Tag Archives: Lebanon

The Free World’s Achilles Heal

By Caroline B. Glick

(Jerusalem): Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair is Israel’s best friend in Europe. And he’s not a very good friend.

Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, Blair was instrumental in convincing US President George W. Bush to view the Palestinian jihad against Israel as a conflict completely separate from the global jihad. His success in convincing Bush of this distinction turned the anti-Semitic – not to mention strategically disastrous – view that terrorists who kill Israelis should be treated differently from terrorists who kill anyone else into one of the cognitive foundations of the US war on Islamic terror. This foundation was first enunciated in Bush’s address of September 20 to a joint session of Congress where he identified “every terrorist with global reach” – that is every terrorist who isn’t part of the Palestinian Authority – as enemies of the US.

Later, Blair was a principal force behind Bush’s move to abandon the guidelines for dealing with the Palestinians that he enunciated in his speech of June 24, 2002. In that address, Bush stipulated that the Palestinians needed to transform themselves from a society that supported terror into one that combated terror in order to receive US support for Palestinian statehood.

Shortly after Baghdad fell to coalition forces in April 2003, Blair convinced Bush to accept the road map plan for Palestinian statehood. The road map, which effectively locks in US support for Palestinian statehood irrespective of Palestinian terrorism and radicalism, represented a practical abandonment of the positions that Bush set out in his June 24, 2002 address.

During his visit to the region this week, in keeping with his studied habit, Blair ignored the fact that the Iranian-backed Hamas government was elected to lead the Palestinian Authority by a large majority of Palestinians. He ignored the fact that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has voiced support for the abduction and continued captivity of Cpl. Gilad Shalit and for the continuation of the terror war against Israel. He ignored the fact that rather than working to overthrow the Hamas government, Abbas has begged Hamas to allow Fatah to join its government.

To this end, Abbas has accepted Hamas’s policy guidelines rejecting the possibility of recognizing Israel’s right to exist and committing all Palestinians to unite in the war against Israel. Ignoring all these inconvenient facts, Blair called on the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government to renew negotiations with Abbas on the basis of the road map.

And yet, for all this, Tony Blair is Israel’s best friend in Europe. He is Israel’s best friend because, in contrast to all his colleagues in Britain and the EU, Blair at least recognizes that the global jihad is a threat to the free world and that the price of not fighting the forces of jihad would be the loss of our freedom.

Soon, Israel’s closest European friend will exit the world stage after being effectively sacked by his own Labor Party last week. British political commentators say the chances are slim that Blair will manage to hold onto the reins of power as a lame duck for the next 12 months, as he pledged. More likely, he will leave 10 Downing Street in a matter of months.

The two men most likely to succeed Blair – Chancellor Gordon Brown and Tory leader David Cameron – will be more similar to French President Jacques Chirac than to Blair in their attitudes toward Israel and the US. This is the case first and foremost because that is what the British people expect of them.

British antipathy towards the US and Israel was clearly exposed in an opinion poll published on September 6 in the Times of London. The poll reported that 73 percent of Britons believe that Blair’s foreign policy, and especially his “support for the invasion of Iraq and refusal to demand an immediate cease-fire by Israel in the recent war against Hizbullah, has significantly increased the risk of terrorist attacks on Britain.”

More than 62% said that to “reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on Britain, the government should change its foreign policy, in particular by distancing itself from America, being more critical of Israel and declaring a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.”

The day after the poll was published, Blair announced that he would leave office in a year.

Also, on September 7, a committee of members of Parliament released a report on anti-Semitism in Britain. The all-party committee found that that since the Palestinian jihad against Israel began in 2000, anti-Semitism in Britain has become a mainstream phenomenon. Attacks against Jews in Britain were at an all time high over the summer.

In their anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, the British, of course, are no different from their Continental brethren. And the situation in Europe is alarming. Writing in Frontpage magazine this week, Islamic expert Andrew Bostom reported that in November 2005, Stephen Steinlight, the former director of education at the US Holocaust Memorial Council, told a conference in Washington that on average, Muslims attack Jews in Paris 12 times a day. According to Steinlight, this means French anti-Semitic violence is approaching the level of anti-Semitic violence in Germany during the days of the Weimar Republic.

These attacks against Jews in Europe are accompanied by ever increasing official hostility towards Israel on the part of European governments. On the second day of the war with Hizbullah, Chirac felt comfortable alleging that “Israel’s military offensive against Lebanon is totally disproportionate.” Chirac then acidly asked, “Is destroying Lebanon the ultimate goal?”

Chirac’s remarks opened the floodgates for anti-Israel propaganda throughout Europe. They were followed by the barring of El Al cargo planes carrying weapons shipments from the US from European airports. That prohibition still stands.

From the moment Chirac launched this unjustified diplomatic assault against Israel, his government began acting as an agent of the Lebanese government, which itself acted throughout the war as Hizbullah’s mouthpiece. So from the second day of the war, the groundwork was already laid for UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which treats Israel and Hizbullah as equals and lets both Syria and Iran off the hook for their central roles in Hizbullah’s illegal war against Israel.

THROUGH THEIR behavior toward both Israel and the US, Europe’s leaders have made clear that they will do just about anything to please the Muslim world. Even though Iran has made absolutely clear that it refuses to end uranium enrichment activities, or even to suspend them, the Europeans continue to insist on negotiating with the mullahs and refuse to take even the smallest concrete step against Iran in the UN Security Council.

As for the Palestinians, the Europeans have made no attempt to hide their eagerness to renew their monthly transfers of tens of millions of euros to the Palestinian Authority in the wake of Hamas’s agreement to let Fatah join its jihadist government.

And in Lebanon, together with the UN, the Europeans have defined the rules of engagement for UNIFIL in a way that on the one hand protects Hizbullah, and on the other hand, prevents Israel from defending itself. Above all else, these policies clearly demonstrate that the Europeans have defined ingratiating the Muslim world as their primary geopolitical interest.

Seemingly unaware of Europe’s growing hostility toward Israel, the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government has succumbed to the charms of the likes of Chirac, Romano Prodi and Javier Solana and is systematically abandoning Israel’s positions in favor of Europe’s pro-Arab stands. During his press conference with Blair, Olmert renounced his previous well-considered demand that Shalit be released before any meeting can take place between him and Abbas.

During her visit to Washington, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni emphasized Israel’s desire to renew negotiations with the Palestinians on the basis of the road map, and the government’s continued support for Abbas. This, in spite of the fact that the government Abbas is forming with Hamas will not recognize Israel’s right to exist and will be committed to continuing its jihad against Israel. In so doing, Olmert and Livni are lending informal approval to the renewal of European funding of the Palestinian Authority.

Even more troubling is the government’s inaction, bordering on tacit support, regarding the radical Left’s campaign to transfer responsibility for Israel’s security from the IDF to Europe. The campaign, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman enthusiastically dubbed, “Land for NATO,” in his column on Wednesday, involves the adoption of the UNIFIL model in Gaza and Judea and Samaria. This newest messianic trend is based on the blind belief that Israel can continue giving land to the Palestinians in spite of the fact that the Palestinians are the most radical, pro-jihad society on the face of the earth, because Europe will protect Israel from them. Whether under the UN flag or the NATO flag, the new writ of leftist faith maintains that Europe can replace the IDF in defending the Jews.

Blair’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the simple fact that just as the Iranians will not cease uranium enrichment because they want to build atom bombs, so the Palestinians will reject all offers of statehood because they prefer to destroy the Jewish state is infuriating. And yet the fact remains that he is the last European leader who truly believes that Israel has an inherent right to exist and bases his policies on this belief. It is absolutely clear that in the coming years, Europe’s hostility towards Israel and the Jewish people as a whole will continue to rise.

HOW THEN, is Israel to contend with Europe? As Israel’s largest trading partner, relations with Europe are vital to Israel’s economic well-being. So it is clear that Israel cannot simply turn its back on the free world’s Achilles heel.

At the same time, given Europe’s hostility, it is similarly obvious that the direction of the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government’s policies toward Europe must be reversed. Rather than enabling Europe to increase its influence in the region, Israel must take every step possible to minimize Europe’s foothold in its neighborhood.

Israel should use Blair’s exit from the world stage as an opportunity to lock its doors and shutter its windows before any new European friends can come inside.

CAIR doth protest too much (Part 2)

For the second time in roughly as many weeks, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has publicly denounced President Bush for his efforts to clarify the nature of the enemy we face in this War for the Free World. The latest blast came in the wake of Mr. Bush’s major address Tuesday to the Military Officers Association of America, in which the President once again denounced the ideology that animates our Islamofascist foes.

A Tour de Force

While the entire speech deserves a close read, the following are among the highlights of the President’s powerful remarks (emphasis added throughout):

 

-"The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience – but they’re not madmen. They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil, but not insane.

-"These al Qaeda terrorists and those who share their ideology are violent Sunni extremists. They’re driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power.

-"They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a ‘caliphate,’ where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks — in his words – ‘a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the righteous caliphate.’

-"This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. We know this because al Qaeda has told us. About two months ago, the terrorist Zawahiri — he’s al Qaeda’s second in command — declared that al Qaeda intends to impose its rule in ‘every land that was a home for Islam, from Spain to Iraq.’ He went on to say, ‘The whole world is an open field for us.’

-"We know what this radical empire would look like in practice, because we saw how the radicals imposed their ideology on the people of Afghanistan. Under the rule of the Taliban and al Qaeda, Afghanistan was a totalitarian nightmare….And Afghanistan was turned into a launching pad for horrific attacks against America and other parts of the civilized world — including many Muslim nations.

-"The goal of these Sunni extremists is to remake the entire Muslim world in their radical image. In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialogue with those they call ‘infidels’ — a category that includes America, the world’s free nations, Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam. They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the Free World.

-"These radicals have declared their uncompromising hostility to freedom. It is foolish to think that you can negotiate with them.

-"….Captured documents show al Qaeda’s strategy for infiltrating Muslim nations, establishing terrorist enclaves, overthrowing governments, and building their totalitarian empire….Through this strategy, al Qaeda and its allies intend to create numerous, decentralized operating bases across the world, from which they can plan new attacks, and advance their vision of a unified, totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world.

-"These violent extremists know that to realize this vision, they must first drive out the main obstacle that stands in their way — the United States of America. According to al Qaeda, their strategy to defeat America has two parts: First, they’re waging a campaign of terror across the world. They’re targeting our forces abroad, hoping that the American people will grow tired of casualties and give up the fight. And they’re targeting America’s financial centers and economic infrastructure at home, hoping to terrorize us and cause our economy to collapse. Bin Laden calls this his ‘bleed-until-bankruptcy plan.’

-"Secondly, along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to ‘launch,’ in his words, ‘a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.’

-"These terrorists hope to drive America and our coalition out of Afghanistan, so they can restore the safe haven they lost when coalition forces drove them out five years ago. But they’ve made clear that the most important front in their struggle against America is Iraq — the nation bin Laden has declared the ‘capital of the caliphate’….For al Qaeda, Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America — it is the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle will be decided.

-"As we continue to fight al Qaeda and these Sunni extremists inspired by their radical ideology, we also face the threat posed by Shia extremists, who are learning from al Qaeda, increasing their assertiveness, and stepping up their threats. Like the vast majority of Sunnis, the vast majority of Shia across the world reject the vision of extremists….The Shia extremists want to deny them this right.

-"This Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous, and just as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East. And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation’s resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda.

-"Like al Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims: They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East. To achieve these aims, they are funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which allow them to attack Israel and America by proxy. Hezbollah, the source of the current instability in Lebanon, has killed more Americans than any terrorist organization except al Qaeda.

-"Iran’s leaders, who back Hezbollah, have also declared their absolute hostility to America. Last October, Iran’s President declared in a speech that some people ask – in his words – ‘whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achieved. I say that this goal is achievable.’

-"The Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies have demonstrated their willingness to kill Americans — and now the Iranian regime is pursuing nuclear weapons….The world’s free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

-"The Shia and Sunni extremists represent different faces of the same threat. They draw inspiration from different sources, but both seek to impose a dark vision of violent Islamic radicalism across the Middle East. They oppose the advance of freedom, and they want to gain control of weapons of mass destruction. If they succeed in undermining fragile democracies, like Iraq, and drive the forces of freedom out of the region, they will have an open field to pursue their dangerous goals. Each strain of violent Islamic radicalism would be emboldened in their efforts to topple moderate governments and establish terrorist safe havens."

-"We know what the terrorists believe, we know what they have done, and we know what they intend to do. And now the world’s free nations must summon the will to meet this great challenge. The road ahead is going to be difficult, and it will require more sacrifice. Yet we can have confidence in the outcome, because we’ve seen freedom conquer tyranny and terror before. In the 20th century, free nations confronted and defeated Nazi Germany. During the Cold War, we confronted Soviet communism, and today Europe is whole, free and at peace. And now, freedom is once again contending with the forces of darkness and tyranny."

Can You Hear Me Now?

The essence of President Bush’s extraordinary statement today might be found in the following paragraphs:

 

 

    I know some [in] our country hear the terrorists’ words, and hope that they will not, or cannot, do what they say. History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake….Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?

    America and our coalition partners have made our choice. We’re taking the words of the enemy seriously. We’re on the offensive, and we will not rest, we will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight, until this threat to civilization has been removed.

Breaking the Code on CAIR

It is instructive that CAIR transparently does not want the American people to listen to the truth about the enemy we face. In its statement issued after the President’s address, the Council opined: "By focusing almost exclusively on the views of groups like Al-Qaeda and failing to address the concerns of the vast majority of Muslims worldwide who reject terrorism, President Bush grants undeserved legitimacy to extremists and marginalizes true moderates."

This contention is as wrong as was CAIR’s earlier statement in response to Mr. Bush’s absolutely accurate statement that we are "at war with Islamic fascists," in which it claimed Mr. Bush was equating – and defaming – Islam by pairing the two words. In both cases, the Council seeks to obscure the facts, sow confusion in the minds of Americans and, perhaps most insidious, promote an unwarranted sense of victimhood on the part of Muslims, here and abroad.

No one should be surprised that the Council on American-Islamic Relations persists in playing such a role. Its founding by Hamas operatives and sympathizers was monitored by the FBI. Three of its officers have been convicted of involvement in terrorist plots. And its affinity for the Islamists and service to their cause have prompted even Democrats like Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin to express concern about the organization’s ties to terror.

The Bottom Line

With due respect to President Bush, the question is not so much will the American people listen, as they should, to the words of the Islamofascists? Rather, it is whether they will stop having to listen to the words of the Islamists’ fellow travelers like CAIR, because the organization is no longer treated by the federal government as an interlocutor with or representative of tolerant, peaceable Muslims or allowed to use American airwaves to propagandize our countrymen?

Commending Senators Hagel and Chafee

As the Islamofascist regime in Iran rebuffs UN efforts to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Security Council will once again become the scene of frenetic diplomatic activity.

America is fortunate to be represented in such negotiations by one of its most capable and tenacious representatives to the United Nations, Ambassador John Bolton. An opportunity to express the Nation’s appreciation for this extraordinary public servant and to strengthen his hand in sensitive meetings with friends and foes alike will occur when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meets on 7 September to vote on Amb. Bolton ‘s re-nomination by President Bush.

The Center for Security Policy strongly supports the Bolton re-nomination . It is recognizes both the high quality of Mr. Bolton’s performance over the past year and the necessity of maintaining continuity in the post at a time when myriad critical issues are on the UN’s agenda. It urges the Foreign Relations Committee to recommend favorably the Ambassador’s confirmation to the full Senate without delay.

The Center for Security Policy is particularly appreciative of the perspicacity and courage exhibited by two key Republican members of the Committee – Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island – when the Bolton nomination faced intense, mostly partisan and entirely unfounded criticism a year ago. Sens. Hagel and Chafee both voted to confirm Mr. Bolton.

Consequently, on the eve of their being asked once again to vote for Amb. Bolton , the Center has purchased television air time in the Omaha and Lincoln , Nebraska and Providence , Rhode Island media markets to thank the Senators for their past support and to encourage them to re-approve his confirmation on the basis of Mr. Bolton’s performance to date that has fully validated their confidence in him. The ad concludes by saying to the two legislators: "You did the right thing before. Do it again now."

The Center’s announcement today follows its organization last month of a powerful open letter to Congress signed by dozens of America ‘s most accomplished defense and foreign policy practitioners extolling Amb. Bolton ‘s record. These recent efforts parallel the Center’s campaign during the 2005 confirmation fight, which included, among other things, its release of earlier joint letter and television advertisement.

Commenting on the Center’s new TV campaign, its President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

Over the twelve months since John Bolton assumed his current responsibilities, he has confirmed that the confidence Senators Hagel and Chafee and a bipartisan majority of the Senate reposed in him last year was well-placed. At a juncture when the United Nations is in a position to help with serious crises from Lebanon to Iran to North Korea, to undertake sweeping institutional reform and to mount and underwrite massive humanitarian operations worldwide, it is only appropriate that the Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate now vote swiftly to confirm Mr. Bolton as America’s Permanent Representative to the UN.

The ad’s script reads as follows:

Last year, Senator Chuck Hagel [in Nebraska media markets]/Lincoln Chafee [in Rhode Island ‘s market] voted to confirm John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Senator Hagel/Chafee agreed with President Bush that we needed a man like John Bolton to get useful things done at the UN – and stop harmful things from happening there.

One year later, Ambassador Bolton has validated that judgment – advancing American interests and holding the UN accountable.

On September 7th, Senator Hagel/Chafee will have a chance to vote for Ambassador Bolton again.

Senator Hagel/Chafee: You did the right thing before. Do it again now.

 

Mixed signals

Last week, the Bush Administration sent profoundly mixed signals about its attitude towards the War for the Free World and the enemies who threaten us and other freedom-loving peoples.

Getting it Right

On the one hand, there was the President’s commendable reaction to the murderous plot to destroy as many as ten passenger aircraft bound from Britain to the United States. Mr. Bush correctly, and courageously, declared that "We are at war with Islamic fascists."

This is not the first time President Bush has used such a formulation but the timing of this statement – coming as it did amidst intense media and public interest in the breaking story out of the UK – caused his characterization of our foes as Islamic fascists to receive considerable attention. It also prompted the "usual suspects" (organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR) to rush forth to denounce such a clear and accurate depiction of the totalitarian character and political agenda of our enemies. (See the Center’s response to CAIR’s broadside and its own letter to President Bush).

Although his critics accused the President of misrepresentation, it was they who engaged in such a practice. For example, CAIR falsely charged that he had "equated the religion of peace [Islam] with the ugliness of fascism." In fact, Mr. Bush did something altogether different – and laudable: He made clear that those who use Islam to justify and provide political cover for their totalitarian aggression are at odds not only with America but with Islam, itself.

Such dangerous ideologues cannot be appeased. They must be destroyed.

Getting it Wrong

Unfortunately, at virtually the same moment that Mr. Bush was helpfully clarifying what we are up against, his subordinates were busily handing Islamic fascists their greatest victory since they drove the United States out of Somalia in March 1994: an artificial and unsustainable ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.

The content and timing of the UN Security Council resolution adopted unanimously last Friday represent a defeat for the Free World – most especially the United States and Israel – and will protect and greatly embolden their Islamofascist foes, Hezbollah and its sponsors, Iran and Syria. The Center for Security Policy’s Senior Mideast Fellow, Caroline Glick, has enumerated the reasons why in a powerful condemnation in Sunday’s Jerusalem Post. Among them are the following:

"…In practice, [the resolution] makes it all but impossible for Israel to defend itself against Hezbollah aggression without being exposed to international condemnation on an unprecedented scale."

"…The resolution places responsibility for determining compliance in the hands of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan has distinguished himself as a man capable only of condemning Israel for its acts of self-defense, while ignoring the fact that in attacking Israel, its enemies are guilty of war crimes. By empowering Annan to evaluate compliance, the resolution all but ensures that Hezbollah will not be forced to disarm and that Israel will be forced to give up the right to defend itself."

"The resolution makes absolutely no mention of either Syria or Iran, without whose support Hezbollah could neither exist nor wage an illegal war against Israel. In so ignoring Hezbollah’s sponsors, it ignores the regional aspect of the current war and sends the message to these two states that they may continue to equip terrorist armies in Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Iraq with the latest weaponry without paying a price for their aggression."

"[The new Security Council resolution] puts both the question of an arms embargo and Hezbollah’s dismantlement off to some future date when Israel and Lebanon agree to the terms of a ‘permanent cease-fire.’ In addition, it places the power to oversee an arms embargo against Hezbollah in the hands of the Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a member."

"From a U.S. perspective, the resolution drastically increases the threat of a radical Shi’ite revolt in Iraq. Hezbollah is intimately tied to Iraqi Shi’ite terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr. In April 2003, Hezbollah opened offices in southern Iraq and was instrumental in training the Mahdi Army, which Sadr leads. During a demonstration in Baghdad last week, Sadr’s followers demanded that he consider them an extension of Hezbollah, and expressed a genuine desire to participate in Hezbollah’s war against the U.S. and Israel."

The Bottom Line

President Bush is to be commended for his effort to make plain the danger posed by Islamofascists. By so doing he has also implicitly underscored the imperative of waging this war on the ideological level – what Donald Rumsfeld has called the "battle of ideas." For far too long, America has done far too little to fight and win on this front of the War for the Free World. We can no longer afford to do so.

Tragically, the Bush Administration has simultaneously dealt itself a major tactical setback – and perhaps a serious strategic one – in that war. By negotiating and supporting a ceasefire that leaves some of the most virulent and aggressive adherents to the Islamofascist ideology in business, it has not only strengthened Hezbollah. It emboldened its state-sponsors and fellow-travelers the world over.

The ceasefire effectively negotiated with Islamic fascists (albeit through Lebanese and European surrogates), will surely prove an interlude, not a permanent suspension of hostilities between Hezbollah and its sponsors on the one hand, and the Free World on the other. The length of that interlude and the magnitude of the danger we will confront thereafter can only be surmised at this juncture. It seems a safe bet at this juncture, however, that if the fighting resumes on the Islamofascists’ terms and timetable, the threat to Israel, the United States and other freedom-loving nations will be substantially greater even than it is today.

Chavez, Iran, and terrorism

Hugo Chavez visited Iran at the end of July, now for the fifth time, since he took the reins of power in Venezuela. Not coincidentally, his visit took place in the midst of the war between Israel and Iran’s proxy, the terrorist group Hezbollah. Less coincidental is the fact that during his visit in Iran, Chavez strongly condemned Israel’s military action in Lebanon, comparing it with the Holocaust and accusing Israel of "terrorism and fascism". At this point Venezuela withdrew his ambassador from Israel and suggested diplomatic relations may be terminated forever.

It is not exactly that Chavez condemned Israel for using "excessive force" or called for an "immediate cease- fire". The main message sent by Hugo Chavez is that in this conflict he supports Hezbollah. When I asked a Venezuelan diplomat not a long time ago if Hugo Chavez disagrees with the Iranian president that Israel must be "wiped off" the map, the diplomat answered me "I can only speak for myself. I strongly object to that statement" Then, I asked him if Chavez shares the same thoughts. The diplomats’ answer was "I do not know". This may be very significant. During this last visit to Iran, Chavez received a special award , the "medal for honor", in gratitude for Chavez’s support of Iran’s nuclear program and for having defied the international community.

NEWS:

  • Venezuela: Sheehan, Chavez join to bash Bush, Iraq war.  Venezuela opens international bidding for offshore gas exploration.  Venezuela: Gazprom’s Venezuela deal alarms U.S.  Venezuela: Chavez to Visit Beijing
  • Mexico leftists target foreign banks in protest.
  • Brazil: Petrobras aims to produce in 2015 half of what Saudi Arabia does today.
  • Argentina: Russia Negotiates Arms Sales to Argentina.
  • Chile to Rejoin Andean Community Trade Bloc after 30 Years.
  • Cuba Says Fidel Castro Is Recovering.
  • Uruguay inks energy accord with Venezuela.
  • Ortega Still Has the Lead in Nicaragua.
  • ‘El Niño’ phenomenon approaching Peru again?
  • Colombia: High alert for Uribe inauguration

Editor’s Note:

  • CITGO’s owner – Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez

View the 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.

Democratic defeatism

Decision Brief                                       No. 06-D 38                     2006-08-07


(Washington, D.C.): Suddenly, the Democrats have found their voice on Iraq. It is the sound of defeatism.


Would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and ten of their colleagues in leadership positions have proclaimed that it is time to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq . They want to start by the end of the year, without regard for the conditions on the ground. And they want all American troops out by some unspecified time, without regard for the consequences that would follow such a retreat.


Among those who have endorsed what might be called “the Contract for Defeat” is the putative front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mindful of the ascendant power within her party of anti-war activists evident in their vicious campaign to unseat former Vice Presidential standard-bearer and three-term Senator Joe Lieberman, this one-time supporter of the liberation of Iraq is becoming increasingly strident in her criticism of the war and those responsible for it. Last week, she triangulated her way to the head of the parade of those hoping to make Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a scapegoat for the Iraqis’ difficulties and demanding his resignation.


The ‘Cycle of Violence’


There is a certain irony here. Arguably, whatever mistakes Don Rumsfeld might have made – or were made by others on his watch – that are contributing to the present violence in Iraq pale by comparison with the effect Democratic defeatism is having on the so-called “insurgents.”


Think about it: Our Islamofascist enemies and their allies are convinced that they can defeat us politically. The means by which they seek to do that is by producing a steady stream of bloodletting and mayhem. The results are then incessantly beamed into American living rooms by mainstream media transparently hostile to President Bush and his Iraq campaign.


Then, Democratic critics (and, in fairness, a few Republican politicians – like Sen. Chuck Hagel – who have figured out that it is more fun, or at least more conducive to favorable press reviews, to talk and occasionally vote like an anti-Bush Democrat) seize upon the suicide bombings in Iraq as proof that success there is impossible. Therefore, they solemnly intone, we should stop wasting lives and treasure trying to achieve it.


It is hard to imagine a greater incentive to more attacks against Iraqi civilians, security personnel, government officials and their families – and, yes, against our own and other Coalition forces. Call it the “cycle of violence.”


To be sure, the fact that the opportunities continue to exist for such attacks is not necessarily the fault of the critics. They and, for that matter, supporters of the war effort can legitimately feel frustration that the “security situation in Iraq” (as it is euphemistically known) has not been stabilized before now in Baghdad and other persistent areas of insurgent activity.


That said, it is virtually impossible in any but the most totalitarian of societies to prevent determined people from inflicting casualties on targets of opportunity, particularly when such people are willing to kill themselves in the process. But we must also hold accountable those who are, in effect, rewarding our enemies for engaging in such behavior by translating the latters’ murderous actions into the realization of political objectives.


Defeatism’s Ripple Effect


Unfortunately, Democratic defeatism is not only encouraging our enemies in Iraq . Since that conflict is but one front in a far larger, indeed global war (one best described as the War for the Free World), those insisting that we cut our losses with respect to Iraq are also fueling dynamics elsewhere that are likely to give rise to a number of other, deeply problematic strategic outcomes.


One need look no farther than the Mideast ‘s other flashpoint du jour: the conflict in Lebanon between the Free World’s outpost in the region, Israel , and Hezbollah. Even though nearly all Democrats have expressed support for Israel’s efforts to neutralize this virulent terrorist organization, they cannot escape a grim reality: The Democrats’ incessant, partisan efforts to undermine President Bush’s authority that are diminishing the prospects for victory in Iraq are also weakening his Administration’s ability to resist mostly foreign pressure to adopt a more neutral stance vis a vis the Jewish State in the midst of its death-struggle with our common, Islamofascist enemies.


Terrorists in the Fertile Crescent are not the only ones attuned to the perceived dissipation of domestic support for the fight for the future of Iraq . The Iranian and Syrian regimes, which take pride in having destabilized the nascent Iraqi democracy, have clearly been emboldened to precipitate and fuel a second front in Lebanon.


American defeatism will breed still more setbacks if, as seems the case at the moment, freedom’s enemies get their way by inducing the Bush team to: impose a premature cease-fire on Israel; insert an international peacekeeping force that will surely prove to be hostile to the Jewish State and protective of her foes; and reward Hezbollah for its outrages by compelling the Israelis to cede to Lebanon strategic territory (dubbed “Shabaa Farms”) taken from Syria in the 1967.


The Bottom Line


Hard experience tells us that defeatism is an indulgence great nations cannot afford in time of war. Its full costs may not become apparent immediately. But the Free World, including the United States itself, will suffer grievously for encouraging our enemies’ conviction that we lack the will and resolve to stand with our friends when the going get gets tough.


 

One war

Decision Brief                                       No. 06-D 37                     2006-07-31


(Washington, D.C.): On September 11, 2001, a freedom-loving nation was attacked by a terrorist organization operating from the territory of a sovereign state with the acquiescence, if not the active complicity, of the latter’s government. The United States retaliated with what can only be called a “disproportionate response.”

How We Fight Terrorists

America launched air and ground assaults on Afghanistan, aimed at destroying not only the al Qaeda safe havens but toppling the Taliban regime. We damaged or destroyed critical Afghan infrastructure so as to deny its use to the enemy. Civilian casualties occurred, as did refugee flows. At one point, the UN declared the resulting dislocation a humanitarian crisis.

Once the campaign to eliminate al Qaeda was launched, there was no consideration given to negotiating with the terrorists or the government that afforded them protection. The United States would not have contemplated a UN-mandated ceasefire, let alone the insertion of an international peacekeeping force under a Chapter 7 mandate from the Security Council – whose purpose, inevitably, would have been to protect the terrorists from our military, not the other way around.

And most especially, it would have been inconceivable that the U.S. could accede to one of its enemy’s central demands – for example, the removal of all American forces from the Mideast – as part of a negotiated ceasefire brokered by the UN and approved by the Taliban at the direction of al Qaeda.

How We Expect Israel to Fight Terrorists

It is therefore stunning, not to say depressing, to see how the Bush Administration’s early, strong support for Israel’s response to the murderous attacks on its territory by the terrorist group, Hezbollah, has morphed in recent days.

First, Israel was told it must not undermine the Lebanese government, even though the latter had not only acquiesced to what amounts to a Hezbollah-controlled state-within-a-state in southern Lebanon. The government in Beirut actually has two Hezbollah ministers in its cabinet – a role al Qaeda never enjoyed in Taliban Afghanistan. This injunction had the practical effect of limiting Israeli efforts to press officials in Beirut to disassociate themselves from the terrorists in their midst.

Then, the U.S. embraced the idea that Israel must reward the government that has allowed Hezbollah to occupy and operate against the Jewish State from the part of south Lebanon the Israelis foolishly and unilaterally vacated in 2000. Where we destroyed the regime that afforded safe haven to our foes, Israel has been told it must make a further territorial concession to its counterpart by surrendering to Lebanon a small area known as Shebaa Farms that Israel has occupied since 1967.

Never mind that Shebaa Farms was not Lebanese territory to begin with; Israel conquered it from Syria in the Six-Day War. The character of this area was confirmed by none other than the United Nations. It certified in May 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from all Lebanese territory, that the Farms are not and have never been part of Lebanon and that their final status would ultimately have to be settled in negotiations between Israel and Syria.

Now, however, Israel is being told it must satisfy what amounts to a demand of Hezbollah – a manufactured pretext for the Iranian-backed terrorist organization to continue its war against Israel, even after the Israelis had abandoned the security zone they had wisely maintained in Lebanon for eighteen years (along with the erstwhile Lebanese allies who lived there).

It is bad enough that Hezbollah will thus be rewarded for its terrorist attacks on Israel. The implications of this concession will prove much worse, however, to the extent the message is conveyed by it that Israel is not entitled to – and cannot expect to enjoy – inviolable, internationally recognized borders. To paraphrase an old saw: What belongs to the Arabs is the Arabs’; what belongs to Israel is extortable.

Even more problematic is the prospect that the United Nations will shortly mandate – with U.S. backing and Israel’s acquiescence – the insertion into southern Lebanon of an armed international force. Its purpose, ostensibly, will be to enforce a ceasefire pursuant to a new Chapter 7 Security Council resolution. If its job is to “keep” the peace, not make it, such a force will by definition require Hezbollah’s assent to enter. The peacekeepers will understand, moreover, that they will be allowed to remain there in safety only if they do not interfere with the terrorists’ rebuilding and resupply activities in south Lebanon.

The make-up of this force may compound the problem. Under discussion are troop contributions from places like Turkey, Indonesia and France – nations that are not likely to prove unfriendly to Hezbollah and that are, to varying degrees, hostile to Israel. In short, this will be just another anti-Israel UN mission, providing protection to the Free World’s terrorist foes and doing little if anything to keep them from readying new attacks on freedom-loving peoples.

The Bottom Line

For the United States, the current phase of this War for the Free World began on September 11, 2001. For others, like Israel it has been going on for decades and represents an unmistakably existential threat. We cannot afford to pretend that there is an appropriate way for the United States to fight Islamofascist totalitarians and the terror they wield against us, then insist that our allies must negotiate with and try to appease such groups when they are in the Islamofascists’ cross-hairs.

Why Hezbollah attacked Argentina

Everyday we turn on the news we cannot escape the images of horror from the escalating conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah. Sadly, many people and countries blame Israel for what is happening while they turn their heads away from the facts. Here are some details many of us should keep in mind:

The United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon, or UNIFIL, was created by the United Nations, with the adoption of Security Council Resolution 425 and 426 on 19 March 1978, to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, secure international peace and security, and help the Lebanese Government implement its effective authority in the area. In 1999, Israel undertook a full withdrawal, which concluded in 2000 and their pullout was certified by the UN as complete. UNIFIL was to stay as observers in Southern Lebanon to monitor the area to make sure that the region remains disarmed. The UN extended UNIFIL’s mandate to expire July 31, 2006. So for years, the UN forces did not see the 13,000 missiles that arrived to Lebanon from Syria or Iran to the hands of Hezbollah, or never reported this issue to anyone.

Main News:

  • Mercosur wishes to strengthen negotiations with the Gulf.  Mercosur (2): MERCOSUR welcomes Venezuela, courts Mexico.
  • Mexico: Mexico’s Leftist Candidate Files Criminal Complaint against Election Authorities.
  • Argentina Doubles Tax on Natural Gas Exports to Chile.  Argentina, Venezuela to cooperate in oil exploitation.
  • Guatemala: Guatemala set to gain Security Council seat over Venezuela.
  • Venezuela: Venezuela, Belarus in "strategic alliance".  Venezuela to buy "best in the world" Sukhoi Su30 fighter jets from Russia.  Russia rebuffs U.S. call to rethink $1bln Venezuela arms deal.  Venezuela President Chavez to Sign Kalashnikov Rifle Plant Deal in Moscow.
  • Peru’s Toledo ends presidency on upswing.
  • Castro’s influence takes a hold in South America.
  • Nicaragua: The upcoming elections- who will influence the vote, the US or Chávez.

Editor’s Note:

  • The Tehran-Caracas Connection: The dangerous liaisons between Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

View the 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.

On eve of Bolton re-nomination hearing, fifty-four

George Shultz, William Clark, James Woolsey, Max Kampelman, Senior Retired Military Officers among Signatories on Joint Letter to Sen. Lugar

(Washington, D.C.): As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepares to consider on Thursday the re-nomination of John Bolton as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nation’s, a joint letter signed by a large number of America’s most accomplished defense and foreign policy practitioners urged support for the nominee, the Center for Security Policy announced today.

The signatories’ recommendation that Mr. Bolton be made "permanent" in his position is backed by the decades of experience in international affairs that they collectively have in service at the highest levels of the U.S. government. It parallels the endorsement the nominee has received from former Bolton critic and Foreign Relations Committee member, Senator George Voinovich. Sen. Voinovich recently declared: "For the good of our country, the United Nations and the Free World, we must end any ambiguity about whether John Bolton speaks for the United States so that he can work to support our interests at the United Nations during this critical time."

The bipartisan group’s letter makes two key points:

-"During the nearly twelve months since Mr. Bolton assumed his present responsibilities, he has been an effective advocate for America ‘s interests. He has striven to reform the United Nations so as to make it more accountable, transparent and effective as an institution. And he has managed to forge consensus on such topics as the Syrian occupation of Lebanon , North Korea ‘s ballistic missile programs and Iran ‘s nuclear ambitions."

-"The challenges now confronting the United States at the UN make it simply unthinkable that Ambassador Bolton’s service might come within the next few months to a premature end."

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., a former senior Pentagon official and President of the Center for Security Policy, which circulated the joint letter, observed:

If there is reason for hope that the UN will prove capable in the future of improving upon its past, generally dismal record when it comes to dealing with the world’s ills, it lies in America being represented there by an exceptionally principled, articulate and energetic advocate for our cause. Today, we have such a representative in John Bolton. It is time for the Senate to make him truly our "permanent" one, with an early and resoundingly affirmative vote for Amb. Bolton ‘s re-nomination.

-30-

26 July 2006

Hon. Richard G. Lugar
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
450 Senate Dirksen Office Building
Washington , D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In April 2005, many of us sent you a joint letter strongly endorsing John Bolton to be the United States ‘ permanent representative at the United Nations. We did so in light of: Mr. Bolton’s past record of accomplishment; his long experience with the UN; his ability to get things done – even in difficult multilateral settings requiring considerable diplomatic skill; and the President’s confidence in his judgment and suitability for this assignment at a challenging moment for our country and the world.

We are delighted that, during the nearly twelve months since Mr. Bolton assumed his present responsibilities, he has fully vindicated this positive assessment. John has been an effective advocate for America ‘s interests. He has striven to reform the United Nations so as to make it more accountable, transparent and effective as an institution. And he has managed to forge consensus on such topics as the Syrian occupation of Lebanon , North Korea ‘s ballistic missile programs and Iran ‘s nuclear ambitions.

The challenges now confronting the United States at the UN make it simply unthinkable that Ambassador Bolton’s service might come within the next few months to a premature end. We commend President Bush for doing what he can to avoid such an unnecessary and undesirable outcome by renominating John and seeking anew his confirmation by the Senate.

We strongly concur with Senator George Voinovich’s declaration of support for Amb. Bolton ‘s re-nomination: "For the good of our country, the United Nations and the Free World, we must end any ambiguity about whether John Bolton speaks for the United States so that he can work to support our interests at the United Nations during this critical time."

We urge you and other members of the Senate to heed Sen. Voinovich’s call for the swift and decisive affirmation of John Bolton’s re-nomination. By so doing, the Senate will be ensuring that America continues to enjoy the representation it needs – and deserves – at the United Nations.

Please share this letter with your colleagues and include it in the record of the Foreign Relations Committee’s deliberations on the Bolton re-nomination.

Sincerely,

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State; former Secretary of Treasury; former Secretary of Labor; former Director, Office of Management and Budget

William P. Clark, former National Security Advisor to the President; former Deputy Secretary of State

R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence

Max M. Kampelman, Counselor to the Department of State; former Ambassador and Head of Delegation to the U.S.-Soviet START and Defense and Space Negotiations

Mr. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Designate); former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy

Otto J. Reich, former Special Envoy for Western Hemisphere Initiatives; former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; former Ambassador to Venezuela

Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Dr. Alan L. Keyes, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs; former Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Council

Jed L. Babbin, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense

Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, former Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Planning and Resources; Assistant Under Secretary of Defense, Policy and Resources

Christopher D. Lay, former Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

David J. Trachtenberg, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Policy)

Charles M. Kupperman, former Special Assistant to the President; former Deputy Director of the Office of Administration, the White House; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Richard W. Carlson, former Ambassador to the Seychelles

Dr. Mark Albrecht, former Executive Secretary, National Space Council

Clark S. Judge, former Special Assistant and Speechwriter to President

Robert Turner, former Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs (Acting)

Harvey Feldman, former Ambassador to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands; founding Director of the American Institute in Taiwan; Alternate Representative to the United Nations

Dr. Curtin Winsor, Jr., former Ambassador to Costa Rica

Douglas R. Graham, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Senate Affairs; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy

James T. Hackett, former Acting Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Tidal W. McCoy, former Acting Secretary of the Air Force; former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

James B. Longley, Jr., former Member , U.S. House of Representatives

Phyllis Kaminsky, former Director, United Nations Information Center

Dr. John Lenczowski, former Director of Europe and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council

David Frum, former Speechwriter and Special Assistant to the President

Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe USN (Ret.), former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency; former Director, Navy Research and Development

General John L. Piotrowski, USAF (Ret), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command

Joshua Gilder, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights, Department of State

Dr. Dominic J. Monetta, former Assistant Secretary of Energy (designate), Office of New Production Reactors; former Director of Science and Technology, Office of the Secretary of Defense

Admiral Kinnaird R. McKee, USN (Ret), former Director of Navy Nuclear Propulsion

Richard Schifter, former Deputy Representative to the UN Security Council; former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

Herbert Romerstein, former Director, Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation, United States Information Agency

Vice Adm. E. A. Burkhalter, Jr., USN (Ret.), former Director, Intelligence Community Staff

Jason E. Bruzdzinski, former Professional Staff Member, House Armed Services Committee

Dr. Rand H. Fishbein, former Professional Staff Member, U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee

Roger W. Robinson, Jr., former Senior Director for International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Marlin L. "Buzz" Hefti, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Development

Maj. Gen. Robert Eaglet, USAF (Ret.), former Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, NATO

Carl Smith, former Staff Director, Senate Armed Services Committee

Michael A. Ledeen, former Special Advisor to the Secretary of State

Andrew C. McCarthy, former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York

Major General Paul E. Vallely, USA (Ret.), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army, Pacific

Admiral Leon A. Edney, USN (Ret.), former Commander, U.S. Atlantic Command; Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic

CSM (Ret) Steven J. Greer, Senior Fellow, National Defense Council Foundation

Midge Decter, former Executive Director, Committee for the Free World

Michael Rubin, former Political Adviser, Coalition Provisional Authority ( Baghdad )

Morris Amitay, Foreign Service Officer (Ret.)

David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union

Eleana Gordon, Senior Vice President, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Dr. Laurie Mylroie, author

Cliff Kincaid, President, America ‘s Survival, Inc.

William Greene, RightMarch.com  

Concentrating on missile defense

The British wit, Samuel Johnson, once declared that, "The prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully." The televised images of various missiles being launched from places as far removed as North Korea and Lebanon should have a similar effect on American minds, both those of citizens and those of elected officials who represent them.

Unfortunately, the problem is not confined to the worrying implications of North Korea ‘s spasm of seven ballistic missile test launches (six successful, one a dud) on the 4th of July. Neither should it be obscured by the relatively unsophisticated, but still lethal, missile volleys Hezbollah has rained down on population centers in Israel , and their repercussions, that have temporarily driven the North Korean danger from our front pages.

The Emerging Threat

Consider the following other, mind-concentrating data points:

-Cash-strapped North Korea has made no secret of its readiness to sell military hardware to willing buyers. This has given rise to active missile technology-sharing and/or joint development projects with nations like Pakistan , Iran and Yemen with longstanding ties to terrorism.

-News reports suggest that Pakistan – a nation one heartbeat away from having a full-fledged Islamofascist regime – is ramping up its capacity to build as many as 40-50 nuclear weapons a year. Should Pakistani ballistic missiles of ever-increasing-range be armed with such weapons and put in the service of the Islamists, democratic India will not be the only country at risk.

-Iran also aspires to place the nuclear weapons it is a-building and their missile delivery systems in the service of global jihad. Not only does the Iranian regime threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" and bring about a "world without America ." It has also tested ballistic missiles in a way that suggest it is acquiring the means to effect such outcomes.

-Among Iran ‘s missile developments, two are particularly worrying: First, the regime has test launched a short-range Scud missile off of a ship. The ability to use a mobile, sea-going platform means that the regime and its friends need not seek long-range missiles to attack distant targets. Such an attack has one other attraction: By bringing a Scud-type missile – of which there are thousands around the world, including the dozen or so North Korea delivered to Osama bin Laden’s ancestral homeland, Yemen , a few years back – near the enemy’s shoreline, strategic warning can be kept to an absolute minimum.

-Second, Iran has tested its medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missile in a manner that appears designed to detonate a nuclear weapon in space. This could allow Tehran to execute the sort of missile-delivered strike that has been judged by a congressionally mandated, blue-ribbon commission to be capable of causing "catastrophic" damage to the United States – an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. By wiping out electrical systems and electronic devices, possibly coast-to-coast, America could be reduced to a pre-industrial society in the blink of an eye.

-Then, there is China ‘s ballistic missile arsenal. Despite determined U.S. efforts to portray the Communist regime in Beijing as a reliable partner in American diplomacy and trade, it is inexorably building up ever-larger numbers of missiles. Increasingly, these are capable not only of intimidating Taiwan but also of attacking the United States – something Chinese generals have on two occasions publicly threatened to do. PRC technology has also been an enabler of many other nations’ ballistic missile programs, both directly and through proxies like Pakistan and North Korea .

-Last but not least, there is Russia . Vladimir Putin has personally helped market new Russian spiraling and maneuvering missile reentry vehicle technology as breakthroughs that will allow attackers to defeat American missile defenses. He has also presided personally over simulated massive nuclear-armed ballistic and cruise missile strikes on the United States .

What Needs to Be Done?

George W. Bush deserves great credit for putting an end to the insane policy he inherited of leaving the United States absolutely vulnerable to ballistic missile attack. He withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that codified that vulnerability and he began deploying limited missile defenses, mostly ground-based ones in Alaska and California.

Clearly, while these steps were necessary, they are not sufficient in a world in which the missile threat is metastasizing. Leading Members of Congress like Senators Jon Kyl, Dick Shelby and Jeff Sessions and Representatives Duncan Hunter and Curt Weldon have long recognized this reality. Now, it is time for their colleagues and the public to join forces behind a concerted effort to deploy defenses capable of defeating the emerging threat.

The Bottom Line

Fortunately, a newly released report. by the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the Twenty-First Century lays out a roadmap for such defenses. It calls for substantially expanding the Navy’s sea-based defenses to provide, among other things, protection of the U.S. East Coast and interior from attacks launched from and beyond the Atlantic.

The working group also makes clear the imperative of developing and deploying missile defenses in the place where they can do the most good at the least cost: in space. And it describes ways in which the necessary technical, public and political support can be obtained and sustained.

The starting point for such support should be at hand – the wonderful concentration of minds engendered by the prospect in our time of a mass, missile-delivered "hanging."