Tag Archives: George W Bush

Postcards from Saigon

By Caroline B. Glick

(Jerusalem): Apropos of nothing, Wednesday night Channel 2 news broadcast a jihadi snuff film. The video, produced by an Iraqi group called the Islamic Army of Allah, shows a jihadi sniper knocking off American soldiers one by one.

Being a propaganda flick whose goal is to demoralize Americans and their allies and recruit new soldiers to the army of jihad, not surprisingly the video doesn’t show how the US forces reacted to the sniper fire. The American forces in the film are powerless victims. If they are smart, they will cut and run before it is too late.

The video is effective because it effectively tells a complete lie. US forces in Iraq are far from helpless. They have won nearly every engagement they have fought with insurgent forces in Iraq. And their capabilities get better all the time.

Today, the public debate in the US revolves around one question: When are we leaving Iraq? The conventional wisdom has become that US operations in Iraq are futile. Due in large part to politically driven press coverage, Americans have received the impression that the US cannot succeed in Iraq and that consequently, their leaders ought to be concentrating their efforts on building an exit strategy. Comparisons between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War are legion.

Last Wednesday, President George W. Bush was asked whether it is possible to make a comparison between the recent sharp rise in violence in Iraq and the Tet offensive in Vietnam in January 1968. Bush responded by noting that then as now, “There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.”

During the Tet offensive, the North Vietnamese attacked 40 South Vietnamese villages simultaneously with a massive force of 84,000 troops. The offensive failed utterly. 45,000 North Vietnamese soldiers were killed, no ground was taken. Yet, when then US president Lyndon Johnson declared victory, the American people didn’t believe him. Walter Cronkite, the all-powerful anchorman of the CBS Evening News had told them that the US had lost the offensive. Who was the president to argue with Cronkite? In March 1968 Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection.

So when the media wonder if one can compare the battles in Iraq today to the Tet offensive, what they really want to know is if they have successfully convinced the American public that its military has lost the war in Iraq.

Over the past several weeks, Bush has been waging a political offensive to convince the public that their military is winning the war in Iraq. On Wednesday, the president gave a press conference on Iraq and later reinforced his message in a meeting with conservative columnists.

Bush made four major points in those appearances. First, he explained that the US is at war and described the nature of the war. Iran, he said stands at the helm of enemy forces. Iran’s senior role was made clear he said, through its sponsorship of this summer’s Hizbullah and Palestinian war against Israel. One of Iran’s central goals – shared with Syria and its terrorist proxies – is to destroy the forces of moderation and democracy in the Middle East.

Secondly, Bush asserted that Iraq is a vital front in this war. In his view, the only way the US can lose that war is if it leaves, “letting things fall into chaos and letting al-Qaida have a safe haven.” Bush argued that if the US leaves Iraq, Iraq will come to the US, to Iraq’s neighbors and indeed to the entire world.

Thirdly, Bush argued that the US can only win the war if the American public supports it. The only way to ensure the public’s support is by showing that America is winning. Bush said that showing success is difficult because while its benchmarks for victory – political freedom, economic development and social progress – are amorphous, “the enemy gets to define victory by killing people.”

Finally, Bush argued that to defeat Iran, Syria and North Korea, the US must have international support for its efforts. Countries like Russia, China and France must understand the dangers and agree to isolate these regimes with effective international sanctions.

WHILE BUSH clearly knows what he wants to do, he is hard-pressed to succeed. Not only are the Democrats and the media trying to undercut him, members of his own administration – and particularly Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her colleagues at the State Department – are subverting the president’s agenda.

For example, there is Alberto Fernandez, the Director of Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Fernandez’s job is to defend the US in the Arabic media. Yet, in an interview with Al Jazeera last week, Fernandez said that the US had been “arrogant” and “stupid” in Iraq. In September he reportedly said that Americans and others “are trying intentionally to encourage hell in the Arab world.”

Then there is Rice herself. Rather than promoting US victories in Iraq, Rice is turning the Iraqi government into a scapegoat for the ongoing jihad. If the government doesn’t get its act together, she intimates, the US will feel free to wash its hands of the matter. It won’t be a US defeat, but an Iraqi failure. That is, far from extolling American success, she is paving the way to justify an American defeat.

At the same time, rather than explain Iran’s central role in the war, Rice courts the mullahs. Ignoring Iran’s sponsorship of the Palestinians, Rice waxes poetic comparing the Palestinians – who chose Hamas to lead them – to the American founding fathers and to the civil rights movement.

On Wednesday Bush explained that the relative level of violence is not a determinate of victory or defeat because the enemy can use cease-fires to rearm. In his words, “If the absence of violence is victory, no one will ever win, because all that means is you’ve empowered a bunch of suiciders and thugs to kill.”

Yet contrary to Bush’s clear view on the matter, State Department officials work around the clock negotiating cease-fires. Indeed, one of the capstones of Rice’s diplomatic efforts is the August cease-fire in Lebanon under which Israel is prevented from defending itself and Hizbullah is moving swiftly to rebuild its forces.

In Iraq, this dangerous penchant for negotiations is what enabled Muqtada al-Sadr’s pro-Iranian, pro-Hizbullah Mahdi Army to emerge from its April 2004 offensive against Coalition forces intact and free to become the power broker in Shii’te politics that it is today. The fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki felt it necessary to condemn the joint US-Iraqi attack against al-Sadr’s forces in Baghdad Tuesday is a testament to al-Sadr’s power.

Today the only high-level US diplomat who believes that the purpose of diplomacy is to advance US national interests and not to achieve agreements for their own sake is US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. Just this week Bolton effectively prevented Venezuela from being elected to the Security Council.

Rice does not support Bolton. According to Senate sources, Rice played a major role in preventing Bolton from receiving Senate confirmation for his appointment. As a result, he will likely be forced to leave the UN next month.

Rice’s machinations have made her popular with the media. But her popularity comes at the expense of public and international support for the US’s war goals. Her actions and those of her State Department colleagues have contributed to the anomalous situation where while US forces improved their capabilities in Iraq, the American public became convinced that the war is going badly. Rather than fearing the US, Iran, Syria and North Korea behave as though the US is a paper tiger. Rather than support America, European “allies” increasingly see their national interests best served by distancing themselves from the US as much as possible.

THE SITUATION can be reversed. The media are no longer the power they were in Cronkite’s day. Were the administration to challenge the networks, the networks would be forced to adjust their coverage to reality.

Last week CNN broadcast the Iraqi sniper video.

The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter reacted by blasting the broadcast and calling for the military to bar CNN reporters from embedding with US forces in Iraq. Hunter said that by showing the film CNN was collaborating with America’s enemies and consequently, CNN reporters should enjoy no support from US forces in Iraq. His attacks were widely reported and there can be little doubt that CNN will think long and hard before broadcasting another enemy propaganda movie.

For Israel, the results of the American debate over the future of the war in Iraq are of critical importance. A US retreat will place Israel in grave danger. The eastern front, whose demise the military “experts” were quick to announce in 2003 to justify slashing the defense budget, will make a comeback – replete with massive quantities of arms and tens of thousands of trained jihadi soldiers who will believe that they just won their jihad against the US. Moreover, if the US retreats, the IDF will find itself facing a US-armed and trained Shi’ite army. That is, if the US withdraws, Israel could potentially find itself facing an enemy force better trained and equipped than the IDF.

The leaders of the Democratic Party today compete amongst themselves to see who can be more defeatist. If in the November 7 elections the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress, or even just one of them, the push for a US retreat will grow stronger.

Whatever the results of the elections, Israel must hope that for his last two years in office, President Bush will take firm control of his administration – first and foremost by curbing Rice and her State Department associates – and lead a concerted, unabashed diplomatic and public opinion offensive.

If Bush does this, he will gain wide public support and sufficient support from the international community to move ahead in the war.

If Bush does not take control of his administration, the Vietnam War analogy will become an accurate one for Iraq, and Israel will find itself playing the role of Cambodia.

What, me worry?

(Washington, D.C.): In a recent press conference, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Ross Wilson dismissed as “political cacophony” concern about the Islamist agenda of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan‘s Justice and Development Party (known in Turkish as the AKP). “There is nothing that worries me,” Mr. Ross stated, “with regards to Turkey’s continuation as a strong, secure, stable and secular democracy.”

In a trenchant op.ed. for yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, however, Michael Rubin underscores foreboding changes to Turkish society since the assumption of power in 2002 by a man who once explained that “Democracy is like a streetcar. You ride it until you arrive at your destination and then you step off.” Dr. Rubin asks us to consider the assault on the secular nature of the following institutions:

Education. The government now equates degrees from religious academies (known as Imam-Hatips) with high school degrees, thus allowing Islamist students to enter university and qualify for government jobs having been taught only to memorize the Koran and to embrace a radical, Wahhabi interpretation thereof, not the sorts of skills that afford them or their society a successful future.

The Judiciary. The AKP passed legislation lowering the mandatory retirement age of civil servants, potentially resulting in the near-term replacement of many, including perhaps 4,000 out of 9,000 judges. Similarly, the AKP has warned that it might abolish constitutional courts if judges hamper its legislation, and Erdogan has refused to implement certain Supreme Court decisions levied against his government.

Banking. Erdogan has replaced nearly every member of the banking regulatory board with officials from the Islamic banking sector. In the first six months of this year, money entering the Turkish economy for which regulators cannot account has increased almost eightfold compared to 2002, the year the AKP came to power. Worryingly, it is widely believed some of this money flows from Saudi Arabia to subsidize the AKP.

In light of such evidence of the AKP’s Islamist maneuvering, the rosy view of Turkey’s future expressed by Mr. Ross may be the result of hopeful ignorance. More than likely, however, he – like others in the State Department – is deliberately discounting evidence that there is no such thing as a moderate Islamist. As is true in other cases, at home and abroad, no good can come of official Washington’s endemic inability to distinguish between Muslims who are genuinely tolerant and supportive of democracy and Islamofascists like Erdogan just riding the “streetcar.”

Unfortunately, the State Department’s position only facilitates Turkey’s slide toward Islamism under the AKP by undermining those working for the triumph of Turkey’s traditional democratic and liberal values, including Chief of the Turkish General Staff Gen. Yasar Buyukanit and his service commanders, who have lately asserted with increasing insistence the tremendous security threat posed by Islamism in Turkey. Pressure from those in uniform that has traditionally provided a bulwark against Islamic extremism will be significantly lessened if representatives from Turkey’s strongest military ally continue to question the generals’ assessment of the threat. The State Department would do well to heed Mr. Rubin’s warning: “When a country faces an Islamist challenge, PC platitudes do far more harm than good.”


 


Mr. Erdogan’s Turkey
By Michael Rubin
Wall Street Journal, 19 October 2006

Five years into the war on terror, inept U.S. diplomacy risks undercutting a key democracy (and ally) that President Bush once called a model for the Muslim world. The future of Turkey as a secular, Western-oriented state is at risk. Just as in Gaza and Lebanon, the threat comes from parties using the rhetoric of democracy to advance distinctly undemocratic agendas. Turkey has overcome past challenges from terrorism and radical Islam; always its system has persevered. But now, as Turkish politicians and officials work to defend the Turkish constitution, U.S. diplomats interfere to dismiss Turkish concerns and downplay the Islamist threat.

A crisis has simmered for months, but earlier this month Ankara erupted. On Oct. 1, President Ahmet Necdet Sezer warned parliament, “The fundamentalist threat has not changed its goal to change the basic characteristics of the state.” The next day, as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited the Oval Office, Gen. Yasar B?y?kanit, chief of Turkey’s armed forces, warned cadets of growing Islamic fundamentalism and promised “every measure will be taken against it.” Usually such warnings are enough to keep those transgressing on the constitutional separation of mosque and state in check.

Enter U.S. Ambassador Ross Wilson. At an Oct. 4 press conference he said: “There is nothing that worries me with regards to Turkey’s continuation as a strong, secure, stable and secular democracy.” He dismissed opposition concern about the Islamism of Mr. Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (known in Turkish as the AKP) as “political cacophony.” His remarks were consistent with those of his State Department superiors. Last autumn, Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European Affairs, said “The development of the AKP into a democratic party . . . has mirrored and supported the development of Turkish political society as a whole in a liberal and democratic direction.” He described the AKP as “a kind of Muslim version of a Christian Democratic Party.”

Why are so many Turks angry at Washington’s dismissal of their concerns? While democrats fight for change within a system, Islamists seek to alter the system itself. This has been the case with the AKP. Over the party’s four-year tenure, Mr. Erdogan has spoken of democracy, tolerance and liberalism, but waged a slow and steady assault on the system. He endorsed, for example, the dream of Turkey’s secular elite to enter the European Union, but only to embrace reforms diluting the checks and balances of military constitutional enforcement. After the European Court of Human Rights upheld a ban on headscarves in public schools, he changed course. “It is wrong that those who have no connection to this field [of religion] make such a decision . . . without consulting Islamic scholars,” he declared. Then in May 2006, his chief negotiator for accession talks ordered the removal, from a negotiating paper, of reference to Turkey’s educational system as secular.

The assault on the secular education system has been subtle but effective. Traditionally, students had three choices: enroll at religious academies (so-called Imam Hatips) and enter the clergy; learn a trade at vocational schools; or matriculate at secular high schools, attend university and pursue a career. Mr. Erdogan changed the system: By equating Imam Hatip degrees with high-school degrees, he enabled Islamist students to enter university and qualify for government jobs without ever mastering Western fundamentals. He also sought to bypass checks and balances. After the Higher Education Board composed of university rectors rejected his demands to make universities more welcoming of political Islam, the AKP-dominated parliament proposed to establish 15 new universities. While Mr. Erdogan told diplomats his goal was to promote education, Turkish academics say the move would enable him to handpick rectors and swamp the board with political henchmen.

Such tactics have become commonplace. At Mr. Erdogan’s insistence and over the objections of many secularists, the AKP passed legislation to lower the mandatory retirement age of technocrats. This could mean replacement of nearly 4,000 out of 9,000 judges. Turks are suspicious that the AKP seeks to curtail judicial independence. In May 2005, AKP Parliamentary Speaker B?lent Arin? warned that the AKP might abolish the constitutional court if its judges continued to hamper its legislation. Mr. Erdogan’s refusal to implement Supreme Court decisions levied against his government underline his contempt for rule of law. Last May, in the heat of the AKP’s anti-judiciary rhetoric, an Islamist lawyer protesting the head scarf ban shouted “Allahu Akbar,” opened fire in the Supreme Court and murdered a judge. Thousands attended his funeral, chanting pro-secular slogans. Mr. Erdogan was absent from the ceremony.

There have been other subtle changes. Mr. Erdogan has replaced nearly every member of the banking regulatory board with officials from the Islamic banking sector. Accusations of Saudi capital subsidizing AKP are rampant. According to Turkish Central Bank statistics, in the first six months of this year, the net error — money entering the Turkish economy for which regulators cannot account — has increased almost eightfold compared to 2002, the year the AKP came to power. According to the opposition parliamentary bloc, debt amassed under Mr. Erdogan’s administration is equal to total debt accrued in Turkey between 1970 and 2000. Erkan Mumcu, a former AKP minister who now heads the center-right Motherland Party, accused the AKP in June of interfering in Central Bank operations. Accordingly, President Bush’s Oval Office statement, based on State Department talking points — congratulating “the prime minister and his government for the economic reforms that have enabled the Turkish economy to be strong” — may have hampered transparency, if not reform.

In the past year, the AKP anti-secular agenda has grown bolder. AKP-run municipalities now ban alcohol. Turkish Airlines recently surveyed employees about their attitudes toward the Quran. On July 11, Mr. Erdogan publicly vouched for the sincerity of Yasin al-Qadi, a Saudi financier identified by both the U.N. and U.S. Treasury Department as an al Qaeda financier.

When Mr. Erdogan began his political career, he did not hide his agenda. In September 1994, while mayor of Istanbul, he promised, “We will turn all our schools into Imam Hatips.” Two months later he said, “Thank God Almighty, I am a servant of the Shariah.” In May 1996, he called for a ban on alcohol. In the months before his dismissal from the mayoralty, his cynicism was clear. “Democracy is like a streetcar,” he quipped. “You ride it until you arrive at your destination and then you step off.”

Diplomacy should not just accentuate the positive and ignore the negative. When a country faces an Islamist challenge, PC platitudes do far more harm than good. At the very least, U.S. diplomats should never intercede to preserve the status quo at the expense of liberalism. Nor should they even appear to endorse a political party as an established democracy enters an election season. It is not good relations with Ankara that should be the U.S. goal, but rather the triumph of the democratic and liberal ideas for which Turkey traditionally stands.

Mr. Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

Testing, testing

Decision Brief                             No. 06-D 51                               2006-10-03


(Washington, D.C.): In the wake of the panicky response to North Korea’s announcement today that it intended soon to conduct a nuclear test, it is worth pausing to consider fully the source and implications of Kim Jong-Il’s latest eruption – and the measures that must be adopted to protect the Nation from the likely consequences of his regime’s continued belligerence.


Pyongyang ‘s Posturing


It is certainly no secret that planning for this test has been in the works for some time. Taken together with Kim Jong Il’s history of aggressive behavior, these preparations suggest that today’s announcement is yet another in a line of North Korean shakedowns aimed at extracting from the West economic, political and strategic concessions needed to prop up Kim’s failing autocracy.


Unfortunately, official Washington seems to be buying in to this gambit yet again. Republican and Democratic politicians alike – with the notable exception of those such as members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence responsible for the release of a report today outlining the strategic threat posed by the regime – have joined the Bush Administration in issuing still further, unconvincing warnings to the effect that such a North Korean nuclear test posed an “unacceptable threat.” One NSC spokesman actually cautioned that such an event would “severely undermine” U.S. confidence in Kim’s commitment to a negotiated settlement.


Never mind that Kim Jong Il knows full well – as should any American diplomat, military officer or politician worth his salt – that there has long been no basis for confidence in the North Korean despot’s commitment to a negotiated settlement. Holding out the hope that Pyongyang can, with encouragement from the South Koreans and Communist Chinese, be bribed into cooperating is a snare and delusion.


Enabling Iran


Another upshot of the expected North Korean test is that it will likely prove a boon not just to Pyongyang ‘s nuclear program but to that of Islamofascist Iran . After all, cash-strapped North Korea has made no secret of its readiness to sell military hardware and know-how to willing buyers, giving rise to active technology-sharing and joint development projects with Iran , among others.


Given their history of collaboration, Tehran will likely have its own nuclear engineers and scientists on hand to witness North Korea ?s nuclear test – knowledge of which will immeasurably aid an already advanced Iranian weapons program. It may even be an Iranian-manufactured nuclear device that is to be tested. Either way, the prospect that the Islamic Republic of Iran will also benefit means that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be one step closer to having the capability to act on his stated goals of wiping Israel off the map and bringing about “a world without America.”


Defending America


The good news is that President Bush has taken steps to end the insane policy of assured vulnerability that he inherited – one that would have left the United States absolutely incapable of preventing the sorts of nuclear attacks that Iran and North Korea will soon be able to deliver. During his time in office, the United States has moved steadily toward the deployment of a shield against ballistic missile attack. This latest North Korean provocation should cause critics of Mr. Bush’s missile defense initiatives to recognize that we must now as a matter of the utmost urgency develop and deploy missile defenses in the places where they can do the most good at the least cost – namely, at sea and in space.


The bad news is that the Bush Administration has thus far failed to take another step essential if America is to be able to counter the threats of aggression increasingly emanating from Pyongyang and Tehran: We have yet to address the block-obsolescence to which the U.S. nuclear arsenal is effectively condemned in the absence of our own program of periodic, safe underground nuclear testing.


It is now unmistakably clear. Our restraint since 1992 in conducting such tests has not prevented other nations from engaging in such experimentation. (In addition to the incipient North Korean test, one must add those conducted by Pakistan and India a few years back). We can no longer safely defer the tests required to ensure that our present, aging nuclear weapons will work when they are supposed to and are as safe as we can make them so that they won’t work when they are not supposed to.


No less importantly, we must also conduct tests necessary to ensure that we can hold at risk such targets as our nuclear-armed enemies hold dear. This will also require a resumption of underground testing in order to design new nuclear forces to meet current and future challenges.


The Bottom Line


America ‘s elected representatives must recognize that our past restraint and misplaced reliance on diplomacy has only enabled the nuclear ambitions of states such as North Korea and Iran . Rather than continuing down the path of accommodation and appeasement, the United States must now take steps to contain and eventually to bring down the despotic regimes in Pyongyang and Tehran that threaten their own people and ours.


 

States of denial

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.

Castañeda’s Legacy for U.S.-Mexico Relations

by Fredo Arias-King

Two years into Jorge Castañeda’s tenure as Mexico’s foreign secretary, I wrote a paper for the Hudson Institute which was circulated privately among some officials in the Bush administration and others in Washingtoninterested in an alternative point of view and lesser-known facts about Castañeda. As is known, most of the U.S. mainstream media, academics and members of the Democratic Party admire Castañeda and portray him in largely a positive light, though some Republican officials mostly associate him with his long history of anti-American agitation.

Though the presidency of Vicente Fox was largely perceived as a disappointment,[i] with few tangible results in both domestic and foreign policies, there are reports in the Mexican press that president-elect Felipe Calderón may reassign Castañeda to the top diplomatic post or another Cabinet-level position. In light of this, the old 2002 paper has been updated here as it may be of interest to those following not only Mexican politics and U.S.-Mexico relations, but also Hemispheric security issues.

 

Background

Mexico’s election in July of 2000 ended 71 years of a one-party dictatorship. Countries in transition also tend to redefine their foreign policies, often dramatically, and Mexico was no exception. The new president, Vicente Fox, of the pro-democracy and pro-economic freedom National Action Party (PAN), surprised some by appointing a former communist with a long history of virulent anti-Americanism to the post of foreign minister, Jorge G. Castañeda, who served in that office until his resignation in January of 2003.

At the time of his appointment in late 2000, there was a view in Washington circles that Castañeda continued to harbor anti-American feelings and would strive to create problems for the United States. Others argued that his conversion to democracy, as with his fellow communists in Eastern Europe, was genuine and he represented no threat to theUnited Statesor its interests. An example of the former could be found in a memorandum written shortly after Fox’s election victory by a then-staffer to Senator Jesse Helms who was soon-to-become the Assistant Secretary of State for Hemispheric Affairs Roger Noriega.  Unlike most of official Washington, Noriega had openly sympathized with Vicente Fox and the PAN but felt constrained to raise concerns about the future of the bilateral relationship under Castañeda’s influence:

U.S.-Mexico relations—which already are on a stable, institutionalized footing—should improve systematically with Fox’s victory. However, this opportunity may be squandered because Fox has designated two leftist intellectuals with distinctly anti-U.S. instincts to manage his international relations.

U.S. observers who hoped that a Fox victory promised warmer relations with the United States and that foreign affairs would no longer be the “sandbox” for Mexico’s left will be disappointed by Fox’s choice of two anti-U.S. archetypes to lay the foundations of his foreign policy. Fox has designated intellectual and writer Jorge G. Castañeda and independent Senator Adolfo Aguilar Zinser to head his foreign relations transition. Both are relentless critics ofU.S.foreign policy.

This paper is based on Castañeda’s original writings and his conduct as foreign minister.  It is also informed by the opinions Castañeda expressed to candidate Vicente Fox and other campaign officials between early 1999 and July of 2000. This author, along with the PAN’s director for international relations, Dr. Carlos Salazar, had broad responsibility for relations withWashingtonin the Fox campaign between March of 1999 and July of 2000, working both out of the PAN as well as the Fox campaign headquarters. Visiting the United States 17 times during the campaign and also being exposed to Castañeda at campaign headquarters gives this essay perhaps a unique perspective.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Do the right thing

Decision Brief                                       No. 06-D 47                     2006-09-18

(Washington, D.C.): For some politicians, it is tough under the best of circumstances to do the right thing when it comes to national security. Posturing about “peace dividends” chronically results in defense budgets and end-strengths insufficient to deter future acts of aggression – and fight the wars that ensue. Intelligence programs are compromised by self-serving leaks and press-driven legislative responses. Pentagon leaders are savaged in public by legislators who thereby underscore their lack of understanding of the threats besetting our country, and the fact that they have no better answers to the challenges thus posed.

 

Not the Best of Circumstances

Unfortunately, a congressional by-election season in the second term of a presidency confronting widespread public misunderstanding of, and fatigue with, a global war is far from the best of circumstances. It is in such a season that President Bush confronts the determination of several members of his party in the Senate to do the politically popular – rather than the necessary – thing with respect to legislation that would govern the detention, interrogation and judicial review of captured al Qaeda terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants.

Worse yet, these Senators – John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham – are not only encouraging their fellow Republicans to join them in breaking with President Bush. They are also giving political cover to Democrats gleeful at the chance to conceal their readiness to do the wrong thing on national security by lining up behind McCain and Company, whose number includes former Secretary of State Colin Powell. The latter supports the McCain legislation that offers enemy detainees more rights and more sharply circumscribes their interrogation than the Bush Administration believes is consistent with the national security since, according to Secretary Powell, the world is less persuaded of the moral legitimacy of our actions.

 

The ‘Morality’ Card

Unfortunately, as a result of such machinations, a legitimate, important but basically technical disagreement over procedures has been blown wildly out of proportion. To hear the dissident GOP Senators’ partisans on editorial pages and talk shows tell it, their efforts are all that stands between civilized norms of behavior towards al Qaeda and other terrorist detainees and the Bush team’s rampant torture, judicial mayhem and the shredding of international law (notably, the Geneva Conventions).

Poppycock. As best-selling author Richard Miniter recently reported in the New York Post on his return from a visit to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, the Defense Department is bending over backwards to avoid any appearance of mistreatment of these unlawful enemy combatants. For example, the detainees at “Gitmo” are supplied with three square meals a day made up of foods to their liking (all “halal,” Islamic kosher, and a choice of vanilla or chocolate ice cream); expensive medical care (including colonoscopies, dental work and prostheses); extensive legal representation (an average of 2.2 lawyers for every detainee); and extraordinary latitude for the practice of their faith (for example, interrupting interrogations for prayers).

What is more, as Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of the Guantanamo facility, makes clear in an interview with the Wall Street Journal published over the weekend, detainees have repeatedly attacked their guards, seeking to kill or at least maim them using improvised weapons fashioned from fans, cameras, plumbing and light bulbs. Lately, detainees who have been rewarded for good behavior with more lenient treatment have also taken advantage of their conditions to mount savage attacks on their guards. Some of their lawyers are suspected of facilitating terrorist communications.

 

Enough with the Sanctimony

Unfortunately, far from debunking charges of abuse and ending talk of the need to close this and other vital interrogation facilities, the coddling of prisoners at Gitmo seems to be intensifying the sanctimony of Bush administration critics. They insist on blurring the lines sensibly drawn by the Geneva Convention between prisoners of war (namely, military personnel from states parties who conform to the laws of war by wearing uniforms, displaying their arms, and adhering to an identified chain of command) and unlawful enemy combatants (who do not). And they adopt a posture of contemptuous moral superiority over those who disagree.

We need to remove the sanctimony from this debate. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the extent of the rights that should be enjoyed by people believed to be among the most dangerous Islamofascist terrorists on the planet. Those who recognize the importance of neither compromising classified information – and the sources and methods by which it is obtained – nor making inevitable the unwarranted release of such individuals are not indifferent to human rights. Those who appreciate the need to use methods of interrogation more aggressive than those employed at Gitmo are not in favor of torture.

By the same token, those on the other side of these issues do not have an exclusive claim to morality’s high-ground. If, thanks to the absence of interrogation techniques that make detainees uncomfortable but fall well short of already prohibited torture, Americans are condemned to death (perhaps, ironically, in the course of a successful terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol), those responsible for denying our government such tools will bear a heavy moral burden.

At that juncture, of course, it will be easy enough – yea, even politically correct – to blame legislators who unilaterally disarmed America in critical ways. By that time, however, it will be too late for some of us.

 

The Bottom Line

So, as the Senate deliberates this week whether to adopt John McCain’s approach to detainee-related issues or the more robust version favored by President Bush, let us hold the Senator from Arizona and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle accountable. For all of our sakes, they should err on the side of protecting the national security. Congress should swiftly enact legislation that actually protects America by establishing sensible, practicable guidelines for: the use of aggressive, non-torture interrogation methods where absolutely necessary; legal protections for those charged with performing such interrogations; and the limitation, if essential to protect sources and methods of intelligence, of evidence shared with detainees in the course of their prosecution.

 

Beyond disloyalty

It seemed bad enough that Secretary of State Colin Powell’s former deputy, Richard Armitage, had been so disloyal to President Bush as to blindside him for over two years about Armitage’s role in the so-called Plame Affair. This revelation was, of course, no surprise to those who had observed the systematic disloyalty that characterized much of Messrs. Powell and Armitage’s "service" to this President during his first term. Still, this particular breach of trust was repugnant in the extreme.

What was worse and surprising, however, is that Rich Armitage has also apparently lied about what he first said to columnist Robert Novak concerning Ms. Plame, the former CIA official and wife of Bush-hater Amb. Joe Wilson, and the manner in which this information was disclosed. In a syndicated column published this week, Novak excoriates Armitage – the source the veteran journalist had protected so assiduously – both for not coming forward before now and for being "deceptive" about the nature of the then-Deputy Secretary of State’s original leak.

According to Novak: "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he ‘thought’ might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chit-chat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."

Novak adds that, Armitage’s failure to reveal his role to President Bush for "two and one-half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse [presidential advisor Karl] Rove of being my primary source."

Ever since Colin Powell and Rich Armitage were let go by President Bush at the start of his second term, reporters have suggested the latter was under consideration for various senior positions that have subsequently come open. Mention that Armitage was on the short list for top White House, Pentagon and intelligence jobs were surely favors from journalists appreciative for past leaks and ad hominem backgrounders that Powell’s enforcer deemed "suited" for selected members of the Fourth Estate. Such journalists could also have been reasonably sure that, had these postings panned out, the favor would have been returned in the form of similar, fruitful access to Armitage in the future.

Presumably, Rich Armitage’s name will not be gracing any short-lists for powerful jobs from now on. After all, who would credit the idea that this president — or any other one with even a lick of sense — would be willing to employ so manifestly disloyal and dishonest an individual?

Of course, Rich Armitage may not be available in any event. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, whose conduct of the Plame investigation has been called into fresh, and serious, question – most forcefully in an excellent op.ed. published in Friday’s Wall Street Journal by the indefatigable Victoria Toensing – by revelations about his handling of Armitage’s initial admission and subsequent silence, would appear to have a new obligation: Reviewing the record of the former Deputy Secretary of State’s three appearances under oath before the grand jury to establish whether Mr. Armitage should now be prosecuted for perjury.

Applying Geneva

By Steve Daskal

(Washington, D.C.): The Geneva Conventions have only been adhered to by the nations that are now part of the NATO alliance or have traditionally been peripheral to the major wars of history. India and Pakistan may have adhered to them in their wars, but generally Asian and African nations have not. Israel adhered to them, but the Arabs usually didn’t. The Islamists do not feel obliged to treat kaffirs as protected under the Qur’an and Shari’a because they are waging what they believe to be a defensive jihad against the West. Thus, they will torture and then usually behead Westerners – civilian or military, armed or not at time of capture – unless they can gain political advantage and ransom (money or release of captured terrorists) through a negotiated release.

The proper policy towards those who deliberately exploit the limitations of the Geneva Conventions as a "great equalizer" against law-based nation-states and empires is to consider those who do not separate and distinguish themselves from civilians, and reject formal hierarchical authority, uniforms, and other distinctive markings, and hide in or even fight from religious, medical, educational, or civilian residential buildings, to be brigands, bandits, or pirates – people who have deliberately turned to barbarism and reject all law, treaty, and authority except themselves. These people do not deserve the protections of civilized military personnel, much less the protections of the civilians they try to pass themselves off as being. There is no moral high ground to be gained by treating insurgents and terrorists as properly authorized and uniformed soldiers. There is also no benefit to or protection for properly authorized and uniformed soldiers by treating irregulars as being covered by the Geneva Conventions (or the Hague conventions covering treatment of civilians in war zones, for that matter). Historically, insurgents have tortured, abused, politically manipulated, and killed captives – whether civilians or military – without regard to the niceties of "civilized warfare."

Since lawyers and diplocrats crave detailed, formal, legalistic regulation and civilized control over all situations, and since they dictate all aspects of US foreign policy, it is essential that the US Government formally/publicly amend its ratification of the Geneva Conventions to explicitly state that the US will only abide by the Geneva Conventions in dealing with adversaries who are compliant signatories, and will not be bound by them in dealing with irregulars, insurgents, terrorists, or bandits.

Perhaps we should accept the grim reality that "civilized warfare" can only exist within the confines of a single civilization – which should be able to confine if not eliminate warfare within itself. Most modern warfare has been between conflicting civilizations, or a civilization besieged by barbarians, or between barbarians, and thus the "laws of armed conflict" were not applicable. Thus, expecting the Red Chinese, Indochinese Marxist-Leninists, etc. to adhere to the Geneva Conventions was absurd, because they rejected all laws and treaties that did not advance their own programs for "national liberation" and "people’s revolution." Similarly, expecting Islamists to do so is self-deluding. This is total war, not a limited, chivalry-bound contest between "Christian" ruling houses in Europe or a battle over imperial claims between "Western" states.

 

Who’s Really Ignoring the Geneva Conventions?
By Alykhan Velshi & Howard Anglin
National Review Online, 11 September 2006

In a landmark speech Wednesday, President Bush announced that all captured terrorists will receive the protections of Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. This concession was compelled by the recent Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where a narrow majority of the Court substituted its preferred detainee treatment policy for that of the president. Though bowing to the Supreme Court’s ukase, Bush acidly observed that this decision has "impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists." This was too kind. The Court’s ruling in Hamdan established a deeply flawed framework for dealing with terrorists motivated by an implacable religious desire to destroy us.

Those who favor applying the Geneva Conventions to militant Islamists rely on several dubious assumptions. First, they believe this will redound to our own troops’ benefit if they are captured. Second, that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions represents a minimum standard of decency that must be applied to all detainees, without exception. Both arguments reveal a woeful and dangerous ignorance of the text, history, and purpose of the Geneva Conventions.

Neal Katyal, who represented Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard Salim Hamdan before the Supreme Court, recently told the Legal Times that for every one piece of hate mail he has received, "there are 10 supportive e-mails from [American] troops, saying, ‘Thank you for defending me and my cause, because if I’m caught in some other country, what’s going to save me from a beheading, except for the fact that the U.S. plays by rules?’"

This is nonsense. When militant Islamists slit the throat of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, there was not a single al Qaeda member in Guantanamo Bay and the only torture in the Abu Ghraib prison was by order of Saddam Hussein. What capacity for self-delusion is required to believe that granting captured terrorists Common Article Three protections will suddenly reduce their depravity? For Katyal to claim that militant Islamists are even aware of the Great Writ of habeas corpus, let alone Justice Stevens’s ipse dixit in Hamdan, is more than harmless self-aggrandizement; it is dangerous folly.

The most obvious drawback of mandating that Common Article Three applies to all captured terrorists is that certain Geneva Convention rights are so nebulous as to be practically meaningless. For example, Common Article Three forbids, "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Unsurprisingly, there is no consensus regarding what these words mean. Indeed, there has been considerable debate over whether slapping a terrorist’s belly to elicit information is an outrage on his dignity or even tantamount to torture. The vagueness of Common Article Three combined with the Supreme Court’s newfound willingness to second-guess our government’s treatment of detainees during times of war leaves U.S. soldiers and interrogators with little practical guidance on which to rely.

When dealing with traditional prisoners of war, as the United States did in World War II, Korea, and even Vietnam, it was reasonable to err on the side of leniency and treat detainees with deference and respect. Terrorists, by contrast, present a much greater threat to themselves, their guards, and all Western nations should they escape or be released. Moreover, the diffuse and clandestine nature of their operations also mean that a much greater proportion of the intelligence on which we rely to thwart future attacks must come from captured operatives.

More importantly, the Geneva Conventions did not anticipate the threat posed by today’s militant Islamists. The Geneva Conventions were drafted by civilized countries for the treatment of civilized soldiers. The terrorists we fight today, by contrast, are not dutiful conscripts or professional soldiers; they are would-be martyrs motivated by a fanatical and uncompromising ideology. Granting them the panoply of rights under the Geneva Conventions is inconsistent with the history and underlying assumptions of those treaties.

The drafters of the Geneva Conventions understood that the laws of war are quickly abandoned by a desperate army. To minimize this danger, they allowed for the prosecution of combatants for violations of the laws of war – a sanction, incidentally, made more difficult by the Supreme Court’s rejection of President Bush’s proposed military commissions. They also enshrined a principle of reciprocity: the prospect of harsh punishment if captured acts as a deterrent against savage conduct on the battlefield, just as the possibility of favorable prisoner of war status is an incentive to behave honorably.

The Geneva Conventions are by no means anachronistic; they remain the proper legal framework for waging a conventional war against a regularly constituted army. But applying the strict letter of the Geneva Conventions to Islamist militants is like applying the Queensbury Rules to a donnybrook. When terrorists have shown no interest in abiding by the Geneva Conventions, it is na?ve to think that we can shame them into doing so by treating them as though they have. The best way for the United States to honor the Geneva Conventions is to enforce the principle of reciprocity and deny Geneva protections to those who scorn them.

– Alykhan Velshi is a lawyer and manager of research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Howard Anglin is an appellate lawyer in Washington, D.C. The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of their employers

Ethanol: A means toward energy independence?

Since President Bush’s state of the Union Address in January, there has been a heightened search for alternative sources aiming towards more energy independence. It is indeed necessary to stop financing national economies of those states which are genuinely countering democracy and human rights. Sugar cane based ethanol might be one of the emerging alternatives to fuel cars. Recent news stories about energy saving measures have highlighted the success Brazil is having, using sugar based ethanol to solve its fuel problems. Since the US is facing $3 a gallon gasoline prices the question is why not follow Brazil’s example and begin resorting to plant based instead of fossil fuels.

NEWS:

  • Calderón wins Mexican Presidential Election.  Obrador’s irresponsible attitude.  Mexico: Oil deposit discovered under Gulf of Mexico.
  • Lula’s Electoral Success Continues in Brazil.
  • Cuba’s Castro says worst is over.
  • Roldós Leads Viteri in Ecuador Ballot.
  • Ortega Leads by Six Points in Nicaragua
  • Chavez says Venezuela and Syria are united against the U.S.  Venezuela’s fight for U.N. seat divides.   Venezuela to seize golf courses.  Venezuela, China to set up $5B Fund.
  • Perú: Largest LatAm gold mine in Peru resumes operation after protest.
  • Bolivia’s four provinces to stage anti-president strike. 

Editor’s Note: "Hello Mr. Chavez"

We will use a small section of the Americas Report when possible, to include news of what Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez says directly to his target audience. Since the briefs are in Spanish, the Editor will translate them into English. These stories are taken from www.tinku.org. This web page does not reveal its location, funding or contact information. Tinku.org claims to be "a medium of alternative independent information for Latin America and the world and a poetic encounter between different cultures which criticizes contemporaneous cynicism." It is evident that it promotes the political agenda of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez so it is not difficult to imagine who is responsible for its content. The people that run Tinku.org are up to date in any news happening around the world that could affect Chavez’s policies and are very aware of any criticism against him. They are also very savvy in obtaining and distributing information since Tinku’s contents can also be watched and listened to live via satellite through "Telesur", a Venezuelan TV channel and radio station based in Caracas.

View full version of the Americas Report (PDF)

For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at our new e-mail address: mengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.

Gaffney tells Congress of continuing Islamist threat

As the Nation prepares to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.appeared today before the House International Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation to discuss the nature of America’s war against Islamofascism and the measures the United States must adopt to prevail.

In his prepared remarks and in response to questions from Committee members, Mr. Gaffney emphasized that the conflict in which the United States is currently engaged is not just about Iraq, any more than it is a “war against terrorism.” “Rather,” he observed, “we are in the midst of the latest in a series of death-struggles between, on the one hand, a totalitarian ideology bent on world domination and the destruction of all who stand in the way of that goal and, on the other, freedom-loving peoples….[It is] the War for the Free World.”

According to Mr. Gaffney, understanding the ideological character of our enemy is imperative for two reasons:

-“First, recognizing that we are up against a totalitarian political movement permits a strategically vital distinction to be drawn between the vast majority of Muslims around the world who practice their faith in a tolerant, peaceable manner, consistent with the laws and values of civil societies, and the Islamofascists who do not…. Such a distinction clearly does exist and it behooves us to help Muslim opponents of the Islamofascists survive and prevail over our common foes.”

-“Secondly, recognizing that we are up against a totalitarian ideology is essential to the adoption of instruments of warfare appropriate to defeating its adherents.”

As described in War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World, specific recommendations about the strategies and tools America might marshal include the following:

  • Devise, staff up, and begin executing a political warfare strategy. Countering the Islamofascist ideology must be its principal focus.
  • De-legitimize Islamist extremism in the eyes of Muslims, and especially its potential supporters. We need to show that, although violent Islamism is certainly a problem for us in the West, it is a vastly greater problem for the Muslim community.
  • Use our strengths. The good news is that Americans are among the world’s experts at political warfare….The talent, creativity, ingenuity, and, yes, ruthlessness of top-flight political campaign strategists of both parties should be mustered for the purpose of fighting our enemies and helping our friends rather than fighting each other.
  • Invest in the instruments of political warfare, including public diplomacy. Public diplomacy, intended to influence perceptions, attitudes, and actions abroad, must be viewed as a form of political warfare….An immediate and sweeping ramp-up of our international broadcasting capabilities is needed to provide high-quality programming.
  • Reinforce and strengthen our friends. By demonstrating that there are not only consequences for opposing us, but also real and tangible benefits from supporting us, we can maximize the chances of our success. Critical in this regard is the American commitment to the continued survival of one of the most exposed countries of the Free World: Israel.

Mr. Gaffney concluded by commending President Bush for the courageous and forthright way in which he has lately begun to talk about the Islamofascist ideology that seeks the destruction of anti-Islamist Muslims and non-Muslims, alike. He warned, however, that the President’s vision and leadership are being undermined a) by those at the State Department who are pursuing agendas at odds with his policies and b) by certain Islamist-sympathizing organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that – despite ongoing, misbegotten efforts by government officials to embrace and legitimate them – deride Mr. Bush and his war efforts while fostering an insidious sense of victimhood and alienation among this country’s Muslims.