In this video, CSP Director Frank Gaffney discusses the perils entailed with the departure of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Mr. Gaffney argues that Rumsfeld’s departure will deprive the U.S. effort of his unparalleled vision, focus, and determination.
ndefined"bed>
Decision Brief No. 06-D 50 2006-10-02
(Washington, D.C.): So, Bob Woodward has become the latest journalist to try to influence the upcoming mid-term congressional elections with a new book, State of Denial – a harsh critique of the President and senior members of his administration whom he contends are in such a state with respect to Iraq. Woodward alleges as evidence a refusal by Mr. Bush to: recognize the magnitude of the problem there; adjust course; level with the American people; or fire Donald Rumsfeld for his supposed singlehanded responsibility for most of the difficulties we now face.
Who’s in Denial?
A more careful and rigorous examination of who is in denial and about what would establish that there is actually a pandemic of the phenomenon psychologists call “cognitive dissonance,” whereby people don’t see what they don’t want to see. In fact, there are at least four States of Denial afflicting the national security debate and decision-making process at the moment:
1) President Bush’s critics are by-and-large in denial about the true nature of the war we are in. They hector him about Iraq, but fail to address what Mr. Bush has been saying for some time: We are in a global conflict with a totalitarian ideology bent on our destruction.
As the President has correctly noted, the adherents to this ideology – “Islamic fascists” – did not start attacking us when we liberated Iraq. While our efforts to help deliver a powerful Arab nation like Iraq from their grasp has reportedly become a “cause celebre” for the Islamofascists, they are not interested only in defeating us there. Such totalitarians are convinced, as their Iranian front-man Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has put it, that “a world without America is not only desirable, it is achievable.” Most of those who focus, as Woodward has done, on fault-finding about Iraq seem to deny that there are any connections between this War for the Free World’s Iraqi front and the larger strategy of which our efforts to prevail there are a critical part.
2) The President’s critics are usually stunningly silent on the implications of the “strategic redeployment” from Iraq that they recommend on varying timetables – apart, that is, from getting U.S. forces out of harm’s way (at least for the moment). Indeed, they seem to be in a state of denial about the ineluctable reality that, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate they are so fond of selectively quoting observed: “Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq.” In other words, those who advocate an admission of failure in Iraq may object to calling it “cutting and running,” but they cannot escape the global consequences of doing just that.
3) Those who insisted that the George H.W. Bush administration cash-in the so-called “peace dividend,” and then urged Bill Clinton to cut America’s force structure and modernization programs even further, are in a particularly acute state of denial. They take no responsibility whatever for the contribution their past agitation has made to the U.S. military being sorely stretched by counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Their short-term answer seems to be that, by getting U.S. forces out of the former, there will be more to deploy to the latter for the purpose of “finding Osama bin Laden.” Such a solution fails, however, to appreciate that bin Laden’s al Qaeda is just one manifestation of the Islamofascist movement that has been cultivated worldwide for decades by Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser extent, by Iran (see State of Denial #1 above.) It also ignores the predictable compounding of the danger posed by such totalitarians far-and-wide once we concede defeat in Iraq (see #2).
4) Most Democrats and Republicans appear to be cohabiting in another, particularly worrisome state of denial: the failure to recognize and respond appropriately to a danger not present in previous Wars for the Free World – namely, the substantial presence in America of a Fifth Column of Islamofascist organizations and cells, front groups and fellow travelers.
Apart from a hearing here or there (notably, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl’s Terrorism Subcommittee has convened a few impressive ones) and the occasional comment from a legislator or two, neither party has been willing to date to come to grips with the strategic dangers of an enemy within.
As a result, American prisons, military units, college campuses and mosques continue to be used with impunity for Islamist recruitment and indoctrination. Organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations that are – at the very least – sympathetic to our Islamofascist foes are charged with providing “sensitivity training” to FBI agents on how to “reach out” to Muslims. Senior State Department personnel are among the GOP and Democratic officials who regularly meet with and rely upon representatives of organizations that should be under surveillance, rather than treated as legitimate interlocutors with “moderate” Muslims. Unsurprisingly, neither party is even proposing, let alone waging, a competent program of anti-Islamist ideological warfare.
The Bottom Line
It turns out that there are plenty of States of Denial to choose from. On balance, the President and his party are less guilty of ignoring inconvenient facts and doing a better job of pursuing sensible and appropriate policies to deal with them than are their critics, whose denials of reality are transparently irresponsible and prone to costly failure. American voters will have to choose their poison. We better all hope they vote as if their lives depend on the outcome, because indeed they do.
By David McCormack
For decades, the United States has regarded its security interests in Sub-Saharan Africa as insignificant, instead treating the region as little more than a dumping ground for humanitarian assistance. Nowhere has this attitude been more conspicuous than in the structuring of U.S. Unified Commands (inter-service military commands) such that responsibility for the continent is divided among the European, Central and Pacific Commands.
Recent reports, however, indicate that the Department of Defense, under the forward-thinking leadership of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, strongly favors the creation of a separate military command for Africa. Under the right conditions, such a move would vastly improve the Nation’s security posture, as the African landscape is increasingly dominated by elements intent on undermining America’s wellbeing.
Islamofascism on the March
Islamofascists have found Sub-Saharan Africa to be particularly useful in advancing their agenda. With its massive Muslim population of 250 million, the region has become progressively radicalized over the past three decades through the introduction of Islamist ideologies by states from the Middle East. In fact, at least tens of billions of dollars have been poured into the subcontinent in support of Islamism. It is therefore hardly surprising that the state faith of Saudi Arabia – Wahhabism – has become the most dynamic ideological strain of Islamism in Sub-Saharan Africa, given that the Ministry of Islamic Affairs reportedly receives more money for activity in Africa than does the Foreign Ministry.
This environment, permeated with extremist Islamic thought, has created legions of terrorists and provided them a hospitable base of operations. Prominent international terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah have assumed a strong presence – primarily to finance and plan, but also to carry out, attacks – while several local terror groups such as al-Itihaad al-Islami and the Salafist Group for Call and Combat have emerged to wage jihad for control of Africa itself.
China on the Rise
Communist China has recently surfaced as a major player in the continent’s affairs, in an attempt both to put a stranglehold on Africa’s natural resources – especially its oil, which currently accounts for nearly 30 percent of Chinese imports – and to cultivate alliances that will increase its weight in the international political arena, with a primary objective being the diplomatic isolation of democratic Taiwan.
China’s presence, not surprisingly, has abetted Africa’s worst tendencies. For example, massive oil concessions granted to the PRC in Sudan have been exchanged for Beijing’s political and physical support of the genocidal, terrorist-sponsoring regime in Khartoum. Not only has China played a leading role in preventing the international community from taking serious action on Darfur, but it sold military hardware – including tanks, helicopters and anti-personnel mines – to Khartoum even as ethnic cleansing was being carried out.
In the Crosshairs
For a better understanding of the types of challenges America faces south of the Sahara, consider the following sampler:
Somalia. Nearly 13 years after the United States beat an ignominious retreat from Somalia, another force has moved to impose its own version of stability – that of Islamofascism. Over the past several months, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) has been rapidly establishing itself as the most powerful military and political force in the country, and is poised to either topple the internationally-supported Transitional Federal Government (TFG). Significantly, both the ICU’s ideology and the manner in which it is seizing control are eerily reminiscent of the Taliban’s rise in Afghanistan.
The possible ascension of this "African Taliban," moreover, threatens to engulf the entire Horn of Africa in war. Unwilling to accept a radical Islamist neighbor, Ethiopia is preparing to strike at the ICU, which would almost certainly lead Eritrea – the ICU’s largest patron and Ethiopia’s greatest enemy – to retaliate, in turn potentially drawing in Kenya and Sudan on the sides of the TFG and the ICU, respectively. In addition to disrupting America’s counter-terrorism activities from its 1,800-strong base in Djibouti, a regional war would likely jeopardize passage through the strategically important Bab el Mandeb Strait, which is one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.
Nigeria. In the shake-up that followed liberation from military rule in 1999, twelve predominantly Muslim states in northern Nigeria took advantage of the central government’s weakened position and adopted separate legal codes based on full Shari’a, leading to interfaith fighting that has taken, according to some estimates, up to ten thousand lives. Recognizing the potential created by this situation, in a May 2003 tape, Osama bin Laden named Nigeria as one of six states "most eligible for liberation."
Additionally, the petroleum sector in Nigeria – which is the fifth largest supplier to the United States – is proving to be increasingly problematic. Over the course of the past months, ethnically-based militias have targeted the industry by kidnapping foreign workers and destroying critical infrastructure, shutting down up to 20 percent Nigeria’s total daily output. Additionally, China has augmented its profile exponentially. As explained by Iheanyi Ohiaeri, head of business development for Nigeria’s National Petroleum Corporation, "We haven’t been totally invaded by China yet, but it will come."
South Africa. Unquestionably the dominant actor on the continent due to its comparative economic strength, military power, and rich natural resources, the ruling African National Congress has been steadily leading the country – and hence the rest of Africa – away from a healthy relationship with the United States and toward ideologies and nations opposed to American interests.
Specifically, South Africa has strengthened ties with China, Iran, Syria and other gross violators of human rights and state-sponsors of terrorism, and last year concluded a defense and intelligence pact with Zimbabwe, signaling its solidarity with Africa’s most brutal dictator, Robert Mugabe. Of special concern, however, is the rapprochement taking place between South Africa and Muammar Gadhafi’s Libya, forming a north-south axis that is working with other radical political forces to control both the African Union and its representative governments.
What Needs to be Done
The United States would undoubtedly benefit both from streamlining and increasing efforts in Africa through the establishment of a new Unified Command. However, it is tremendously important this be done correctly. By locating certain Unified Commands inside the U.S. (think Southern Command and Central Command), America has surrendered significant influence in the regions it hopes to affect. Critically, then, a proper engagement strategy for Africa requires placing this new command where it will have the greatest impact – on the continent.
Fortunately, options for the development of such an operation exist, though they will take time to cultivate. In the short-term, then, it may be preferable to create a Sub-Unified Command for the continent within the European Command ? where much expertise on Africa is currently housed ? while working to relocate in theater in the longer-term.
Now more than ever, the United States must recognize that it is being targeted by enemies of freedom in an ideological battle for Africa that, if lost, will undermine U.S. success in the larger War for the Free World. America has so far been absent from this encounter, costing us dearly in terms of strategic position. It is time to engage.
There was only one thing truly astonishing about the revelation last week that Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s deputy at the State Department during George W. Bush’s first term, was the source of Bob Novak’s first column about Iraq war critic Amb. Joe Wilson and his CIA agent wife, Valery Plame. That was the fact that Novak subsequently described the man who first "outed" Plame’s place of employment as "no partisan gunslinger."
A Partisan and a ‘Gunslinger’
The truth is that Rich Armitage is the consummate partisan gunslinger. It’s just that his partisanship is not usually defined by his allegiance to the Republican Party and certainly not to its current standard-bearer, President Bush. Rather, more often than not, Armitage slings his gun – or, more accurately, wields his stiletto – in the other sense of a partisan: one who wages war from behind enemy lines.
During the first term, Colin Powell and Rich Armitage lost policy battle after battle to the President’s loyal subordinates. It fell to Armitage to try to overturn or undermine those policies Powell opposed, in the interagency process, through leaks to the press (whose appreciation has been reflected in generally kid-glove treatment of the revelation of his role in the Plame affair), via back-channels with foreign governments and, not least, through attacks on his bureaucratic rivals.
The Gunslinger’s Drive-by Shootings
A prime example of such attacks was the Armitage-encouraged campaign against John Bolton, President Bush’s nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. During their four years together in the Powell State Department, the Deputy Secretary made no secret of his hostility towards then-Under Secretary Bolton. He encouraged insubordination, bureaucratic end-runs and personal attacks against Mr. Bolton by individuals assigned to State’s powerful regional bureaus and its intelligence organization.
Some of those responsible for such behavior – like Armitage cronies Carl Ford and Tom Fingar – subsequently sought publicly to sabotage the Bolton nomination, engendering a Senate filibuster that was only ended when Mr. Bush gave his choice for the UN a recess appointment. It is to be hoped that the Foreign Relations Committee will rectify this travesty by voting this week to confirm the re-nominated Amb. Bolton, whose past year of service at the United Nations has forcefully demonstrated the baseless nature of the partisans’ attacks on this outstanding public servant.
Rich Armitage’s mean-spirited partisanship is especially evident in the fact that neither he, nor Mr. Powell nor their lawyer, then-State Department Legal Advisor William Taft IV, saw fit to inform the White House that Armitage was the source of the Novak leak. The reason, according to reporters Michael Isikoff and David Korn: Armitage did not want to give the White House a pretext for placing the blame where it belonged – with the disloyal denizens of the State Department’s seventh floor.
To be sure, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was informed, in the hopes of minimizing the danger that the Deputy Secretary would be indicted and tried. But, in an act of real betrayal, the elected President who appointed Messrs. Powell, Armitage and Taft and his senior subordinates were kept in the dark – even as Fitzgerald’s inquiry subjected several of the latter, and the administration more generally, to relentless hectoring from Democrats and the media, career-imperiling grand jury appearances and dangerous distractions in time of war. Had the White House known the truth, the whole inquisition may have come to a screeching halt virtually at its outset.
Which brings us back to the point about the partisan at the center of this scandal. It was no accident that the people who came under most intense scrutiny thanks to Rich Armitage’s disloyalty were presidential advisor Karl Rove and the Vice President’s then-chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Both recognized that the Powell-Armitage State Department was not on the President’s team with respect to virtually any aspect of the administration’s post-9/11 foreign and defense policies. Weakening, if not removing, such counterweights to Foggy Bottom’s influence and agenda would have been a fringe benefit arising from the Deputy Secretary’s lack of transparency.
State’s Disloyalty Continues
Unfortunately, the sort of destructive and disloyal behavior Deputy Secretary Armitage epitomized continues to be practiced in high reaches of the State Department. Notably, Under Secretary of State Nick Burns has pursued in recent months diplomatic initiatives on such sensitive matters as North Korea’s missile tests and Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions that have mutated the President’s policies beyond recognition – and played into the hands of critics who accuse the Bush national security team of lacking coherence and competence.
Indeed, it is one of the great ironies of this presidency that an administration which prides itself on loyalty has for so long tolerated its systematic practice in the breach by the Department of State. The costs of such disloyalty have already been high: a government seen by friends and foes alike as distracted, at best, and, at worst, paralyzed by divided counsel, communicating mixed signals and signaling an irresolution that invites contempt and aggression.
The Bottom Line
Recent speeches by two of the people most loyal to Mr. Bush and his policies, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and by the President himself, have squarely addressed the danger we face: Islamic fascists are on the march and we dare not ignore their menace – or fail to meet it effectively. These brave men have made clear that appeasement is not an option. If they wish to be taken seriously, let alone to secure the support of the American people for their policies, however, they must ensure that the President’s team is no longer undercut by disloyalists among the administration’s own senior ranks.
Decision Brief No. 06-D 43 2006-09-01
(Washington, D.C.): Today’s successful intercept of a simulated incoming ballistic missile by an operationally configured ground-based missile defense interceptor is a major milestone in the effort to realize President Ronald Reagan’s vision of an America protected against such offensive weapons. It comes at a moment when there are growing missile threats from Iran, North Korea, China and Russia and when critics in Congress and elsewhere doubt the readiness of our defenses.
The success of this test not only serves notice on friends and foes alike that the United States is no longer defenseless against ballistic missile attack. It also sets the stage for the realization of a far more comprehensive anti-missile shield than the relatively limited system currently being deployed in Alaska and California.
Listen to Secretary Rumsfeld
Shortly before today’s test, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited the missile defense site at Fort Greeley, Alaska. During a press availability on 27 August, the Pentagon chief described the evolution of the Nation’s anti-missile systems:
I have always believed that the way you get from where you are to where you want to be is you start. And you put something in the ground and you work with it and evolve it and change it and fix it and improve it and let all the people and critics who stand around and say, “Oh, you missed,” or “You didn’t get it,” or “You missed a deadline,” or whatever they want to do – and you just keep your head down and you get the job done and you arrive in the year 2006.
Never Mind
On 29 August, seven Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee led by Ranking Minority Member Rep. Ike Skelton wrote Secretary Rumsfeld about his remarks at Ft. Greeley. They took out of context his observation, in response to a journalist’s question, that he would like to see “a full end-to-end process at some point, where we actually put all the pieces together…- that just hasn’t happened.”
The legislators professed: “We support your call for an operationally realistic test of our current missile defense system to know the actual state of our capabilities.” They went on, however, to declare: “Unfortunately, after reviewing the Missile Defense Agency’s test schedule, we see no evidence of the comprehensive and realistic end-to-end test of the limited national defense system that [you] called for at Ft. Greeley.” They cited as proof the fact that this week’s test “will not actually seek to defeat an incoming target but simply to determine if the kill vehicle can recognize an incoming warhead.”
Well, today’s intercept would seem to have answered the Democratic representatives’ question: “When is such a test planned?” In fact, while the Pentagon’s plan for this test called for the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) to perform “sensor characterization and evaluation of endgame algorithms,” in the event, it worked so flawlessly that it actually did “defeat an incoming target.” In fact, it amounts to as comprehensive and realistic an end-to-end test as can be undertaken at this time – one which used virtually all of the missile defense sensors and component technologies currently available.
As Secretary Rumsfeld noted at Ft. Greeley, “We still have some more sensors that they’re putting in place; one in Japan this next week…And there will be other pieces that will come along.” But, given the emerging threats, it would be irresponsible to wait until all such sensors and other pieces of the optimal system mature and are available to put into place the best defenses we can.
Now, to Sea and Space
Toward that end, the Center for Security Policy applauds two of its esteemed associates – Amb. Henry Cooper (former Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization and a long-time member of the Center’s National Security Advisory Council) and Dr. Robert Pfaltzgraff (a member of the Center’s Academic Council) – for their op.ed. published in the Wall Street Journal on Monday.
In this essay, Drs. Cooper and Pfaltzgraff call attention to the results of an important five-year study by the Independent Working Group (IWG), in which they both participated. The IWG study shows how the necessary levels of missile defense effectiveness can be achieved at a reasonable cost by modifying the Navy’s Aegis fleet air defense system and deploying space-based assets for this purpose.
The Bottom Line
The Center commends all those in government, the military and industry who made today’s successful intercept possible and encourages them to redouble their efforts to ensure that the Nation has in place the fully capable, layered missile defense system it requires – before it needs it.
Last week, the Bush Administration sent profoundly mixed signals about its attitude towards the War for the Free World and the enemies who threaten us and other freedom-loving peoples.
Getting it Right
On the one hand, there was the President’s commendable reaction to the murderous plot to destroy as many as ten passenger aircraft bound from Britain to the United States. Mr. Bush correctly, and courageously, declared that "We are at war with Islamic fascists."
This is not the first time President Bush has used such a formulation but the timing of this statement – coming as it did amidst intense media and public interest in the breaking story out of the UK – caused his characterization of our foes as Islamic fascists to receive considerable attention. It also prompted the "usual suspects" (organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR) to rush forth to denounce such a clear and accurate depiction of the totalitarian character and political agenda of our enemies. (See the Center’s response to CAIR’s broadside and its own letter to President Bush).
Although his critics accused the President of misrepresentation, it was they who engaged in such a practice. For example, CAIR falsely charged that he had "equated the religion of peace [Islam] with the ugliness of fascism." In fact, Mr. Bush did something altogether different – and laudable: He made clear that those who use Islam to justify and provide political cover for their totalitarian aggression are at odds not only with America but with Islam, itself.
Such dangerous ideologues cannot be appeased. They must be destroyed.
Getting it Wrong
Unfortunately, at virtually the same moment that Mr. Bush was helpfully clarifying what we are up against, his subordinates were busily handing Islamic fascists their greatest victory since they drove the United States out of Somalia in March 1994: an artificial and unsustainable ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.
The content and timing of the UN Security Council resolution adopted unanimously last Friday represent a defeat for the Free World – most especially the United States and Israel – and will protect and greatly embolden their Islamofascist foes, Hezbollah and its sponsors, Iran and Syria. The Center for Security Policy’s Senior Mideast Fellow, Caroline Glick, has enumerated the reasons why in a powerful condemnation in Sunday’s Jerusalem Post. Among them are the following:
"…In practice, [the resolution] makes it all but impossible for Israel to defend itself against Hezbollah aggression without being exposed to international condemnation on an unprecedented scale."
"…The resolution places responsibility for determining compliance in the hands of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan has distinguished himself as a man capable only of condemning Israel for its acts of self-defense, while ignoring the fact that in attacking Israel, its enemies are guilty of war crimes. By empowering Annan to evaluate compliance, the resolution all but ensures that Hezbollah will not be forced to disarm and that Israel will be forced to give up the right to defend itself."
"The resolution makes absolutely no mention of either Syria or Iran, without whose support Hezbollah could neither exist nor wage an illegal war against Israel. In so ignoring Hezbollah’s sponsors, it ignores the regional aspect of the current war and sends the message to these two states that they may continue to equip terrorist armies in Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Iraq with the latest weaponry without paying a price for their aggression."
"[The new Security Council resolution] puts both the question of an arms embargo and Hezbollah’s dismantlement off to some future date when Israel and Lebanon agree to the terms of a ‘permanent cease-fire.’ In addition, it places the power to oversee an arms embargo against Hezbollah in the hands of the Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a member."
"From a U.S. perspective, the resolution drastically increases the threat of a radical Shi’ite revolt in Iraq. Hezbollah is intimately tied to Iraqi Shi’ite terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr. In April 2003, Hezbollah opened offices in southern Iraq and was instrumental in training the Mahdi Army, which Sadr leads. During a demonstration in Baghdad last week, Sadr’s followers demanded that he consider them an extension of Hezbollah, and expressed a genuine desire to participate in Hezbollah’s war against the U.S. and Israel."
The Bottom Line
President Bush is to be commended for his effort to make plain the danger posed by Islamofascists. By so doing he has also implicitly underscored the imperative of waging this war on the ideological level – what Donald Rumsfeld has called the "battle of ideas." For far too long, America has done far too little to fight and win on this front of the War for the Free World. We can no longer afford to do so.
Tragically, the Bush Administration has simultaneously dealt itself a major tactical setback – and perhaps a serious strategic one – in that war. By negotiating and supporting a ceasefire that leaves some of the most virulent and aggressive adherents to the Islamofascist ideology in business, it has not only strengthened Hezbollah. It emboldened its state-sponsors and fellow-travelers the world over.
The ceasefire effectively negotiated with Islamic fascists (albeit through Lebanese and European surrogates), will surely prove an interlude, not a permanent suspension of hostilities between Hezbollah and its sponsors on the one hand, and the Free World on the other. The length of that interlude and the magnitude of the danger we will confront thereafter can only be surmised at this juncture. It seems a safe bet at this juncture, however, that if the fighting resumes on the Islamofascists’ terms and timetable, the threat to Israel, the United States and other freedom-loving nations will be substantially greater even than it is today.
Decision Brief No. 06-D 38 2006-08-07
(Washington, D.C.): Suddenly, the Democrats have found their voice on Iraq. It is the sound of defeatism.
Would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and ten of their colleagues in leadership positions have proclaimed that it is time to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq . They want to start by the end of the year, without regard for the conditions on the ground. And they want all American troops out by some unspecified time, without regard for the consequences that would follow such a retreat.
Among those who have endorsed what might be called “the Contract for Defeat” is the putative front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mindful of the ascendant power within her party of anti-war activists evident in their vicious campaign to unseat former Vice Presidential standard-bearer and three-term Senator Joe Lieberman, this one-time supporter of the liberation of Iraq is becoming increasingly strident in her criticism of the war and those responsible for it. Last week, she triangulated her way to the head of the parade of those hoping to make Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a scapegoat for the Iraqis’ difficulties and demanding his resignation.
The ‘Cycle of Violence’
There is a certain irony here. Arguably, whatever mistakes Don Rumsfeld might have made – or were made by others on his watch – that are contributing to the present violence in Iraq pale by comparison with the effect Democratic defeatism is having on the so-called “insurgents.”
Think about it: Our Islamofascist enemies and their allies are convinced that they can defeat us politically. The means by which they seek to do that is by producing a steady stream of bloodletting and mayhem. The results are then incessantly beamed into American living rooms by mainstream media transparently hostile to President Bush and his Iraq campaign.
Then, Democratic critics (and, in fairness, a few Republican politicians – like Sen. Chuck Hagel – who have figured out that it is more fun, or at least more conducive to favorable press reviews, to talk and occasionally vote like an anti-Bush Democrat) seize upon the suicide bombings in Iraq as proof that success there is impossible. Therefore, they solemnly intone, we should stop wasting lives and treasure trying to achieve it.
It is hard to imagine a greater incentive to more attacks against Iraqi civilians, security personnel, government officials and their families – and, yes, against our own and other Coalition forces. Call it the “cycle of violence.”
To be sure, the fact that the opportunities continue to exist for such attacks is not necessarily the fault of the critics. They and, for that matter, supporters of the war effort can legitimately feel frustration that the “security situation in Iraq” (as it is euphemistically known) has not been stabilized before now in Baghdad and other persistent areas of insurgent activity.
That said, it is virtually impossible in any but the most totalitarian of societies to prevent determined people from inflicting casualties on targets of opportunity, particularly when such people are willing to kill themselves in the process. But we must also hold accountable those who are, in effect, rewarding our enemies for engaging in such behavior by translating the latters’ murderous actions into the realization of political objectives.
Defeatism’s Ripple Effect
Unfortunately, Democratic defeatism is not only encouraging our enemies in Iraq . Since that conflict is but one front in a far larger, indeed global war (one best described as the War for the Free World), those insisting that we cut our losses with respect to Iraq are also fueling dynamics elsewhere that are likely to give rise to a number of other, deeply problematic strategic outcomes.
One need look no farther than the Mideast ‘s other flashpoint du jour: the conflict in Lebanon between the Free World’s outpost in the region, Israel , and Hezbollah. Even though nearly all Democrats have expressed support for Israel’s efforts to neutralize this virulent terrorist organization, they cannot escape a grim reality: The Democrats’ incessant, partisan efforts to undermine President Bush’s authority that are diminishing the prospects for victory in Iraq are also weakening his Administration’s ability to resist mostly foreign pressure to adopt a more neutral stance vis a vis the Jewish State in the midst of its death-struggle with our common, Islamofascist enemies.
Terrorists in the Fertile Crescent are not the only ones attuned to the perceived dissipation of domestic support for the fight for the future of Iraq . The Iranian and Syrian regimes, which take pride in having destabilized the nascent Iraqi democracy, have clearly been emboldened to precipitate and fuel a second front in Lebanon.
American defeatism will breed still more setbacks if, as seems the case at the moment, freedom’s enemies get their way by inducing the Bush team to: impose a premature cease-fire on Israel; insert an international peacekeeping force that will surely prove to be hostile to the Jewish State and protective of her foes; and reward Hezbollah for its outrages by compelling the Israelis to cede to Lebanon strategic territory (dubbed “Shabaa Farms”) taken from Syria in the 1967.
The Bottom Line
Hard experience tells us that defeatism is an indulgence great nations cannot afford in time of war. Its full costs may not become apparent immediately. But the Free World, including the United States itself, will suffer grievously for encouraging our enemies’ conviction that we lack the will and resolve to stand with our friends when the going get gets tough.
In the face of intensifying Iranian intransigence and provocations, President Bush has decided to adopt the recommendations of appeasement-prone subordinates – notably, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns – to reward such behavior. The decision announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today that the United States would be prepared to participate directly – as opposed to through European and United Nations proxies – in negotiations with the terrorist-sponsoring mullahocracy in Tehran, if only it will promise to suspend its nuclear weapons activities, will only reward and lead to more of such behavior.
In his column for Wednesday’s Washington Times, Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. argues for a very different approach. Instead of attempting to appease the Iranian Islamofascists, Mr. Gaffney argues for privatizing the effort to deny them the resources to make their nuclear weapons program, support for terrorism, and domestic repression possible.
Nick Burns is leading President Bush into a diplomatic morass from which it will prove exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to extricate this country before the Iranian regime realizes its ambition to acquire, and perhaps to use, nuclear weapons. The folly of the Burns’ appeasement approach will be further compounded if, as seems likely, the effect is further to legitimate the mullahocracy and alienate our natural allies in its removal from power: the Iranian people.
Divest Iran
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
The Washington Times, 31 May 2006
One of the most important public policy fights in years is taking place within the U.S. government. The debate is over how to deal with the growing danger posed by Islamofascist Iran.
In one corner are those who believe, against all historical experience, that appeasement of despots will work this time. Hence, their support of efforts by the so-called "EU-3" — Britain, France and Germany — to present concessions attractive enough to the Iranian mullahocracy to induce it to give up at least some of its program for developing nuclear weapons. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Mohamed ElBaradei champion this approach. So does the State Department bureaucracy, led by the Undersecretary for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns.
Unfortunately, the record of recent efforts to appease Iran has been no more encouraging than were earlier efforts to divert other totalitarians from their chosen paths. To the contrary, Iranian officials have gleefully observed they are indebted to the Europeans and their supporters for "buying time" for the regime in Tehran, allowing it to bring its so-called "nuclear power" program to fruition. Some are becoming ever-more brazen in confirming that energy generation is not the object of the exercise; rather, they aim to obtain the Bomb.
Now, Nick Burns and Company are evidently supporting the international appeasers’ demand that the United States "engage" directly with the Iranians. The argument is that, only by so doing, can the Bush administration demonstrate it has left no stone unturned in trying to avoid a showdown, including possibly military action against Iran.
Those in the opposing corner, believed to include Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush are under no illusion about the consequences of such a step. It will not buy the United States any credit from its critics. Instead, it will embroil this country in talks whose sole purpose is to hamstring those threatened by the Iranian Islamofascists’ support for international terror and pursuit of nuclear weapons — if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to be believed, for apocalyptic purposes.
Speaking of Mr. Ahmadinejad, one of the most bizarre aspects of the debate about what to do about Iran is the use by the appeasement camp of his recent letter to President Bush. It has been widely portrayed in the press as a diplomatic "breakthrough," an opening for direct contacts that must not be allowed to slip away. In fact, a close reading of the document makes clear what the Iranian regime has in mind for the United States is war, not diplomacy. Notably, the closing passage is a direct quote from a message sent by the Prophet Muhammad as he prepared to launch a devastating attack on its recipient.
The alternative to appeasement of Iran should utilize the sorts of techniques Ronald Reagan employed to counter the last horrific totalitarian ideology that threatened our destruction, the Soviet Union. These include using every available means to delegitimize the regime. It also means helping those oppressed by our enemies, to assist them in undermining and, if possible, in bringing down their government — a popular aspiration lately confirmed anew by a spate of tumultuous demonstrations across Iran.
Reagan placed special emphasis on one other initiative: drying up the funding streams that enabled the Soviet Union to build up its military threat and to pay for anti-Western revolutions all over the globe. The same must be done to Iran.
The most obvious means of doing so — economic sanctions — are not supported by Iran’s strategic allies, Russia and China, and its business partners in many energy-hungry European nations and Japan. As a result, there seems little hope of multilateral sanctions comparable to the longstanding American ones on oil purchases and other trade with Iran.
According to a Page One article in The Washington Post on Monday, a Treasury Department-led task force is trying a variation on the theme: It is seeking the cooperation of allies in eschewing business with "every Iranian official, individual and entity the Bush administration considers connected not only to nuclear enrichment efforts but to terrorism, government corruption, suppression of religious or democratic freedom and violence" in neighboring states. Unsurprisingly, the response has been underwhelming to date. The Post reports that, "So far, four financial institutions have signed on to the U.S. effort."
Fortunately, America has an opportunity to bring more than moral suasion to bear on those who partner with our enemies and, thereby, help underwrite their threatening behavior: Make them choose whether they wish to do business with: us or with the Iranians.
Last month, the Louisiana sheriffs public pension fund became the first in the nation to adopt such an approach in the form of a terror-free investment policy. Its portfolio managers, including T. Rowe Price, have agreed that the sheriffs’ retirement money will not be invested in foreign energy, telecommunications, banks and other companies that engage in commercial activities and investment in state-sponsors of terror like Iran.
The U.S. government should encourage this model — call it Divest Iran — to be adopted by the scores of millions of other American investors whose decisions to hold or dispose of stocks will probably have a lot more influence with Iranian-connected enterprises than will pleas from our "engagement"-minded officials. Such a privatization of the effort to end the danger posed by the Iranian mullahs may not only make for a more coherent U.S. policy. It may even make it possible to avoid the otherwise possibly necessary use of force against Iran.
Decision Brief No. 06-D 28 2006-05-30
(Washington , D.C.): One of the most important public policy fights in years is taking place within the U.S. government. The debate is over how to deal with the growing danger posed by Islamofascist Iran.
A House Divided
In one corner are those who believe, against all historical experience, that appeasement of despots will work this time. Hence, their support of efforts by the so-called “EU-3” – Britain, France and Germany – to present a sufficiently attractive package of concessions to the Iranian mullahocracy to induce it to give up at least some of its program for developing nuclear weapons. The UN’s Kofi Annan and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Mohamed ElBaradei champion this approach. So does the State Department bureaucracy, currently led by the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns.
Unfortunately, the record of recent efforts to appease Iran has been no more encouraging than were earlier efforts to divert other totalitarians from their chosen paths. To the contrary, Iranian officials have gleefully observed that they are indebted to the Europeans and their supporters for “buying time” for the regime in Tehran, allowing it to bring its so-called “nuclear power” program to fruition. Some are becoming ever-more- brazen in confirming that energy-generation is not the object of the exercise; rather, it is to obtain the Bomb.
Now, Nick Burns and Company are evidently supporting the international appeasers’ demand that the United States “engage” directly with the Iranians. The argument is that, only by so doing, can the Bush Administration demonstrate that it has left no stone unturned in trying to avoid a showdown, including possibly military action against Iran.
Those in the opposing corner, believed to include Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush, himself, are under no illusion about the consequences of such a step. It will not buy the United States any credit from its critics. Instead, it will embroil this country in talks whose sole purpose is to hamstring those who are threatened by the Iranian Islamofascists’ support for international terror and pursuit of nuclear weapons – if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to be believed, for apocalyptic purposes.
Speaking of Ahmadinejad, one of the most bizarre aspects of the debate about what to do about Iran is the use being made by the appeasement camp of his recent letter to President Bush. It has been widely portrayed in the press as a diplomatic “breakthrough,” an opening for direct contacts that must not be allowed to slip away. In fact, a close reading of the document makes clear that what the Iranian regime has in mind for the United States is war, not diplomacy. Notably, the closing passage is a direct quote from a message sent by the Prophet Mohammed as he prepared to launch a devastating attack on its recipient.
Use the Reagan Playbook
The alternative to appeasement of Iran should utilize the sorts of techniques Ronald Reagan employed to counter the last horrific totalitarian ideology that threatened our destruction, the Soviet Union. These include using every available means to de-legitimate the regime. It also means helping those oppressed by our enemies, in order to assist them in undermining and, if possible, in bringing down their government – a popular aspiration lately confirmed anew by a spate of tumultuous demonstrations across Iran.
President Reagan placed special emphasis on one other initiative: drying up the funding streams that enabled the USSR to build up its military threat and to pay for anti-Western revolutions all over the globe. The same must be done to Iran.
The most obvious means of doing so – economic sanctions – are not supported by Iran ‘s strategic allies, Russia and China , and its business partners in many energy-hungry European nations and Japan. As a result, there seems little hope of imposing on a multilateral basis sanctions comparable to the long-standing American ones on oil purchases and other trade with Iran.
According to a front-page article in the Washington Post on Monday, a Treasury Department-led task force is trying a variation on the theme: It is seeking the cooperation of allies in eschewing business with “every Iranian official, individual and entity the Bush Administration considers connected not only to nuclear enrichment efforts but to terrorism, government corruption, suppression of religious or democratic freedom and violence” in neighboring states. Not surprisingly, the response has been underwhelming to date. The Post reports that, “So far, four financial institutions have signed on to the U.S. effort.”
Fortunately, America has an opportunity to bring more than moral suasion to bear on those who partner with our enemies and, thereby, help underwrite their threatening behavior: Make them choose whether they wish to do business with us, or with the Iranians.
Last month, the Louisiana Sheriffs public pension fund became the first in the nation to adopt such an approach in the form of a terror-free investment policy. Its portfolio managers, including T. Rowe Price, have agreed that the sheriffs’ retirement money will not be invested in foreign energy, telecommunications, banks and other companies that engage in commercial activities and investment in state-sponsors of terror like Iran.
The Bottom Line
The U.S. government should encourage this model – call it Divest Iran – to be adopted by the scores of millions of other American investors whose decisions to hold or dispose of stocks will probably have a lot more influence with Iranian-connected enterprises than will pleas from our “engagement”-minded officials. Such a privatization of the effort to end the danger posed by the Iranian mullahs may not only make for a more coherent U.S. policy. It may even make it possible to avoid the use of force against Iran that could otherwise become unavoidable.
Decision Brief No. 06-D 26 2006-05-17
(Washington , D.C.): The new U.S. arms embargo against the extremist regime in Venezuela should have implications beyond South America . Though intended to protect democracies in the region, the embargo should be used to convince our allies that there is a price to be paid for actions that willfully undermine American security interests.
The Miami Herald reports that President Bush’s embargo is “largely symbolic” because Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez “has been buying the bulk of his weapons, including attack and transport helicopters, patrol boats and military transport planes, from Russia and Spain.”
Bush Doctrine Created Stark Choice for Our Allies
The post-9/11 Bush Doctrine created a stark choice for nations to either side with us or against us in the global war on terror. This hard line has given way to a new reality where some of our allies simply take for granted that we will ignore their efforts against us. For example, France and Germany undermined U.S. efforts to compel action by the United Nations against Saddam Hussein, yet they continue to benefit from our military presence in Europe . They also profit from U.S. purchases of their military products. As the war proceeds, the United States should consider how it can make its policies more consistent.
The most practical approach is to stop purchasing military equipment from countries that disregard our security interests, at least whenever viable alternatives are available. No country should be more concerned about this possibility than Spain , a once-loyal partner in the war on terror that now prefers to thumb its nose at the U.S. while lobbying Congress and the U.S. military to buy its products.
Spain decided to cool its warm relations with the United States after the al Qaeda bombings of the Madrid transit system propelled Socialist Workers Party President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to power in March, 2004.
In fact, Spain has defied U.S. interests in spectacular fashion – and in a way that demands a response . Last November, Spain sold 12 of its CASA C-235 and C-295 military transport aircraft to Venezuela , despite strong U.S. objections. Because the aircraft includes American-made technology, the Bush Administration tried to halt the sale under the 1992 International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Instead, Spain replaced U.S. components in the aircraft and has made a very public spectacle of the sale ever since – even taking part in the Venezuelan dictator’s propaganda campaign against the United States.
Even before making good on his campaign promise to pull his country from the international coalition in Iraq , Spain ‘s socialist president traveled to Caracas to negotiate the sale personally with the Venezuelan dictator. He later dispatched Defense Minister Jose Bono to Caracas on November 28, 2005 to seal the deal with Chavez, despite U.S. objections that the trip would legitimize the Chavez regime’s anti-U.S. rhetoric.
Spain dismissed U.S. concerns. Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos told his nation’s largest newspaper on November 27 that the deal would not cause problems for Spain in the U.S. This was in spite of a report four days earlier in the same paper that “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wants Spanish Defense Minister Jose Bono to personally sign the deals in Caracas to stress what he described as a ‘defeat’ of the United States.” The foreign minister’s comments were despite warnings from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld just three days earlier that Spain was “making a mistake” over the sale to Venezuela.
To make matters worse, the Spanish defense minister used his appearance in Venezuela to denounce the U.S. as an “empire,” while Chavez used the occasion to characterize Spain’s decision as “confronting the hegemonic and imperialist ambitions of the elite that now governs the United States,” and which is “massacring the people of Iraq.”
Part of Campaign to Undermine the U.S. and Its Allies
To reinforce his point that the deal with Spain was intended to insult the U.S., Chavez forced an American congressional delegation led by 81 year-old House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) and his ranking colleague, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) to sit on the Caracas airport tarmac for two hours while the deal with Spain was sealed, and then forced the delegation to leave the country. It reeked of a setup job.
The U.S. also specifically warned Spain that its deal was part of the Venezuelan dictator’s strategy to undermine U.S. interests and destabilize the region, including by coordinating actions with Cuba and supporting leftist FARC rebels that hope to overthrow the Columbian government. Chavez himself has proclaimed that his “new strategic map” is intended to “break apart” the South American democratic countries. In fact, when Spain told the U.S. that its CASA aircraft would be used in Venezuela for humanitarian purposes only, Chavez told the European media the aircraft will be used “mainly” for humanitarian purposes, and that they would be used both “inside and outside the country.”
Spain was also aware that Chavez was scheduled to take possession from Russia of 30,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles just days after signing the CASA aircraft deal. Spain ignored Colombian and U.S. concerns that the guns are of the same type used by FARC, and that the total order of 100,000 rifles is far more than is needed to arm every Venezuelan soldier. In response to U.S. concerns, the Spanish defense minister told the media he was “not willing to recognize that there are chosen people who are above others.”
Spreading Anti-U.S. Propaganda while Competing for U.S. Tax Dollars
As if spreading anti-U.S. propaganda abroad wasn’t bad enough, Spain has been working in Washington to get the Coast Guard and Pentagon to buy the same planes it was selling Chavez.
Last year, CASA got Congress to earmark funds for two C-235 aircraft to be used by the Coast Guard’s Deepwater program. CASA is now pressing for even more Deepwater funds, and has established a new campaign to supply up to 35 C-295s to the U.S. Army and Air Force Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program.
Congress authorized start-up funding for the JCA program in 2005, and must eventually fund additional transport aircraft for the Coast Guard Deepwater program. The programs combined will be worth $3-4 billion in the next two years, and as much as $30-40 billion over the next decade. It would be appropriate for the U.S. to make sure that Spain ‘s decision to earn $1 billion from Venezuela for its CASA aircraft should come at the cost of earning far more from sales in the U.S.
The Bottom Line
The U.S. is accustomed to the self-serving actions of some of our friends abroad. But there is growing resentment among American taxpayers when they are asked to pay for products from companies of countries that actively undermine U.S. interests. The Bush Administration has made it clear that we have compelling interests in stopping the arms build-up in Venezuela. Congress should step in to make sure that our allies understand the message. When it comes to buying planes from supposed allies like Spain, Congress should just say no.