejad’s policies. The influential
head of Tehran's bazaar guilds, Ahmad Karimi, recently stated that economics is
a science and those who have neglected its basic principals -- meaning the
Ahmadinejad administration -- can no longer evade responsibility by blaming
others for their mismanagement. Iran's influential Friday prayer leaders, most
of whom are conservative, have also heaped contempt on the president for his
economic policies. The mainstream political analyst Amir Mohebbian, in an
interview with Roozonline daily, stated that the conservative faction can no
longer afford to conceal its widening internal schisms -- implying that the time
for compromise with the militant faction has passed.

If this is praise, I have to wonder what exactly someone needs to say for Conason to consider it condemnation. As for the rest of Middle East, mostly Sunni to Ahmadinejad's Shia, they are almost universally petrified of him. So much so that there was nothing but whispers to the recent bombing of a suspected Syrian nuclear site. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia just entered into an arms deal specifically to counter the threat from Iran that the Saudis fear.

The United States is reported to be preparing a major arms deal with Saudi
Arabia and other Gulf states worth $20bn (£9.8bn) over the next decade. Defence
officials quoted by US media said the sales would include advanced weaponry,
missile guidance systems, upgraded fighter jets and naval ships. It is said to
be an attempt to counter the regional threat posed by Iran.

The rest of the Middle East feels pretty much the same way. Most of the entire Middle East considers Iran nothing but a threat to their very existence
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan regard the Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah triangle (as voiced through the press, and not from the regimes themselves) as a sort of axis of radical policy, the muqawamah--the "Shi'a storm" as King Abdallah of Jordan dared call it--or as a group that strives for an Islamic Middle East. Such terms were being applied to this axis even before the Lebanon War of the summer of 2006. The Arab countries were aware of Iran, the ambitious giant that rose up from the East, at least since Ahmadinejad's election as president, but they consciously chose to ignore this. In the accord from the March 2006 Arab summit in Khartoum, the only reference to Iran was, as in the past, the demand to return the three islands over which there is dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

Unlike me, Conason, has absolutely no back up for his assertion that Ahmadinejad is some sort of a populist in most of the Middle East. The truth is much closer to his being perceived as a madman on the scale of the greatest madmen of all time a la Adolph Hitler.
Conason continues...

The moment of dialogue at Columbia, by contrast, shrank Ahmadinejad back down to a more realistic size. Unlike Tehran, where his thugs can intimidate, imprison
and even murder those who dare to question him, he had to stand and listen
meekly as Columbia students and president Lee Bollinger demanded answers about
his government's repressive acts. Although Bollinger went over the top in
parroting various White House themes in his brusque language, his commitment to
free speech reflected well on the United States.

If only that were true, but I already debunked this myth just yesterday. Here are some excerpts of reaction to his speech from the Middle East and beyond...

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have faced ridicule in the United States
bysuggesting there were no homosexuals in Iran, but he won praise at home
onWednesday for taking his country’s case to “the Lion’s Den.”
Generally,politicians and media in the Islamic Republic — even some who have
previouslycriticized the president — described Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York
as atriumph and denounced the university president who called him “a petty and
crueldictator.” ...The president spoke at Columbia University on Monday and
onTuesday addressed the U.N. General Assembly, where he told world leaders
theissue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions was “closed” and that military threats
andsanctions had failed.“By fearlessly and courageously walking into the‘Lion’s
Den’ ... he is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslimstreet than
before,” the daily Iran News wrote."...

Ahmadinejad is hitting the blind spots, the stuff polite society does not
talkabout, that is his attractionHis comments on the bomb are more intelligent
thanthe drivel you read in the Western press by so called analysts.Basically the
US,Western countries have lost the moral highground - Putin's talkbacks prove
thattoo -- No I would not vote for Ahmadinejad, if I lived in Iran - you vote
forhim, he is not a dictator ... to use words like fascism in an Iranian
contextdoes not make sense ... yes the party I would vote for is illegal in Iran
...,no I would not vote for Putin

Thus, whatever Conason thinks of the reaction to his speech, in reality, it was as I predicted a PR coup for him where it mattered, the Middle East.

Conason then leads us into his own ideas for dealing with the regime...

When the sideshow ends and the mullahs' puppet returns to Tehran, we will
still have to decide how to deal with the regime he represents. As Peter
Galbraith explains in a penetrating essay in the current issue of The New York
Review of Books, the Bush administration has vastly empowered the Iranian
leaders by overthrowing their enemy Saddam Hussein and installing their Shiite
allies as Baghdad's new government.

With 160,000 American troops in Iraq, moreover, we are not exactly in the
optimal strategic position to wage war against Iran, despite the bloody
fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney. Unlike Saddam in 2003, whose armed
forces disintegrated within days, Tehran has a real army and air force, and
sufficient naval power to block the Iraqi ports. Our forces would have to fight
not only the 800,000-man Iranian army but also the Shiite militias, who could
swiftly cut our resupply route.

Let's leave aside the balance of power question for a minute and deal with the idea that having 160K in troops on his border somehow puts us in a weaker position militarily to strike at him. That is absurd on its face and needs no link to be disproven. The simple fact is that we had troops all throughout Western Europe specifically as a military challenge to the Soviet Union, and we continue to have troops on the Korean border for the exact same reason. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war claiming that having troops in Iraq puts us in a poorer position to strike Iran is just intellectually bankrupt. As to the Iraqi government being beholden to Iran, well the beauty of democratically elected governments is that they tranisegent. The people of Iraq will be no happier with a puppet Iranian theocracy anymore than they were happy with Saddam's baathist, but the only difference is that this government can be voted out.

Acting like Saddam should have been kept in power because he would act as a counter weight to an equally evil rival is pretty absurd. Trying to resolve issues by relying on several evil regimes holding some sort of a delicate balance would eventually blow up in your face and lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
Conason finishes...

It is an ugly prospect to contemplate, with potential losses that would
dwarf our casualties in Iraq and an aftermath that would be still more chaotic,
dangerous and ruinous to our reputation. Assuming we would eventually win, would
that mean taking control of Iran -- with the same kind of "success" we have
enjoyed next door?

The alternative is what Iran's courageous democratic dissidents have long
implored us to do, and what the Iraq Study Group urged last year. Engage the
regime, draw Iran into the world economic system and penetrate its closed
borders peacefully to strengthen its civil society and weaken its overgrown
theocratic state. Stop making heroes of the villainous mullahs and their
puppets, and start dividing the pragmatists and reformers from the fanatics. And
mute the threats that in Iranian eyes justify a nuclear weapons
program.

That would be the beginning of wisdom.

Anyone reading this should have long become weary of every assertion Conason makes. He backs absolutely nothing up. He seems to take as fact that propping a theocracy up economically will somehow help our cause. For instance he claims we are uniting reformers and fanatics. Not only did the poll I cited utterly refute that, but how exactly does propping up the economy divide those groups. Furthermore, he asserts that dissidents have long implored that we engage the regime. Who are these dissidents? None that I know of say that we should engage with the regime. He claims that we are making them heroes, which, again, I thoroughly debunked as well. This is the sort of empty rhetoric that one will find all over college campuses as they willfully ignore evidence to the contrary.

I am not against engaging with evil sociopaths like Ahmadinejad per se. For instance, the U.S. and Britain engaged one of the worst in history in Joseph Stalin in WWII. However, there was something different there. Stalin felt a threat worse than the U.S. in Hitler and used the enemy of my enemy logic. We don't have that here. Even when Reagan engaged Gorbachev, who I must make sure everyone understands is every bit a reasonable person and no sociopath, he did it only after he built up the arms race so that the Soviets were crumbling. Peace through strength is not a mere slogan but proper diplomacy when dealing with enemies. Simply meeting because you feel dialogue is always the answer is totally counter productive when you are dealing with sociopaths. Sociopaths have goals and all that matters to them is accomplishing those goals. Ahmadinejad wants to rule the Middle East and kill everyone he disagrees with and any meeting will be used on his part to accomplish that goal.

As someone so aptly put once "The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." If we are going to negotiate with Ahmadinejad it is with that thought in mind, not with any of the touchy feely ideas that Conason has.

Finally, if you want an alternative to Conason's alternative please read her

Barack Obama's Withdrawal Plan

It just occurred to me. While most anti war politicians have called for a pullout of one sort or another, none have turned that pull out into a specific plan. Whether this is by accident or design, it has the effect of countering reality with utopia. Many times the opposition has countered the reality of Iraq with some sort of utopia. For instance, Hillary Clinton did it when she called for the ouster of Prime Minister Maliki without endorsing another candidate or explaining how this would be done.

Today, Barack Obama will reveal his pullout plan and no longer will we need to compare reality with some sort of utopia.

His plan is an unmitigated disaster good for nothing more than a thought experiment. That is exactly how it was described by Fredrick Kagan.

I don't know if Obama himself ever leveled this charge, but one of the criticisms of Bush's Iraq policy was framed as the whack a mole arguement. Whack A Mole is a game with five holes in which five moles pop up one at a time and the object is to pop each mole back in its place as it pops out of its hole. The metaphor is that as we cleared one trouble spot the enemy would just clear out and move to another spot or after we pulled back to our bases the enemy would return.

In fact, our new strategy of clear, hold and build assures that this error is corrected. Yet, despite the obvious flaw in our previous system Obama's pull out plan ensures that once again we will play Whack A Mole only in reverse.

Obama wants to pull out brigades and battalions in phases starting with the quietest areas. The flaw is obvious. These areas are quiet specifically because U.S. troops are there in conjunction with Iraqis. Let's take Ramadi for instance. This used to be one of the most violent cities in the world, and now it is so quiet that soldiers actually complain of boredom. Obama hasn't specified which quiet area goes first but let's say it is Ramadi.

What does any reasonable person think the enemy would do as soon as U.S. soldiers are pulled out of Ramadi. They would return and return it to its previous violence. What of our allies in Ramadi: the local government, the Sheiks, tribes, and ordinary citizens. Do they follow our soldiers out of Ramadi. If so, how? If they don't what will happen to them?
They will get slaughtered of course. They won't just get slaughtered but their slaughter will most likely be posted on the internet, Al Jazeera, and anywhere else that will have their propaganda.

Once Ramadi turns into a bloodbath, then what. Will we move our soldiers from another quiet area to Ramadi? That of course will inevitably turn the next area into the next bloodbath.
This is the absurdly fatal flaw of Obama's pull out plan. It fails to realize why certain areas are quiet. Furthermore, it is totally duplicitous. If he believes that all quiet areas will continue to be quiet whether U.S. soldiers are there or not, then the only logical thing to do is to continue to apply man power to any spot that isn't quiet. After all there are only a finite number of troubled areas left. Once all of those are pacified, he could logically call for a phased pull out.
There are several other problems with his plan,

He wants forces to remain in Iraq to protect our embassies, military installations, and strike at Al Qaeda. First, the best way to do all of this is to stay on the offensive. Pulling out is a defensive strategy. Second, as I have already pointed out, AQ would simply fill the vacuum of any area that our troops would be pulled back from. If we pulled out of Ramadi, AQ would move into Ramadi. What does Obama propose that we then move a residual force back into Ramadi? From where? Wherever it came from, AQ would simply fill the vacuum there.

Then, Obama would put pressure on other Middle Eastern nations to provide security and diplomacy in Iraq. Does he seriously think that anyone is going to listen to anything we say with regards to Iraq as we pull out troops and spiral the country into chaos and genocide. Obama seems to think that other countries aren't doing enough while our troops are there en masse, but will become good partners while we are in the process of washing our hands of the nation.
As to genocide, Obama says he will reserve the right to step in if a genocide ensues. What a foolish statement. He will first create a genocide in a city like Ramadi and then reserve the right to pull forces back in to stop the same genocide that he created. How exactly would that work? Who in their right mind would trust our soldiers after they witness their brethren get slaughtered because they were precipitously withdrawn?

The problem is that Obama fails to realize that you don't end wars with phased withdrawals. They are won or lost. He is dressing up his loss into some high minded concepts that he himself doesn't really understand. The enemy is not going to sit on the sidelines while we withdraw in an orderly fashion. They will take full advantage of it, and our troops along with our allies will be caught in the chaos that follows. There is nothing orderly or responsible about this plan. This is a recipe for a humiliating defeat, a genocide, and ultimately a regional war that we will not be able to contain.

Who is John Mearsheimer?

John Mearsheimer is a faculty member of the Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago. He has been employed at the University since 1982. He is a proponent of the theory offensive realism. He summed it up as such,

Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and
tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is
to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by
another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to
become hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power
to survive

Mearsheimer gained prominence (or maybe noteriety) when he published the paper, The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, along with partner, Stephen Walt. The thesis of the paper was,

"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far
from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while
simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are
essentially identical".[2]
They argue that "in its basic operations, it is no different from interest
groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies.
What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness." According
to Mearsheimer and Walt, the "loose coalition" that makes up the Lobby has
"significant leverage over the Executive
branch," as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective
on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They
claim that AIPAC in
particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress," due to its
"ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its
agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."

It went on to claim that the invasion of Iraq was influenced if not orchestrated by the same Israeli lobby. To say this was controversial is to make quite an understatement. Of course, the Israeli lobby is there among the boogeymen of the netroots along with such groups as PNAC, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to form the Neoconservative movement that the netroots blame for much of the evil of the world.

With this paper, Mearsheimer became a rock star in the circles of the netroots. His foreign policy beliefs go beyond simply blaming Israel for much of the evils of the world. For instance, he believes that the U.S. should play a more even handed role mediating between the Democratic state of Israel and the territory of Palestine currently government by Hamas, one of the State Department's terrorist groups. He thinks of course that we should withdraw from Iraq, and also from the Middle East entirely.

It is however some of his thoughts on Iran that this diarist found most interesting. Why don't I let Mr. Mearsheimer speak for himself though... hat tip to John Hinderaker at Power Line

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFtGJRuz18g

To summarize, Iran is not at war with the United States. Iran is NOT responsible for most of the alphabet soup explosives currently killing U.S. soldiers. Whatever their responsibility in Iraq it is only done because they are concerned that if the U.S. succeeds Iran will be next. Iran reached out in 1990's to the U.S. If the U.S. had reached back well then relations would be better now. Ahmadinejad is did not say the Israel would be wiped off the face of the Earth, but rather that the only Democracy in the Middle East is doomed for failure.

Now, what is of course important is not merely the kooky ideas that Mearsheimer expouses but where he expoused them. He was recently invited to lead a foreign policy forum at the Yearly Kos Convention. That would be the same convention that each of the Democratic nominees for President also attended.

Now, their excuse for much of the nasty and incendiary commentary on the Daily Kos is that it was only a fringe part of the site. This man is not some fringe character. He was invited to lead the Foreign Policy forum. He expouses everything that the Kos Kids and much of the nutroots in general believe in the area of foreign policy, and by showing up at the same convention these same candidates gave his views at least tacit approval.

Iran, Iraq, and the GWOT

Josh Levy has started a blog called http://www.win-the-war.com/. He believes, as I do, that winning in Iraq is not optional but mandatory. While he has most of his focus on Iraq, I have spent much time recently dealing with Iran. In reality, Iran and Iraq are intertwined and as goes one so goes the other.

To understand, let's take things back to the beginning. I believe that one of the main reasons that Iraq was chosen for invasion had to do with geography. This is something that the President doesn't talk about however it really makes sense. Take a look at any map of the region and you will see that Syria stands next to Iraq which stands next to Iran. That is three terrorist enabling states that stood next to each other. Besides all of the other reasons that everyone discussed at the time to take out Saddam, by taking him out, we would create a democracy on the border of each Syria and Iran. In other words, by being in the middle it was the most strategic geographically.

This is important because this same principle applies. In fact, the same reasons that made sense geographically then also have led to making the mission that much more difficult. Iraq is being attacked on each border by enemies that want to do anything and everything to stop its democracy from forming. This only makes sense. The last thing the despots in Damascus and Tehran need is a democracy on their border. They will do everything in their power to stop it. Furthermore, if it forms it will go a long giant way, especially combined with the ideas that I have, to bringing both of those regimes down.

Thus, it is nothing less than troubling that some in Washington talk about a pull out from Iraq. A loss means a victory not only for the forces of Al Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, but most especially for Iran. A victory for the coalition on the other hand has the opposite effect, and the despots in Tehran now know that not only is the U.S. capable of invading their nation but we have the will to stay and finish the job.

To hand Iraq to the hornet's nest of evil means first and foremost to strengthen the position of Iran. Iran, which is pursuing nuclear weapons, threatening to wipe Israel of the map, and taking hostages at will. To me Iran is no different than any bully on any playground. The only way to stop a bully is to stand up to them. We could stand up to the at the UN, in a utopia maybe, or maybe it could have happened last year in Lebanon, or even when they took British hostages. Now, we have one last chance to stand up to them in Iraq. We have one last chance to stand up to this bully, to show them that there are no IED's strong enough, no sneak attacks, no proxies, that will break our will. It is time to stand up to this bully once and for all. They have chosen this battlefield to flex their muscle, and if we don't stop them here they will move to new battlefields with increasing strength.

We have an opportunity ladies and gentlemen. Iran is the third largest producer of oil, and yet they import more then half their own supply. They have to ration the gasoline they provide their citizens. Their citizens have stated unequivacably that they are against the regime, for Democracy, and for peace. No matter how much bluster they show, this regime can fall. There are many things we can do to tip them over, but first and foremost we must stay and finish the job in Iraq.