Tag Archives: Hezbollah

Is Petraeus going native?

It was bad enough when, two months ago, word got around that U.S. Central Command’s commanding general, David Petraeus, had embraced the meme that Americans were being killed in his theater of operations because Israel had refused to make peace with its Palestinian enemies.

Now comes word that elements within his command – including many of its "senior officers" and "intelligence personnel" – believe the United States should abandon its longstanding policy of "isolating and marginalizing" Hamas and Hezbollah.

According to an article entitled, "Red Team: CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah" by Mark Perry published today online by Foreign Policy magazine, a Red Team at Central Command is recommending "a mix of strategies that would integrate the two organizations into their respective political mainstreams." The justification for treating these designated terrorist organizations as though they were part of the solution is to be found in the following, astounding remarks by unidentified CENTCOM officers:

Putting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida in the same sentence, as if they are all the same, is just stupid," [one] said. "I don’t know any intelligence officer at CENTCOM who buys that." Another mid-level SOCOM [Special Operations Command] officer echoed these views: "As the U.S. strategy in the war on terrorism evolves, military planners have come to realize that they are all motivated by different factors, and we need to address this if we are going to effectively prosecute a successful campaign in the Middle East.

The contention that Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida are "motivated by different factors" is pure Brotherhood taqqiya – dissembling for the faith. Its embrace by anyone, let alone by intelligence personnel and senior military officers, constitutes an appalling dereliction of the "professional duty to know" the facts.

The reality is that all these groups absolutely, positively are the same in one respect, at least: They all share a commitment to the theo-political-legal-military program authoritative Islam calls Shariah.

As adherents to Shariah, they are all pursuing the same goal: the global triumph of Shariah under a theocratic Caliphate. Their tactics may differ from time to time, depending on circumstance. But what is really "stupid" is the notion that such differences or even structural differences actually preclude these groups and many others promoting Shariah (notably, the Taliban) from being kindred spirits – and unalterably our enemies.

Further evidence of the defective nature of the CENTCOM Red Team analysis can be found in the emphasis it reportedly places on "a quote from Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, stating that if Lebanon and Iran’s interests ever conflicted, his organization would favor Lebanese interests." According to Perry, the Red Team concluded that "Hezbollah’s activities increasingly reflect the movement’s needs and aspirations in Lebanon, as opposed to the interests of its Iranian backers."

The notion that Hezbollah can be weaned from its client relationship with Tehran – either on the basis of appeals to its nationalist ardor or because of Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan’s stated willingness to engage with its so-called "moderate elements" – is unsubstantiated by any material facts. Random quotes, particularly those cited out of context, are of course not at all the same thing as an established pattern of behavior on Hezbollah’s part that demonstrates the proxy’s actual independence from its Iranian masters. No such pattern can be discerned. The same dependency on Iran is operating with Hamas, as well, to say nothing of Syria.

These inconvenient facts notwithstanding, the Red Team is said to have recommended that the United States government open direct negotiations with Hezbollah and that they "be pursued again with the same vigor that peace talks in Northern Ireland were pursued." The Team goes on to note that, "As the U.S. took the lead with peace talks in Northern Ireland, the British could take the lead with unity talks between the Lebanese Armed Forces and Hezbollah in Lebanon." Never mind that the difference between Northern Ireland and Lebanon is the IRA was thoroughly defeated by the British in the former. In the case of the latter, Hezbollah would clearly be perceived as the victor.

The Red Team’s views with respect to Hamas are equally inane. According to Perry: "The report argues that an Israeli decision to lift the siege might pave the way for reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, which would be ‘the best hope for mainstreaming Hamas.’" As though the object of U.S. policy should be to facilitate Hamas’ domination of the entire Palestinian proto-polity.

Even more instructive was the following line by Perry: "The Red Team also claims that reconciliation with Fatah, when coupled with Hamas’s explicit renunciation of violence, would gain ‘widespread international support and deprive the Israelis of any legitimate justification to continue settlement building and delay statehood negotiations.’" Indeed, delegitimation of Israel seems pretty much to be the Red Team agenda – a nation that has been and remains a key ally of what one would hope remains the Blue Team: the United States of America.

Particularly alarming is Perry’s assertion that, "There’s little question the report reflects the thinking among a significant number of senior officers at CENTCOM headquarters – and among senior CENTCOM intelligence officers and analysts serving in the Middle East." Add into the mix the controversial views previously espoused by Gen. Petraeus and you have a significant military organization that seems fully prepared to throw Israel under the bus.

If there is any glimmer of good news in Mark Perry’s portrayal of the leaked Red Team analysis it is that, even though "There is a lot of thinking going on in the military and particularly among intelligence officers in Tampa [the site of CENTCOM headquarters] about these groups," according to an unnamed senior CENTCOM officer familiar with the report, "senior military leaders are [not] actively lobbying Barack Obama’s administration to forge an opening to the two organizations. ‘That’s probably not in the cards just yet,’ he said."

The bad news is that, given the determination of the Obama administration to isolate and undermine Israel, it is not clear that much "active lobbying" on the part of Central Command will be necessary to egg it on. But the political cover provided by General Petraeus, or at least by his CENTCOM staff, will surely come in handy for Team Obama when the chickens of the war that such policies will inevitably encourage come home to roost.

Welcome to Washington, Prime Minister Netanyahu.

A shrine to Shariah?

The supremacist program authoritative Islam calls Shariah is big on symbols.  Arguably, none is more effective than its practice of building mosques on its conquests’ most sacred sites.

In Jerusalem, triumphant Muslims built the Al-Aqsa mosque on top of the Jews’ revered Temple Mount.  They transformed what had been for a thousand years the largest cathedral in Christendom, Constantinople’s magnificent St. Sophia basilica, into a sprawling mosque complex.  And the Moorish Ummayad dynasty in Spain, made the city of Cordoba its capital, and installed an immense mosque on the site of an ancient Christian church there.

Now, an imam in New York, who has suddenly come into $100 million from undisclosed sources, wants to build a 13-story Islamic Cultural Center adjacent to the site  of Shariah’s greatest triumph to date in America: Ground Zero, the place where the World Trade Center’s twin towers proudly stood until they were destroyed by Shariah-adherent jihadists on September 11, 2001.  It is not a coincidence that the imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has called his project "the Cordoba House."

Such a mosque on 9/11’s hallowed ground would not only constitute a durable, symbolic taunt by our enemies about their bloody victory.  In accordance with Shariah, once ground has been taken for Islam, it can never revert to the non-Muslim Dar al-Harb, literally the House of War.

In other words, the Ground Zero mosque is designed to be a permanent, in-our-face beachhead for Shariah, a platform for inspiring the triumphalist ambitions of the faithful and eroding resistence to their demands for separate and (for the moment, at least) equal treatment in America.

So why, one might ask, have Mayor Michael Bloomberg, various other elected officials and clergy and community leaders expressed support for the Cordoba House?

In part, it is a function of local considerations:  Who wouldn’t welcome the prospect of an infusion of $100 million into the still-suffering economy of lower Manhattan?  What is more, if the mosque serves as a magnet for new Muslim residents, depressed housing prices could rebound.

The larger problem is that too few of our leaders understand the nature of Shariah and its implications.  Even when an imam like Rauf explicitly says he favors bringing Shariah to America, officials at every level of government seem untroubled by the fact that such an agenda necessarily is anti-constitutional and incompatible with our freedoms.

To be sure, Imam Rauf is a skilled practitioner of the Shariah tradition of taqqiya deception for the faith.  It turns out, he was to the manner born: As ace researcher Alyssa Lappen has documented, Rauf has family and other longstanding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. 

So, in a page taken straight out of the Brotherhood taqqiya playbook, the imam and his wife and collaborator on the Cordoba House project, Daisy Khan, have been much in evidence of late, professing their commitment to interfaith dialogue and the dedication of their new facility to serving the non-Muslim as well as Muslim communities. 

As it happens, similar assurances about mosque complexes built elsewhere by other Shariah adherents have amounted to the old "bait-and-switch" scam.  A group called Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT) has monitored, for example, the Islamic Society of Boston’s Saudi-funded, city-enabled mega-mosque in Roxbury, Massachusetts.  Despite professions of tolerance, the mosque has ties to Hamas and other terrorists. According to APT, the mosque’s imam, "Abdullah Faarooq, has told his followers to ‘pick up the gun and the sword’ and supported local terror suspects Aafia Siddiqui and Tarek Mehanna."

In the United Kingdom, the North London Central Mosque (a.k.a. the Finsbury Park Mosque) has been embraced by the British government and is considered an archetype for its effort to counter radicalization by working with the Muslim Brotherhood’s "non-violent" Islamists. Yet, this mosque hosted one of America’s most wanted terrorists: Anwar al-Alwaki.  According to National Public Radio, among those who attended his sermons there was the Nigerian panty-bomber, Umar Farouk Abulmutallab.

We have reason to fear that the United States government is poised to follow Britain’s disastrous course – further compounding the muddle-headed thinking among leaders across the country about Shariah and the threat it poses. John Brennan, President Obama’s Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor has repeatedly signaled that he wants to reach out to "moderate" jihadists of the Taliban and Hezbollah.  President Obama has said he intends to provide more than $400 million for Hamas-run Gaza.

Then, Brennan gave an interview in the Washington Times last week in which he displayed anew his profound misunderstanding of the enemy and its threat doctrine.  As the Times’ Eli Lake reported: "Mr. Brennan said that he opposed granting any legitimacy to what he called al Qaeda’s ‘twisted’ interpretation of Islam. ‘Clearly, bin Laden and al Qaeda believe they are on this very holy agenda and this jihad.  However in my view, what we cannot do is to allow them to think, and the rest of the world to think, for the future terrorists of the world to believe al Qaeda is a legitimate representation of jihad and Islam.’"

Such denials of the centrality of violent jihad to authoritative Islam – and the obligation to engage in more stealthy forms of jihad to the same end, the global triumph of Islam, where violence is not practicable – is a formula for disaster.  Unchallenged, it will produce a toxic shrine at Ground Zero to the doctrine that animates al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood alike, Shariah.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WTNT 570 AM.

Supreme Court On Moderate Terrorists: Fuggedaboutit

Bad news today for President Obama, his Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Advisor, John Brennan, and other proponents of the idea that the United States can safely reach out to “moderate” elements within terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban.  In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found that no distinction can be made between violent and non-violent wings of such groups and that the former will be beneficiaries of whatever “material support” is given them.

As Stephen Landman of the indispensable Investigative Project on Terrorism’s IPT News reported in a post Monday:

“The court roundly rejected the claims that there’s a distinction between aid to a terrorist group’s “social” wing, as opposed to its military wing….:

Material support meant to “promote peaceable, lawful conduct” can further terrorism by foreign groups in multiple ways. Material support is a valuable resource by definition. Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups – legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds – all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.

As a result of this ruling upholding the material support statute, it remains illegal to provide to designated terrorist groups “any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instrument or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.”

The Court found:  “Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted section 2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism. One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further the terrorist activities of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE): ‘Foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.’”

The ruling in Holder v. The Humanitarian Law Project also determined that: “Material support meant to ‘promote peaceable, lawful conduct’ can further terrorism by foreign groups in multiple ways. Material support is a valuable resource by definition. Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups – legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds – all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.”

The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision on material support suggests that it would be illegal to provide $400 million via the so-called “moderates” of the Palestinian Authority to the designated terrorist organization (DTO) Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip – something President Obama has announced he intends to do.  It should also preclude the sort of “outreach” to the so-called “moderates” of another DTO, Hezbollah, as presidential advisor Brennan has twice indicated he thinks is in order.  Ditto negotiations with “moderate” members of the Taliban, at least to the extent such a process entails what amounts to material support to that terrorist organization in the form of financial or other substantial inducements to their cooperation.

What is more, the Supremes’ ruling in this case essentially upholds a landmark en banc opinion issued last year by the 7th Circuit in Boim v. Holy Land Foundation.  The latter decision written for the majority by highly esteemed Judge Richard Posner found that a contribution made to an organization embracing a doctrine like Shariah that calls on its adherents to engage in jihad amounts to material support.  This outcome was particularly gratifying for the Center for Security Policy as it filed an amicus brief in the case making precisely that argument.

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the Supreme Court actually endorsed a broad interpretation of the material support statute.  Solicitor General Elena Kagan espoused the view that the law regulates conduct only, not speech per se. The Court found that the statute does indeed regulate speech and that Congress can criminalize speech on behalf of a known terrorist organization – even if such speech is for legal ends, as long as that speech also provides material support to said organization.

Accordingly, it appears that, for example, if an imam were to issue a Shariah fatwa “to, under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows to be terrorist organizations,” he would be guilty of violation of the material support statute.  This could constitute a powerful new tool for countering the stealth jihad inside the United States.

By the same token, the Supreme Court ruling would apply to overseas activities as well, such as the so-called “humanitarian flotilla” that sought to break Israel’s naval blockade of Hamastan in Gaza.  Any U.S. organization that coordinated their support for this affair with Hamas in any way would be guilty of providing material support in violation of the statute.

In short, the top court in a federal judiciary that has in recent years handed a succession of victories to America’s terrorist foes – dare we call it “material support? – has rendered a decision in Holder v. the Humanitarian Law Project of signal importance.  It now behooves the Obama administration to conform its own policies and behavior to the letter and spirit of this sensible ruling, even as it enforces the law vigorously.

Turkey’s cozy business with Iran

It becomes more apparent all the time that Turkey is a foe in the War for the Free World, between the forces of freedom and liberty and the forces of Shariah law and Jihad.

Actually, if you were to ask most Greeks they would have told you years ago that the Turks were an enemy not to be trusted, especially since Turkey invaded the island of Cyprus in the mid-1970s. But Turkey’s recent activities drive the point home.

For many people, the first clue that Turkey was no longer a true ally of the U.S. and the rest of NATO (of which Turkey is a member) came back in 2003 when the Turkish parliament refused to grant the coalition to overthrow Saddam Hussein permission to launch a northern front from its territory into Iraq.

As a result of Turkey’s disloyalty, the advanced 4th Mechanized Infantry Division had to sail around the Arabian peninsula to Kuwait to join the fight. As a direct result of Turkey’s actions, American GIs lost their lives. Turkey’s actions deprived the coalition with a mechanized thrust into the Sunni Triangle area of Iraq-a powerful thrust that could have done much to inhibit the development of the insurgency there.

More recently, Turkey betrayed another former ally, Israel, by sanctioning a blockade running flotilla toward Israeli waters, precipitating a violent incident in which nine Turks lost their lives. As part of the fallout from this episode it has been revealed that the Turkish Islamic charity IHH is involved in supporting the terrorist organization HAMAS.  This should not actually come as much of a surprise since IHH is part of Jihadist terrorist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s "Union of Good." The "Union of Good" is an umbrella group of 53 Islamic charities based out of Saudi Arabia most noted for having been designated a terrorist entity by the U.S. Treasury Department.

But perhaps the most startling evidence that Turkey is an enemy and not an ally is the corporate life support that it gives the Ayatollahs in Iran.

Many nations allow their corporate citizens to conduct business in and with the Islamic Republic of Iran, but one Turkish company in particular has provided an array of services that has benefited Iran’s military posture and allowed the Iranians to pose a clear and present danger to the Free World.

STFA Group is a Turkish engineering and construction conglomerate that builds everything from port facilities and energy industry infrastructure, to naval vessels and high-tech electronics. STFA has completed projects in Iran for government entities-projects that could enable Iran to threaten the flow of oil in the Persian Gulf and enrich itself in meantime.

 

Exhibit A: STFA did extensive infrastructure work on three ports for the Iranian Ministry of Roads and Transportation and the Iran Ports and Shipping Organization:

1. Jask. At the port of Jask near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, STFA constructed a breakwater and quay which provide shelter for an Iranian naval base. (Click the images below to englarge.)

2. Queshm. The port of Queshm on the island of the same name sits on one of the flanks of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a major portion of the world’s oil must flow. STFA built a breakwater and quay for the port, which the Iranians use as a base for Silkworm anti-ship missiles:

Iran has deployed Chinese HY-2 "Silkworm" anti-ship missiles along the Iranian coast of the Persian Gulf, on Abu Musa island, on Qeshm Island and on Sirri Island. In March 1995 US Secretary of Defense William Perry denied speculation on the possible existence of Iranian chemical weapons on the islands.

Qeshm Island is the largest island in the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf. With an area of 1445 km2, a circumference of approximately 362 km, and a length of 122 km, the northern coast of the island is covered with mangrove forests. Qeshm island is located along the Iranian mainland, at one point only about 1.8 km distant from the mainland, and Qeshm City is about 22 km from Bandar Abbas.

3. Bandar Lengeh. STFA also constructed breakwaters and quays near the harbor of Bandar Lengeh just west of the Strait of Hormuz.

 

Exhibit B: STFA constructed piling works for a jetty on the eastern side of Kharg Island, Iran’s number one oil and gas terminal and a major naval base.

(Click the image below to englarge.)

 

In these strategic projects, Turkey’s STFA is partnering with the Iranian regime that is: 

(i) killing US GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan;

(ii) sponsoring Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and HAMAS, the three worst Jihadist terrorist organizations in the world;

(iii) building intercontinental ballistic missiles to strike around the globe and;

(iv) working to build nuclear weapons in violation of international agreements.

It is clear that Turkey has chosen sides in the war– and it’s not ours.

No worse friend, no better enemy

Generations of U.S. Marines have exemplified the motto "No better friend, no worse enemy" with their unstinting dependability in the face of adversity, and their ferocity in combat.  To the extent that the country as a whole has hewed to these time-tested principles, the world has been made more stable and American interests more secure.

In its time in office, however, the Obama administration has increasingly turned that formula on its head.  The message of its policies and conduct is as unmistakable as it is ominous:  Better to be an enemy of the United States than its friend.

Consider, for example, the starkly contrasting treatment associated with two recent episodes at sea.  In the first, a North Korean submarine engaged in an act of war when it covertly torpedoed a South Korean naval vessel on March 21, resulting in the latter’s sinking with the loss of 46 lives.

The second occurred last week when Israeli commandoes, acting lawfully in enforcing a declared naval blockade, intercepted a Turkish ship determined to violate it.  Upon boarding the vessel, they were set upon by a mob comprised, it turns out, of weapon-wielding jihadists – not humanitarian-minded "peace activists."  The commandoes defended themselves, killing nine of the would-be "martyrs."

To date, there has been no UN resolution denouncing the first.  No calls for an international investigation.  No talk of retaliation by the so-called "community of nations" if the perpetrator does not recant and make amends.

By contrast, the UN Security Council was immediately "seized" with the second.  It adopted in short order a resolution condemning those responsible (read, the Israelis) and demanded an international investigation.  Given the predictable hostility of virtually any "international" participants in such an inquiry, the result can only be a new basis for vilifying  Israel, and for insisting that it ends the blockade of Gaza – something the Obama administration seems to be preparing to support.

To what can the very different treatment of the two naval incidents by the "international community" be attributed?  That’s easy: Principally it reflects the fact that North Korea has as its greatest friend Communist China, while Pyongyang considers the United States to be its main enemy.  Beijing does not want the UN (or, for that matter, anybody else) challenging or otherwise calling into question the legitimacy of its ally’s actions.  The United States has no intention of upsetting the PRC – what with all the "help" Team Obama keeps hoping the Chinese will provide on sanctions on Iran, trade, currency revaluation, the "Six-Party talks," etc., etc.

By contrast, Israel has traditionally had but one powerful friend: the United States.  This alliance has been all the more important since most of the rest of the world is at least somewhat, if not actually rabidly, hostile towards the Jewish State.  Under President Obama, however, Israel seems to have in the U.S. a friend in name only. American diplomacy did nothing to prevent passage of the Security Council’s condemnatory resolution, focusing instead on making UN’s criticism of the Jewish State a tad more oblique.

Regrettably, the Obama administration’s complicity in the latest UN-administered assault on Israel is but one manifestation of a troubling pattern.  It follows months of Washington-induced turmoil over: housing construction permits in Jerusalem, U.S. demands for Israeli concessions that ostensibly would resuscitate the so-called "peace process" and the humiliation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his last visit to Washington. 

Then, the United States supported a deeply problematic final document at the just-completed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference.  In the process, Team Obama pledged to support a conference in 2012 whose stated purpose is to denuclearize Israel, but says nothing about Iran.  Here again, the administration acquiesced to better treatment for America’s enemies than for its friends.

Sadly, other allies – including Britain, Honduras, Poland, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Ukraine, India and Colombia – have also been given short shrift (or worse) by an Obama administration much more interested in cultivating ties with nations that are, at the very least, unfriendly.  In addition to Communist China, the objects of such "engagement" efforts have included the unsavory regimes in Russia, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Cuba and Venezuela.  Another intense – and appalling – "outreach" effort involves the Muslim Brotherhood’s international arm, the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Of particular concern is the evident ascendancy within the Obama administration of Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan.  A long puff-piece in Sunday’s Washington Post reported that Brennan has "emerged as one of [the President’s] most trusted advisors" and "for all the near misses [that is, attempted terrorist attacks] on his watch… Brennan has grown only more powerful within the White House."  

If true, the President’s worst instincts with respect to America’s enemies and her friends are being reinforced by someone who believes, for example, that the "moderates" of Hezbollah can safely be treated as among the latter.  The result can only be a more dangerous world for all who love freedom, and a further diminishing of the one country they still hope will protect them.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WTNT 570 AM.

How wars begin

In hindsight, it will probably be obvious that the missteps of the Obama administration vis a vis Israel were critical catalysts to a war that today seems ever more likely to engulf the Middle East, and perhaps the world more generally. Assuming such an outcome is neither the intention of the President and his team, nor desired by them, American course corrections must be urgently taken.

To be sure, as is often the case in the moment, a different narrative is operating. The rising tensions in the region are widely seen as the fault of the Jewish State. Most recently, Israel is being portrayed as the villain of the bloody interception of a "humanitarian flotilla" bringing relief aid to the Gaza Strip.

Before that, the Jewish State has been serially excoriated for: engaging in: "illegal" construction of homes in Jerusalem; exercising "disproportionate force" in military action in Gaza, including by some accounts "war crimes"; and being intransigent with respect to the sorts of territorial, strategic and political concessions needed to advance the "peace process" with the Palestinians.

In each case, the Obama administration has either strongly endorsed these memes or acted fecklessly to challenge them. Throughout their seventeen months in office, the President and his senior subordinates have been at pains to demonstrate a more even-handed approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to "engage" the Muslim "world."

The practical effect, however, has been to excuse, empower and embolden those hostile not just to Israel but to the United States, as well. Consider just a few ominous examples:

The Iranian regime has understood that the Obama administration will do nothing to defeat the realization of Tehran’s longstanding ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons.  Instead, the United States is now focused on how it will "live with" a nuclear-armed Iran by trying to "contain" it. Meantime, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency says Tehran has enough enriched uranium to make two atomic weapons.  If true, it will be a matter of a relatively short time before such material is sufficiently processed to be ready for that purpose.

The Syrians have, presumably at Iran’s direction and with its help, transferred dangerous Scud missiles to the mullah’s re-armed terrorist proxy, Hezbollah.  Particularly if equipped with chemical or biological weapons (which the Syrians and Iranians have in abundance), such missiles would pose a mortal threat to Israel and her people.

Egypt has recently conducted offensively oriented war games in the Sinai Peninsula. Their clear purpose:  Honing the Egyptian military’s capabilities for renewed attacks on Israel.  The government of Hosni Mubarak has also failed to halt the massive network of smuggling tunnels into Gaza that are supplying another of Iran’s terrorist surrogates, Hamas, with an array of ever-more-deadly weapons in preparation for when (not if) hostilities are resumed with Israel.

Even before last weekend’s conflict over the blockade-running "aid flotilla," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had effectively terminated the close ties Israel once had with his country.  Erdogan’s accelerating Islamicization of the once-secular Turkey has been accompanied by his intensifying rapprochement with Iran and Syria.

Notably, the Turks recently joined Brazil for the transparent purpose of running interference for Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.  It remains to be seen whether these three nations will succeed in sabotaging Team Obama’s latest bid to secure a new UN sanctions resolution against the mullahs.

Last week, a powerful new weapon in the campaign to delegitimize the Jewish State was spawned by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  It mandated negotiations to start in 2012 with the aim of ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons.  Israel was the only nation named.  It would also likely be the only one disarmed if the transnationalists (both the secular UN types and Shariah-adherent ones) have their way.

These developments have two things in common:  First, particularly when taken together, they constitute the greatest existential threat to Israel since 1973.  And second, they reflect– and powerfully reinforce– a growing perception that the United States has cut Israel loose.

Israel’s many friends in this country – particularly a number of American Jews critical to Democratic electoral prospects this fall – finally seem to have awakened to these realities.  Hence, Team Obama’s feverish effort last week to have the President seen with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a man it had humiliatingly spurned and publicly upbraided just a few months ago. (Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to head home to deal with the Flotilla crisis spared both men the obvious PR challenges associated with the former making a Washington visit at this juncture.)

Unfortunately, matters have reached the point where such calculated exercises in Potemkin political rehabilitation will not suffice.  Ditto rhetorical pledges of unseverable bilateral ties.

Unless and until President Obama gives comprehensive and tangible expression to America’s commitment to Israel– in terms of reliable military assistance, unstinting diplomatic support and wide latitude to act in its self-defense– the forces that have been unleashed by him and others will assuredly translate in due course into war.  It is certainly harder to do such prophylactic things today than it would have been at the outset of the Obama presidency.  But such costs are nothing compared to those that will be incurred by freedom-loving people in the Middle East and elsewhere, including here, if he fails to undertake these necessary course-corrections.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program "Secure Freedom Radio" heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WTNT 570 AM.

La Relacin Entre Procesos Polticos en Amrica Latina y La Seguridad Regional

Version in English

Una gran parte del continente Latinoamericano corre el peligro de caer en una situación que oscila entre el totalitarismo y la anarquía, entre el autoritarismo y el caos. La región ya está siendo victima de una nefasta combinación de factores como la influencia de grupos insurgentes y de grupos terroristas extranjeros, carteles de la droga, y la cercanía con países que históricamente opuestos en cultura con la región, principalmente Irán, China, y Rusia. Esto se debe en gran parte a la emergencia de Hugo Chávez y la revolución Bolivariana. Esta revolución, que ha tenido repercusiones domésticas y regionales, le ha abierto la puerta aun más a todos estos elementos mencionados.

A nivel doméstico, el régimen es socialista y absolutista, hostil a la propiedad privada, a las fuerzas del mercado. Además oprime a la oposición política y civil así como también a los medios de comunicación. En cuanto a su política exterior, el modelo tiende a expandir la revolución Bolivariana más allá de las fronteras Venezolanas y tiende a maximizar la unidad latinoamericana bajo el liderazgo e influencia de Hugo Chávez. 

Este modelo se ha reproducido en países como Bolivia, Ecuador y Nicaragua. De este modo, bajo la consigna de justicia social,  las prerrogativas del poder ejecutivo han sido reforzadas a expensas de los derechos y libertades de la sociedad civil. Así también, la independencia del poder judicial y la libertad de expresión han sido obstaculizadas.

La perpetuación del poder es importante no sólo para consolidar un régimen autoritario. La perpetuación del poder es también importante porque Chávez tiene un proyecto continental donde lo que busca es crear un nuevo bloque en la región bajo hegemonía Venezolana. La presencia de regímenes autoritarios Pro-Chávez,  hacen la dominación continental más fácil en donde decisiones con implicaciones regionales importantes sólo requerirían un puñado de líderes que no rendirían cuentas ni al Congreso, ni al poder judicial ni a la sociedad civil.

Chávez también intenta co-optar a organizaciones y movimientos de base en el continente e incorporarlos a su huracán revolucionario. Lo peligroso es que Chávez cuenta también con grupos violentos siendo su mejor aliado las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, también conocidas como la FARC. 

A medida que este grupo terrorista es derrotado en Colombia y expulsado de ese país, sus miembros van escapando a países fronterizos con la ayuda de Hugo Chávez. En Ecuador, las relaciones con la FARC involucran a altos  funcionarios del gobierno Ecuatoriano, incluyendo el Presidente Rafael Correa, el poder judicial y el ejército. En Bolivia, los lazos del gobierno con las FARC han aumentado desde que el Movimiento la Socialismo (MAS) subió al poder. Más significativo es el hecho que las FARC junto con Chávez han creado un grupo internacional llamado la Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (CCB) que incluye grupos como el vasco ETA y otros. La CCB probablemente esté destinada a difundir la revolución Bolivariana a través del continente.

La revolución Bolivariana también esta ligada a los carteles de la droga. El año pasado, la oficina de Responsabilidad Gubernamental de los Estados Unidos (GAO) publicó un informe para el comité de asuntos exteriores del Senado Norteamericano. Según el informe "Venezuela ha extendido un salvavidas a grupos armados ilegales y carteles de la droga proveyéndolos de apoyo y de refugio"

Así, el flujo de cocaína que transita desde Venezuela a los Estados Unidos, Europa y África occidental se ha cuadriplicado en un periodo de tres años y continúa creciendo. El negocio de la droga y sus redes de contacto también se expanden a través de América Latina incluyendo a America Central, el Caribe, Ecuador, Bolivia y Perú.

Lo mas grave de este fenómeno es que el negocio de las drogas corrompe el estado y obstaculiza su autoridad. El narco-dinero puede comprar abogados, policías, políticos, empleados públicos, y otros. Esto se agrava por el hecho de que países como Venezuela, Ecuador y Bolivia han expulsado a la agencia Norteamericana DEA cuya presencia servía para controlar y disuadir tal tráfico.

Los ejemplos de Méjico y Guatemala son alarmantes. En algunos estados mejicanos que bordean la frontera con los Estados Unidos no se puede distinguir entre los miembros de los carteles y miembros de la policía. Guatemala ha contratado empresas privadas de seguridad porque no logra ejercer control policial sobre su propio territorio.

Cuando Chávez y sus aliados se asocian con los carteles de la droga, esto estimula la inestabilidad en los países donde el narco-trafico opera. Esto serviría a Chávez quien busca desestabilizar gobiernos, deponerlos y luego imponer sobre ellos su visión revolucionaria.

Aún más, la anarquía que se genera con la proliferación de los carteles de la droga mas las FARC puede generar una situación similar a la de Afganistán donde la autoridad del estado ha cedido y el poder se ha trasladado a los feudos de la droga o grupos terroristas ligados al Talibán y Al Qaeda. Esta situación en América Latina puede llegar a tener repercusiones terribles incluso si Chávez desaparece de la escena.

La expansión de tal situación conduciría a la inestabilidad regional. Bajo este telón de fondo de anarquía no es difícil comprender la facilidad con que los grupos Islámicos y el estado forajido de Irán avanzan en la región. Terroristas florecen por lo general en territorios considerados ingobernables. Se sabe que hay cooperación entre Hamas, Hezbollah y otros grupos radicales Islámicos con carteles de la droga Mejicanos. En realidad una de las especialidades de Hezbollah parte de actividades terroristas, es el trafico de drogas.  

Hay informes de presencia de guardias revolucionarias Iraníes en Venezuela y que jóvenes Venezolanos afiliados al Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, han sido entrenados en campos manejados por Hezbollah en le Sur del Líbano.

Esto podría bien estar ligado al concepto de Guerra asimétrica, una doctrina difundida en los ejércitos de Venezuela y Bolivia, donde se enfatiza el método de hombres suicida para combatir un ejército convencional.

Por otro lado es probable que estos "Mujadeen" Venezolanos puedan ser integrados al aparato represivo de los países asociados con la revolución Bolivariana. El gobierno Venezolano ha formalizado la formación de una milicia paralela al ejército Venezolano con una ley promulgada en Octubre pasado. Según esta ley, esta milicia puede reclutar ciudadanos extranjeros. Esto fácilmente podría llevar a la incorporación de guerrillas como la FARC y grupos terroristas Islámicos como Hezbollah. Estos elementos, combinados con las guardias revolucionarias Iraníes y expertos del  régimen Cubano podrían catalizar la consolidación de regimenes totalitarios en los gobiernos que siguen a Chávez.

A esto se le suma la presencia de Irán a quien Chávez ha apoyado a nivel internacional en todo sentido. Ha apoyado su programa nuclear, la Guerra de Hezbollah y Hamas contra Israel, al igual que ha ayudado a Teheran a evitar sanciones internacionales facilitándole su sistema bancario. Según fuentes del propio gobierno de Chávez, Venezuela ha ayudado a Iran a producir Uranio.

Por lo tanto hay una gran probabilidad de que en le momento que Irán logre la capacidad de producir una bomba nuclear, este país podría proveer a Chávez con armas nucleares. Esto no sólo representaría un peligro para Colombia, país al que Chávez detesta por su alianza con los Estados Unidos y en varias ocasiones ha amenazado, sino también abriría una carrera nuclear en la zona.

Además de la relación con Irán, Chávez y sus aliados han desarrollado fuertes relaciones con China y Rusia. Si bien lo han hecho también otros países Latino americanos como Brasil, la presencia de China en América Latina ha sido económica y GEO-política.

Dado que China controla puertos en ambos lados del canal de Panamá, así como también en Freeport, Bahamas y que pronto obtendrá también un Puerto de aguas profundas en Manta, Ecuador, es lógico concluir que China busca influencia más allá de lo económico.

China ha aumentado su inversión en un 400% en los últimos anos en América Latina y las exportaciones Latinoamericanas a China han aumentado substancialmente. Así, las actividades económicas Chinas y sus inversiones le dan un peso político de gran significancia al país asiático. Esto permitiría a Chávez y sus aliados perpetuar sus dictaduras en forma indefinida con el apoyo político y económico de China. Evidencia de esto es le préstamo de $20 mil millones de dólares que China otorgó a Chávez recientemente.

China podrá tener interés en perpetuar dictaduras también para frenar el poder de las democracias mundiales que le generan presión directa o indirecta para que democratice sus propias instituciones o para cesar sus serias violaciones a los derechos humanos. El poder económico Chino permite incrementar  su influencia en el mundo y al a vez apoyar a dictaduras como las Bolivarianas.

Algo similar ocurre con Rusia cuyas ventas de armas a Chávez se han evaluado en 5.400 millones de dólares. El académico especialista en Rusia Stephen Blank ha dicho que Rusia activamente promueve la revolución Bolivariana en su ambición de retener su status de potencia mundial y contrabalancear el poder de los Estados Unidos.

Es importante que líderes democráticos regionales y organizaciones de la sociedad civil en America Latina presten atención a estos fenómenos. No es nada menos que la libertad la que esta en juego.

Connecting the dots: Internal developments in Latin America & regional security

Versión en Español

Today, a large part of the Latin American continent is in danger of collapsing into a situation that fluctuates between totalitarianism and anarchy; between authoritarianism and chaos. The region is also in danger of falling under the strange influence of insurgent and terrorist groups, drug cartels and distant countries that historically have been poles apart from the region’s culture and civilization (mainly Iran, China, and perhaps Russia).

Part of the reason for this is the rise of Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian revolution, which has had a mix of domestic, and foreign policy repercussions. The Bolivarian revolution has opened up a "window of opportunity" for external actors such as those mentioned above.

Venezuela has established a model of government and ideology that have implications on domestic and foreign policy. In terms of domestic policy, the regime is socialist and absolutist. It attacks private property and market forces, and, it suppresses the political and civil opposition as well as the media. For foreign policy, the model expands the Bolivarian revolution and is inclined to unify Latin America as much as possible under Chavez’s leadership.  

Domestically, the model is currently being reproduced by other leaders in the region (so far Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua).  Thus, under the veil of pursuing social justice, executive power has been strengthened at the expense of civil society. Likewise, judicial independence and freedom of expression have been undermined.

Important to note is the perpetuation of power at the expense of civil society. Chavez has a continental agenda where he seeks to create a new block in the country under Venezuelan hegemony. The existence of pro-Chavez authoritarian regimes makes the decision making process faster and Bolivarian continental domination easier. Indeed, decisions that affect a vast region could ultimately be made by a handful of leaders that do not have to be accountable to Congress, civil society or any other institution. 

Chavez also tries to co-opt grassroots and indigenous movements emerging in different countries in order to incorporate them in his revolutionary hurricane. However, Chavez as a true revolutionary relies and appeals mostly to violent groups. Thus, his main ally is none other than the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

As the FARC is being defeated in Colombia and expelled from the country, it has emerged in other countries with the help of Chavez and his allies. In Ecuador, relations with the FARC go up to the highest levels of government, including the president, the judiciary and the army. In Bolivia, ties with the FARC have increased since the MAS took over the reins of power. Most significantly, the FARC along with Chavez have created an international terrorist group, called the Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (Bolivarian Continental Coordinator or CCB). The CCB has included revolutionary groups such as the Spanish ETA, and, will most likely try to spread insurgency across Latin America on behalf of the Bolivarian revolution.

The Bolivarian revolution is also related to the drug cartels. Last year, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. According to the report "Venezuela has extended a life line to Colombian illegal armed groups and drug cartels by providing them with support and safe heaven."

 Thus, the flow of cocaine transiting from Venezuela to the U.S, Europe and West Africa increased more than four times from 2004 to 2007 and continues to sharply increase. The drug business continues to expand all across Latin America including Central America, the Caribbean, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru.

What is worse, the drug business corrupts the institutions of the state and undermines its authority. Drug money can buy lawyers, judges, policemen, politicians, and almost everyone and everything. This is further aggravated by the fact that Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador expelled the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from their countries

The example of Mexico and Guatemala are very alarming examples of the devastating effects of drug cartel activity. In some of the Mexican states that border the U.S, there is no real distinction between members of the drug cartels and members of the police department. Guatemala has hired private security companies because it is unable to exercise monopoly of force over its own territory.

Thus, when Chavez and his allies associate themselves with the drug business, it helps destabilize the region. Chavez seeks to destabilize governments, overthrow them, and later tilt them towards his revolution and join forces with him.

Moreover, the anarchy that is being created with the proliferation of the drug cartels and the FARC could lead to a situation of Afghanization where the authority of the state is given up and power is transferred to non-state groups or warlords.  That situation can perpetuate itself even if Chavez were to disappear. As a situation like this spreads it will lead to regional instability. Against this background of anarchy, it is not hard to understand the growing presence of Iranians and radical Islamists in the region. Terrorist usually flourish in territories that are ungovernable. Indeed, it was reported that there is an association between Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical Islamic groups with Mexican drug trafficking cartels. This is a direct threat to U.S security given the Mexican cartels access to the U.S Southern border.

 It was reported that members of the Iranian revolutionary guards have been traveling to Venezuela and that young Venezuelans affiliated with the ‘Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela’ (Chavez’s party) have been trained in Hezbollah camps.

In addition, it is likely that the Venezuelan "Mujadeen" could be used for acts of violence and be part of the repressive apparatus. The Venezuelan government has formalized the creation of a parallel Militia in a new law passed last October. The Militia can recruit foreigners. This situation may lead the way to an incorporation of guerillas such as the FARC and Islamic terrorists such as Hezbollah into the Bolivarian Militia in order to consolidate totalitarian regimes across Latin America.  

Chavez has supported Iran internationally, by supporting its right to pursue a nuclear program. He has also supported Iran- mentored groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas in their war against Israel, and, has helped Iran avoid sanctions by facilitating its banking system. Venezuela has also reportedly produced uranium for Iran and it is most likely that once Iran has a nuclear capability, if requested, Iran could provide Chavez with nuclear weapons.

 In addition to his relations with Iran, Chavez has been successful in moving closer to China and Russia. China’s outreach to Latin America has been both of an economic and geo-political nature. Given that China controls the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal, has a major port in Freeport, Bahamas, and is about to obtain a deep water port in Manta, Ecuador, one might conclude that China seeks to expand its influence in America’s backyard.  

China increased its investment in Latin America by 400 percent. China’s trade with Latin America grew by 40% between 2007 and 2008 making their trade with the region in 2008 three times higher than in 2004. Likewise, Latin American exports to China increased by 41% between 2007 and 2008. As China’s demand for raw materials continues its economic and industrial operation will expand throughout the continent.  In this sense, Chinese economic activities and investments provide China with tremendous leverage over these countries.  Chavez and his allies might be perpetuated China’s help, as demonstrated recently by China’s twenty billion dollar loan to Venezuela.

China might also be interested in perpetuating dictatorships in Latin America because China has a major interest in reducing the influence of world democracies. Through its trade and financial assistance, China seeks to ease international pressure on various regimes concerning the issue of democracy and human rights. China’s economic growth and increasing influence in the world enables it to support and even bail out the Bolivarian regime and its allies.

The same applies to Russia, whose arms sales to Chavez are currently valued at $5.4 billion. According to scholar Stephen Blank, Moscow’s arms sales to Venezuela and Cuba are aimed at giving Chavez what he needs to promote the Bolivarian revolution throughout Latin America.

 The U.S Administration needs to pay attention to these developments. Soon, we will wake up to the day where we will find the nightmare not in Iraq or in Central Asia, but right here in our own backyard.

Dont stop with the DNI

That President Obama has accepted the tendered resignation of his director of national intelligence (DNI), retired Navy admiral Dennis Blair, is cause for hope: Maybe – just maybe – a more complete and desperately needed housecleaning is underway in the senior ranks of this administration’s national-security apparatus.

While the exact reasons for Admiral Blair’s departure have yet to be fully explained, chances are they involved frustrations he and others felt with the office of DNI and its dysfunctional relationship to the rest of the intelligence community (IC). This was the predictable and predicted consequence of needlessly adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to the IC at the insistence of the 9/11 Commission.

Particularly problematic have been the epic bureaucratic struggles between the DNI and Leon Panetta, the director of central intelligence (DCI). In these fights and others – notably, those in which Mr. Panetta stood up for CIA interrogators and the Bush administration lawyers who gave them guidance in the difficult months following the 9/11 attacks – the DCI has generally performed better than might have been expected. (That is especially so given his years as a senior Democratic member of Congress from California and his tenure as Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff.) His is not one of the heads that should roll.

Among those whose should, however, is Homeland Security Adviser John Brennan, himself once considered a candidate for a top intelligence post – until, that is, he proved to be unconfirmable by the Senate. His consolation prize, to the country’s great detriment, was the double-hatted job of homeland security adviser and deputy national security adviser.

Since he assumed these posts early in the Obama administration, Brennan has shown himself to be a man of abysmal judgment, ill-concealed arrogance, and serial incompetence. These traits have been in particular evidence following the series of actual or attempted attacks in the United States conducted by adherents to the seditious, supremacist program authoritative Islam calls "Shariah." He has been party to the obscuring of the wellspring of such violent jihadism and an enabler in the U.S. government and elsewhere in America of its ostensibly "non-violent" counterpart: the stealth jihad the Muslim Brotherhood calls "dawa."

In recent days, John Brennan has made comments that make plain how dangerously out of touch with reality he is. Taken together with his previous mis- and/or malfeasance, they constitute grounds for demanding his termination. In comments at an event sponsored by the Nixon Center in Washington, he declared that "Hezbollah is a very interesting organization. What we need to do is find ways to diminish their [sic] influence with the organization [sic] and to build up the more moderate elements within Hezbollah."

More moderate elements? Such a formulation bespeaks an addled belief that we can safely ignore the determination of every member of that designated terrorist organization to achieve the destruction not only of Israel, but of all infidel governments in favor of the global theocracy commanded by Shariah. Such beliefs are as reckless as they are ignorant.

As Andy McCarthy has bemoaned, Brennan also demonstrated his true colors by declaring that "in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together." This latest, particularly unctuous effort at appeasement of – er, "sensitivity" toward – the Arabs can only increase their contempt for this government and country. Those perceptions are likely to intensify the jihadists’ efforts to compel our submission to Shariah through violent means, as well as more stealthy ones.

America requires steady and competent hands in the wheelhouse of the ship of state as it traverses very treacherous international waters. Replacing Dennis Blair and John Brennan with individuals who actually comprehend the dangers we are facing and are capable of devising strategies for countering them would be important first steps towards making possible the sort of course corrections that are so urgently needed.

– Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and host of the nationally syndicated program "Secure Freedom Radio."

Cruising for a bruising?

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, speaking at the annual Navy League Exposition on May 3, gave well-deserved recognition to the dedicated men and women of the sea services who are brilliantly meeting their global responsibilities, whether at sea or land in Iraq and Afghanistan. The secretary then proceeded to lay the groundwork for major changes for the Navy’s – and the country’s – future.

He went on to point out the overwhelming superiority of the Navy-Marine Corps team against a litany of state forces. He acknowledged that the United States has global commitments and responsibilities. Yet, he went on to question the need for this superiority in light of the asymmetrical threats we face now and in the future.

The secretary acknowledged the critical role the Navy has played in preventing major wars, projecting power and protecting critical sea lines of communication. In any contingency situation, the first question asked by every president is, "Where are the carriers?" He went on to state that we cannot let these core capabilities and skill sets atrophy through distraction and neglect.

The secretary stated that the future of our maritime services will ultimately depend less on the quality of our hardware than on the quality of their leaders. Nice words, but this approach lays the groundwork for future budget cuts. There is no question our forces must have the farsighted leadership we had in the past but those leaders were successful, in part, because we provided them with the best equipment and technology available.

The fact that the secretary points out that we have 11 nuclear-powered carrier battle groups compared to the fact that no other country has even one is irrelevant. We have these forces to meet our global responsibility. We do not build carriers to fight carriers. The Battle of Midway is over.

Not mentioned by the secretary is the fact that China is aggressively building a conventional power projection navy that by the 2020s will have multiple aircraft carriers, perhaps with advanced fifth-generation fighters and a significant amphibious force. It has also built nuclear-powered ballistic missile and attack submarines. Not to be overlooked is the fact that Russia is modernizing its forces. It appears the Obama administration simply wishes to ignore these looming threats.

I agree with the secretary that the U.S. Navy, even with declining force levels, remains the dominant naval power today, but we have to prepare for the future. This is where the Navy is at a critical junction with its proposed ship-building plan. The secretary argues that long-range, anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles could put $15-billion carriers at risk. (Note that we have in hand today the capability to pre-empt this threat with the anti-ballistic-missile-equipped Zumwalt-class destroyer). He goes on to state that we will also face a sophisticated submarine threat – all of which could end the sanctuary we have enjoyed in the Western Pacific for six decades.

The Department of Defense must be a good steward of the taxpayers’ dollars; however, this has not always been the case. As an example, the secretary cites the Zumwalt DDG-1000 destroyers. He states that the price of this ship had more than doubled from original estimates. This is not unusual for a "first of kind" ship that is being built from the keel up to be stealthy, accommodate the latest dual-band radars and has significant growth potential for the future. This ship is currently on cost and on schedule and if equipped with an ABM capability, could pre-empt China’s anti-ship ballistic missile.

On the other hand, the secretary failed to mention the skyrocketing cost of the 30-year-old-design Arleigh Burke DDG-51 restart program, which has been endorsed as the way to meet current and future threats. I understand the cost for the first restart DDG-51 is now around $3 billion and will have only a minimal ABM capability. Most importantly, this ship will only have a "half-ship life," because it has no growth potential to meet future threats and will have to be replaced in 15 years, which the Navy cannot afford to do. The true cost of the restart DDG-51 is an unknown.

The secretary touts the advantages of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as a versatile ship that go places too shallow for the Navy’s blue-water ships. However, he fails to mention that the ship was suppose to be stealthy (which it isn’t) and cost only $220 million – but that cost has more than tripled to about $750 million. At the end of the day, you have a ship that can’t defend itself, even against a Hezbollah-fired scud missile. As I have said previously, this program should be terminated as a failed experiment and the Navy should join with the Coast Guard in a common hull.

Mr. Gates mentioned we need to embrace new strategies and options on how we operate in the future. With declining force levels in the past, we used overseas home exporting as a force multiplier. With China expanding, its scope of operations to include the Indian Ocean, we should consider homeporting a carrier battle group in Western Australia at Fremantle. We looked at this possibility in 1986-87 and found it to be very feasible.

The secretary has laid the ground work for major changes in how the Navy will operate in the future. However, there is still time to make sensible course corrections. I am sure for his legacy, the secretary does not want to be remembered as the secretary who scuttled the U.S. Navy.

 

Retired Navy Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. He is the Chairman of the Center’s Military Committee.