A new Pew Center poll says nearly one-in-five Americans think Barack Obama is a Muslim. Perhaps that is because of reports like the one blared on the cover of the September 6 edition of the tabloid, The Globe, replete with photos of Mr. Obama in Muslim garb: It found "shocking proof" in a Nile TV interview given earlier this year by the Egyptian Foreign Affairs Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, disclosing that "the American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim."
A better explanation is that more Americans are taking note of the accumulating series of statements and actions by the President that display favoritism, or worse, towards Muslims. That would be troubling enough; after all, no chief executive is supposed to support one subset of us over others.
Growing numbers of our countrymen may be on to something else about the Obama presidency, however, that is even more alarming: In instance after instance, Mr. Obama has seemingly bent over backwards to accommodate not just Muslim-Americans, but a deeply problematic organization – the Muslim Brotherhood (or Ikhwan) – that purports to represent their interests here.
In fact, the Brotherhood seeks to do something most Muslims in this country – and needless to say, the rest of us – do not want: According to the organization’s mission statement, it is waging "a kind of grand jihad eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions."
One need not believe that the President of the United States has actually embraced this radical goal to be concerned. It is enough that he has repeatedly said and done things that conform to, or otherwise advance, the Ikhwan’s agenda as articulated by the Brotherhood’s myriad front organizations in the United States.
Consider the following, necessarily partial listing of actions – some symbolic, some substantive – that can legitimately be seen by the Muslim Brothers as evidence of our President’s submission (the literally meaning of "Islam" and the goal of all those who, like the Ikhwan, seek to impose shariah worldwide):
Mr. Obama declared in his inaugural address that, "The United States is a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." The ordering of "Muslims" before "Jews" was clearly deliberate, since the latter have been and are in the United States in far larger numbers than the former and have played a much more important role in the nation’s history from its founding. Subsequently, he went even further, describing (inaccurately) America as "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
In his much-ballyhooed address to "the Muslim world" delivered in Cairo in June 2009, Mr. Obama signaled his determination not only to "reach out" to followers of Islam. He also committed himself to an initiative – clearing the way for Muslims to "fulfill their zakat (tithing for charity) obligations" – that would have the practical effect of giving Brotherhood operatives (whose representatives he insisted be in the audience) more latitude to engage in material support for terrorism and, thereby, wage their "civilization jihad" in and from America.
In September 2009, the Obama administration co-sponsored a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution eagerly sought by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends. The resolution called on member nations to "prohibit and criminalize" speech that offends Islam and its followers. Such an accommodation would clearly violate the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression.
Speaking of the Constitution, the Obama administration is arguing in federal court that the U.S. government’s ownership of AIG, which happens to be the largest purveyor of shariah-compliant insurance products in the world, does not violate the Establishment Clause’s separation of church and state.
We recently learned that, according to President Obama, the NASA Administrator’s "foremost" priority is to make Muslims feel better about themselves and their history. Job 1 is not assuring U.S. supremacy in space, or even assured access to it; it’s Muslim outreach and therapy.
Then, last month, President Obama endorsed the megamosque near Ground Zero in a White House Iftar dinner attended by prominent Muslim Brotherhood operatives. Subsequent efforts to distance himself from that stance, in the face of intense criticism from the public and politicians of both parties, has only put into even sharper focus his pandering to this community.
Now, my Center for Security Policy colleague Christine Brim has broken the story of a major new Obama initiative in that vein. In the words of the largest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the country, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), "A phenomenal next step has been made where government Iftars become coupled with workshops to provide resources and benefit the Muslim community. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (DOA) and the [Muslim Brotherhood-associated] Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO) have paired the first of such events, scheduled for August 31, 2010."
The latest poll suggests that most Americans do not believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. And for the vast majority of us, it would not matter even if he were – provided he does not subscribe to the Brotherhood’s creed: "God is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."
Still, the public is clearly increasingly, and rightly, concerned about Mr. Obama’s policies of favoritism and submission towards the worst elements in Islam. Before tax-dollars are spent to that end, we need a national debate about such policies, and the grave dangers posed by their seeming principal beneficiary: the Muslim Brotherhood.
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.
The Obama administration has disclosed plans to shift U.S. policy toward Iran from the “policies of the past” to a policy of “constructive dialogue” and “mutual respect,” in hopes that Iran will become benevolent and “unclench their fist.”
As futile as the idea of talking to the Ayatollahs seems to sober Americans and our allies today, we must first set the record straight on those policies of the past that Obama is determined to change: America has never had a “tough” policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The dramatic come-from-behind election of Benigno (Noynoy) C. Aquino III as president of the Philippines breathes new life into Philippine democracy. It signals a return of "people power," which was the hallmark of Mr. Aquino’s mother, Corazon Aquino, who succeeded the Marcos regime as president in 1986. The corruption of Noynoy’s predecessor, the regime of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, was well-known. The regime provided unfettered access to China, which then poured billions of dollars into the Philippines to further its own objectives.
The Arroyo regime signed more than 65 bilateral agreements with China. One of them involved the Joint Maritime Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) in 2004 for oil exploration in the South China Sea, which has been shrouded in controversy, as it may have conceded territorial waters to China. For years, China has been making illegal claims to and occupying various contested islands in the South China Sea. After U.S. forces left the Philippines in 1991, one of the first things China did was to have its National People’s Congress pass a law unilaterally declaring sovereignty over various disputed islands in South China Sea, after which it started building an air and naval base on Woody Island in the Paracel Island chain and new facilities on its outposts in the Spratly Island chain.
Then in 1995, China built a facility on the Philippines’ Mischief Reef, which is clearly recognized to be in the Philippine economic zone. The Clinton administration failed to respond in any meaningful manner. Since then, China claims the entire South China Sea as part of its historic waters, i.e., its exclusive economic zone, and this year China added it to its "core interests," ranking it with Taiwan and Tibet for sensitivity.
In June 2009, a retired People’s LIberation Army deputy chief of the general staff called for the construction of a formal air and naval base on Mischief Reef. Such a base would allow the PLA to place naval, air and missile forces astride the Palawan Strait, one of the key strategic sea lanes in the Western Pacific, posing a military threat to the Philippines and to the economies of U.S. allies Japan and South Korea.
China also has taken aggressive action against internationally recognized routine naval and hydrographic operations as well as commercial oil- and gas-exploration ventures in the South China Sea. What’s driving China’s illegal actions is very clear. On Hainan Island it has built a new, large naval base with underground submarine pens, which can support both strategic and nuclear-attack submarines.
China apparently would like to establish secure "bastions" in the South China Sea to ensure the survivability of its strategic second-strike force regardless of the fact that this sea area is a recognized international waterway. For the past 15 years, our policy on this issue has been adrift. The United States has failed to confront China over its illegal actions in any meaningful way.
However, at a late July meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) held in Hanoi, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signaled a change in the U.S. position by directly confronting China, stating that the conflicting claims over the contested South China Sea areas should be resolved through regional discussions and solutions. This contradicted China’s preference for bilateral negotiations with each individual ASEAN nation. China’s foreign minister considered this statement a direct challenge and accused the United States of an attack on its claims.
To counter China’s aggressive action in the South China Sea, the United States has been expanding its relationships with Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. In fact, the U.S. and China are now in a strategic competition to build military ties with Indonesia. China has been making inroads with all ASEAN members as part of its effort to diminish U.S. power and influence. Its goal is clear: to become the dominant power in the Western Pacific and force our allies to sever their relationship with the United States.
Now that the Obama administration has made a direct challenge to China’s illegal activities in Southeast Asia, the United States needs to take concrete action. Fortunately, we are not without options. Aside from expanding our relations with ASEAN nations, we should start by building on our Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines. Currently, we provide advisers and training assistance to the Philippines armed forces to counter their 20-year old insurgency.
As treaty allies, the U.S. has a direct interest in Manila having the wherewithal to defend its sovereign territory, which it cannot do today. To correct this unsatisfactory situation, we should do the following:
Conduct a joint assessment with the Philippine armed forces to identify their immediate defense requirements and what they can afford and maintain.
Consider leasing a squadron of F-16 fighter aircraft along with T-38 supersonic trainers. Consideration also should be given to leasing C-12 twin-engine aircraft outfitted for maritime patrol and counterinsurgency surveillance. Helicopters also should be part of the package.
Consider leasing two FFG-7 guided-missile frigates to provide a recognized capability to enforce the Philippines’ offshore territorial claims.
The U.S. should negotiate a commercial agreement for access to logistic support facilities in Subic Bay.
The new Philippine president will come under intense pressure from China to prevent any expansion of U.S. activities. However, neither we nor the new Philippine government should be deterred by Chinese bluster from doing what is right.
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.
In 1984, a recovering Democrat named Jeane Kirkpatrick coined an immortal descriptor for those who had taken over the party she once shared with national security-minded leaders like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Ronald Reagan. The then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations called them "Blame America First Democrats."
That characterization seems particularly apt today in the wake of the release of the latest edition of the State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2009. On that occasion yesterday, Foggy Bottom’s Counterterrorism Coordinator, Daniel Benjamin, expressed concern that U.S. "actions are going to result in the creation of more terrorists."
In fairness, other U.S. officials – notably, some from the George W. Bush administration – have wondered about whether, for example, there were more terrorists coming out of the pipeline than were being killed. Still, Team Obama seems to be signaling that it is going beyond the sensible desire to avoid missteps that set back the realization of our national goals.
Instead, this president and his subordinates appear to have embraced the view promoted by, among others, the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies/apologists on the American left, that "violent extremists" are intent on attacking us because of our policies, conduct or deployments.
For example, Benjamin told a State Department press conference on Thursday:
It will certainly condition how we view any use of force and kinetic action because I think we have a more precise understanding about the relationship – I won’t claim we’ve fully cracked the code on this but we have a better understanding of the relationship between the use of force and the radicalization of those watching it.
There’s a wide range of different circumstances in which we find terrorists, but the question is, ‘What’s the appropriate way to deal with them?’" Benjamin said. "What threat do they pose to us, what are the long-term implications for our security, but also for our ability to work with countries in that region?
Such statements suggest not only a proclivity to see in our actions the cause of our troubles. They bespeak a blindness on the part of the Obama administration to the wellspring of the vast majority of violent attacks to which we and our freedom-loving allies have been subjected in recent years: the theo-political-legal code the authorities of Islam call Shariah.
According to Shariah, the mere fact that we exist – let alone prosper – as a non-Islamic state, ruled by man-made Constitution and laws, conferring upon women, homosexuals, apostates and others rights incompatible with the barbaric and repressive laws of, say, Saudi Arabia and Iran is enough to require our forced submission or destruction. Failing to understand and act upon that reality is what we should blame for our present state, and future threats to our country (whether of the violent form of jihad or the stealthy, "civilization" kind) – not America.
I had a great opportunity to be part of group organized by the Atlas Foundation that participated in a seminar on security and economics that took place in Guatemala late in June.
Interestingly enough the focus of the conference was on the relationship between economic investment and security. Participating in the conference were academics, lawyers and businessmen from Central America as well as economic and security experts from the United States.
There were so many points presented during the conference that summarizing it in a short article is difficult. However, it is possible to have a sense of what countries like Guatemala are experiencing, and this is not good news, not for the country’s citizens and not for the United States.
Guatemala is a country where insecurity prevails and the state is in disarray. Power and order are in the hands of groups and actors outside the state. The law is ineffective. The police are useless and have lost respect of the citizenry.
Indeed, Guatemalans today face a situation where their security is threatened. They can be attacked in the streets, robbed, kidnapped and extorted with minimal or no response from the authorities. Private security, local and foreign, is being hired to protect the citizens. Likewise, Guatemalans must resort to self-help to counteract the prevailing violence and criminality. At this point there is no condo, neighborhood or business that does not enjoy the protection of private security. People have lost confidence in state institutions and therefore do not even report crimes as they do not expect any response.
Likewise, the uselessness of the authorities has also lead people to take the law in their own hands. Lynching of people and criminals is very common. Talking to a resident of a predominantly indigenous town in the area of Atitlan, he told me that most recently residents of the town captured three people suspected of committing crimes in the town. Instead of handing them to the police, the residents lynched the criminals in front of the local police station by spraying them with gasoline and then setting them on fire. Upon looking at the burned up bodies the police abandoned the area immediately. In many cases local police were expelled by local residents from the town by force due to their clumsiness. These types of events do not only occur in the towns. They have occurred in the center of the capital, Guatemala City, mostly by citizens, angry with crime and criminal impunity.
I was astonished to hear decent people justify these types of actions. They claimed that in light of police ineptness they are left with no choice. As barbaric and unacceptable as this type of punishment appears, I could not avoid appreciating the sincerity and despair of the person speaking to me.
Attending Church is not only a religious act in Guatemala. I could see the people assembling in the House of Worship as if it were a shelter in time of war. The community gathers in acts of solidarity during mass and not only were the words of the priest heard. I could hear members of the community take the pulpit and denounce corruption, bad government, and criminality.
The presence of gangs is also a serious challenge. The majority of the extortion cases, kidnappings and assassinations are carried out by them. As the presence of Mexican drug traffickers increase in Guatemala due to the Mexican government’s heavy pressure on them, the "narcos" hire them as paid assassins. Gangs are mostly in charge of networks of narcotic distribution. They also traffic illegal immigrants (mostly drug traffickers) across the borders.
The government of President Alvaro Colom is widely-viewed as incompetent and indifferent to the fate of Guatemalans. The people’s plea for more security is ignored by the government. The institutions of government are perceived as being corrupt and easily bribed by drug traffickers. It is no surprise that The International Crisis Group reported that in Guatemala, despite the bitter memories of the bloody civil war (1960-1996), the military remains the second most popular institution after the Catholic Church. Many in Guatemala tend to believe that the military is the only institution capable of restoring order. Police are feared by society and considered corrupt. The chief of police, himself, was involved in a case of corruption and money laundering. Members of the police have joined gangs in extortion and other criminal activities. A large number of police officers, like the gangs, seem to actively cooperate with drug trafficking organizations. The chair of the United Nations-sanctioned Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CIGIG), and whose mission is to help Guatemala establish and consolidate the rule of law, resigned over the appointment of an attorney general widely perceived as being corrupt.
Against this background of chaos and anarchy, Mexican drug traffickers have inundated Guatemala, and not merely because they are being forced out of Mexico by (Mexican) President Felipe Calderon’s anti-drugs policies. They are settling in Guatemala precisely because of the general corruption, the easiness with which police are bribed and co-opted, the government’s weakness and the heavy presence of gangs that extend a hand to them.
But this is not just a Guatemalan problem. It is very much an American and regional problem. The collapse of state authority and the rule of thugs and criminals pose a security threat. Guatemala is not the only country facing disintegration. El Salvador and Honduras where gang activity is strong will soon follow the Guatemalan model. A chaotic environment attracts terrorist groups such as the FARC and Hezbollah.
Last but not least the chaotic Guatemalan environment has already attracted Hugo Chavez. I was told by credible sources that Venezuelan planes have been actively involved in providing transportation of drugs from Guatemala’s airports. The Guatemalan government allowed this to happen. Chavez is interested in destabilizing countries in Latin America as a way to destroy any government in the region that is not pro-Chavez in order to turn it into a pro-Chavez government. This is why criminality is one of the weapons used to achieve this goal.
I was also told that Chavez’s people have been seen in the palace government and he reportedly has connections to President Alvaro Colom. It will not be long until Guatemala becomes another bastion of Hugo Chavez. As we know wherever Chavez goes Iran also follows.
The U.S government needs to pay serious attention to these developments in Central America not only as a criminal problem but as a serious national security challenge. This is only the beginning of the nightmare. The worst is still to come.
Luis Fleischman is a Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project, Center for Security Policy.
Liz Cheney gave the the keynote address at the Center for Security Policy’s Freedom Flame Award Dinner in New York City. She saluted ‘The Manhattan Seven’ (Amanda Bowman, Tim Brown, Debra Burlingame, Aaron Harison, Andy McCarthy, Beth Gilinsky and Sgt. Tim Sumner) who fought this past year against the Obama-Holder decision to try KSM and other 9/11 masterminds in a Manhattan courtroom.
The text of Ms. Cheney’s speech is below.
Here is a follow-up interview on Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney.
Remarks by Liz Cheney at the Freedom Flame 2010
It’s a tremendous honor to be here. So many folks who know about the important work that the Center for Security Policy does and to be here to help honor these eight tremendous Americans for everything that they’ve done. The Manhattan 7 are the ones I’m most familiar with and these seven men and women, when they heard that there was going to be the potential trial of a terrorist right here in New York City and not just any terrorist, but Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11. They didn’t just sit back and accept it. They stood up for their city and they stood up for their country and they stood up for the memory of all of those brave Americans who died on that horrific day. And the Manhattan 7 deserve all of our gratitude and our praise for what they did.
Now I know that all of us here tonight are brought together by a really great and vital mission. And that’s defending the freedom and the security of this great nation. And I can tell you that in that cause, there’s no organization that has done more than the Center for Security Policy and Frank Gaffney. I am grateful for the work that they do everyday. I was pleased and proud to be at your dinner in Washington when my dad received the Freedom Flame. And I do bring with me greetings tonight from my dad, Dick Cheney. People –people do ask me what he’s up to these days. He has been quiet for a little bit. And I know that makes some people very nervous. But I can tell you that he is hard at work on his memoirs. Which is a project that I’m working with him on. As his daughter, it’s just a very special project. And as someone who cares deeply about American history and about policy, it’s just a tremendous blessing for me. And I can tell you that the frankness and the directness and the no nonsense approach that I think you’re all familiar with, coming from him, is something that will clearly come through in his memoirs. Now he is writing his memoirs on yellow legal pads. And all of us in the family have tried to convince him to use a laptop, but he’s not having it. He’s a little set in his ways.
You probably know that for the time he was vice-president he didn’t have a Blackberry. He didn’t do e-mail. He didn’t have access, really, to the Internet–to computers. And I hate to disappoint you, but he does use all of those things now. I get e-mails from him every once in awhile and he’s gotten much better and much more proficient. For the first few months that he started sending e-mails, he would begin every message to me with the words, “Dear Liz, this is your father speaking.” But he now is, for the most part, in retirement. He’s getting a little bit better at the e-mail. But he hasn’t, as you know, been quiet for the whole time that he’s been out of office. When president Obama came into office and started reversing vital national security policies and then revealing classified techniques to our enemies and threatening to prosecute the CIA officers who kept us safe after 9-11, my dad couldn’t sit silently. He is not the type to let that kind of thing go unanswered. When he did speak out, the media liked to play it up as some sort of a confrontation between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama. But I prefer to think of it as a constructive dialogue between a two-term vice-president and a one-term president.
We have had seventeen months now to watch this president in office. And I have to tell you that, particularly in recent days, but too many times over the last few months, I’ve been reminded of that ad, I think we probably all remember, from the 2008 primary campaign. And it was a Hillary Clinton ad. It was the ad where she cautioned that the next president would have to deal with crises. And he’d have to deal with crises that came in three a.m. phone calls. Well, she had that right. And the tests of leadership do keep coming for this president. And what we’ve learned is that lectures and seminars are no substitute for decisive action and moral clarity. The last seventeen months, sadly, have been a period of drift and confusion for the country. And it seems to me clearer and clearer that the Obama doctrine has three prongs. Apologize for America. Abandon our allies. And appease our enemies.
Now, let’s start with our allies. And how this doctrine operates in the most dangerous part of the world. Like our other allies, our friends in Israel have seen their loyalty answered by incompetence and arrogance. The shabby reception that Prime Minister Netanyahu received at the White House several months ago was disgraceful. And meanwhile, the administration has signed onto a review of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Now this document doesn’t bother to mention Iran, but singles out the state of Israel. And the United States government signed onto that criticism. And earlier this month, we all watched the flotilla incident near Gaza. I don’t have to tell the people in this room that Israel conducts a blockade of Gaza to prevent a self-declared enemy from importing weapons that it plans to use to destroy the state of Israel and to kill Israeli civilians. The blockade is entirely lawful. And the attempt to violate it is something that Israel had every right to stop.
We have all become very used to the kind of anti-Israel propaganda out of the United Nations and from the international community that was the response to Israel’s action. But what was truly stunning was to see the United States sign on to that criticism. There is no question at this moment in time but that the right thing for the United States to do is to stand with our ally in Israel. To stand with them firmly and faithfully and without apology. And just at the moment when this alliance is most sorely needed, the Obama administration is not practicing solidarity with the state of Israel. Instead, they’re moving to separate America and Israel. And president Obama has demonstrated repeatedly that he fails to understand the most important part of the relationship between the United States and Israel. And that is that the world is more secure, America is more secure, when there’s no daylight between America and Israel.
Israel, unfortunately, is not the only ally that’s been on the receiving end of this kind of treatment. Last year, the Obama administration reversed course and canceled the missile defense program that the Czechs and the Poles had agreed to host. They canceled the program because the Russians complained about it. Now when president Obama talked about reversing course in foreign policy during the presidential campaign, I don’t think any of us really grasped exactly how far he would take it. Suddenly, friends are treated with suspicion. And adversaries are accorded every benefit of the doubt. There’s a saying in the Middle East that it is more dangerous to be America’s friend than it is to be America’s enemy. And I fear very much that in the age of Obama, that’s proving to be true.
This misplacing of priorities extends even to America’s own nuclear defenses. In the past, as many of you know, presidents of both parties, Republican and Democrat, have been committed to our nuclear deterrent. They’ve sent a very clear message to our enemies that a chemical or a biological weapons attack on this nation could be met with and likely would be met with a nuclear response. Well, president Obama’s new nuclear strategy removes that deterrence. He’s now told the world we’ll never again use our nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a chemical or a biological attack. His new nuclear strategy also says we won’t produce any new nuclear weapons. We won’t produce any new generation of weapons. And it says we’ll never use our nuclear deterrence to prevent a massive conventional attack either against the United States or against our allies. Apparently, the president really believes what he said, which is that if America disarms, if America reduces the size of our nuclear weapons stockpile, then our enemies–the Iranians and the North Koreans–will be convinced to do the same.
And while he is working to limit our own freedom of movement and freedom of action, the Iranian mullahs are making daily, steady progress towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. The president likes to say he’s doing everything possible to prevent that from happening. But that is just about as convincing as all of the deadlines he has put on the Iranian regime and then allowed them to ignore again and again and again. In this administration’s dealings with Iran, including the sanctions that we just saw passed last week, the deadlines are meaningless, the sanctions are worthless, and the speeches are pointless. There is no enticement that can convince the Iranians to give up their quest for a nuclear weapon. Because there’s nothing that the international community or the United States can offer them that is worth more to them than that nuclear weapon. And sanctions like the ones we’ve seen passed at the UN just buy time for the Iranian regime. The dangers grow to us and to our allies with every hour we waste. The only way that diplomacy will succeed in convincing the Iranians to turn away from their nuclear program is if they believe, without a doubt, that if they fail to take those steps diplomatically, the United States will take military action to stop their nuclear program. And today, they do not believe that.
On this issue and on so many others, when our own security is in the balance, I think it’s critically important for Republicans and for Democrats to speak with one voice. And I think there’s a particularly important message we should all send to president Obama in this regard. President Obama, stop apologizing for this great nation and start defending her.
Last year, as Frank mentioned, along with Debra Burlingame and Bill Kristol and Aaron Harrison, who’s one of the other honorees this evening, I founded a group called Keep America Safe. And there is no cause that should be less partisan than that. When the president does the right thing, when he takes steps that enhance America’s security, we should support him. And we should ask others to do the same. I believe the troop surge in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. And I believe that America has the potential now to win in Iraq. And we ought to support the president every time he takes steps that lead towards victory in both of those conflicts. But we have serious disagreements with this president in many other national security areas. To start with, we have to keep reminding him that foreign terrorists do not have Constitutional rights. We also need to continue to remind this president that Guantanamo Bay is a safe, secure, just, humane place to hold terrorists and we want the terrorists there, not here. And there is no way that we’re going to win this war without intelligence. Yet in the time that president Obama has been in office, he’s diminished our capabilities to gather that intelligence. He stopped the enhanced interrogation program. And then he revealed the techniques in that program to our enemies.
Yet at the same time, the administration set out to investigate and possibly prosecute the CIA officers who kept us safe after 9-11. And even now, the administration seems confused about just who the enemy is. So let’s help them out. Attorney General Holder and president Obama, the men and women who captured and interrogated terrorists after 9-11 are patriots. They do not deserve to be scorned and hounded. They deserve to be thanked and honored for protecting this great nation.
At Keep America Safe, with the help of some wonderful friends like Andy McCarthy, another honoree this evening, we’re also keeping the spotlight on attorneys who have rushed to the defense of terrorists. Now these attorneys consider themselves part of the Guantanamo Bar. And I have to think that even their clients must be amazed at the zeal with which they have been representing them. We’ve learned about one lawyer who was caught as he drew a map of the Guantanamo Bay facility, complete with the location of the guard towers, and then attempted to give it to his terrorist client in a cell at Guantanamo. We’ve learned about other lawyers, part of the John Adams Project, who are stalking CIA officers, taking their pictures, and showing the pictures to the terrorists, helping to identify CIA officers for their terrorist clients. Now there are some who say, we don’t have any right to ask questions about the work that lawyers have done on behalf of their clients. We have no right to inquire or criticize. But let me say that as a lawyer myself, I do not believe that a law license puts anyone above question or criticism. And those who say that we can’t ask these questions are wrong. As a matter of law. As a matter of policy. And as a matter of national security. Attorney General Holder says that the detainee lawyers are quote patriots. Because they were representing, quote, the unpopular. Well, for the record, unpopular is not the word I think most Americans would use to describe terrorists. And if the attorney general’s looking for patriots and heroes to bravely defend, I suggest he start with the Americans who have fought, captured, held, and interrogated these terrorists and helped keep the American people safe.
Not even halfway into the Obama administration, there are some very grave challenges that have gotten worse. And our friends and our adversaries around the world are unfortunately sensing weakness. As Americans, we have a responsibility to keep hoping for the best and to support the president whenever we can. But we also have a responsibility that when we have serious disagreements that prevent that support, we have to state our convictions clearly and offer a better course for this country.
One of the great thinkers of our time is Charles Krauthammer. And many of you may have heard Charles last October in a talk he gave at the Manhattan Institute here in New York. Charles talked about the decline of America. But he reminded us that decline is a choice. We don’t have to be in decline. But, unfortunately, decline is a path that this president has put us on. Now if you believe that decline is a choice, as I do, you might also believe that the opposite is true. That American ascendancy, American revival, America leadership, is a choice we can make. But I believe that it’s more than that. Those things, American leadership and our ascendancy, add up to a moral obligation. We cannot choose to lead. We don’t have the luxury not to lead. Because there is no other nation on earth with the capacity that we have by virtue of our principles, our history, our beliefs, our values, our resources, and our freedom, that can lead. And along with those strengths, we have people with conviction and courage like the eight brave men and women we’re honoring here tonight.
Not long ago, the people of this city were told that they had no choice but to watch and endure a spectacle like no other with the leading plotter of 9-11 brought to trial in lower Manhattan. It had all been decided, we were told. And those who dared object were dismissed as lacking faith in the American system. But then Tim and Beth and Tim and Amanda and Andy and Debra and Aaron showed the attorney general how things are really meant to work in a free country. Rarely has the machinery of the federal government been more quickly reversed. And when it was all over, New Yorkers were spared from a painless–a painful and needless ordeal. And our cause gained examples that we all can follow in the men and women we’re honoring tonight. I myself gained new friends. I cherish those new friendships and the chance that I have to work day in and day out with many of those men and women. They and their fellow honorees are the kind of people that we need in this cause and their success should make all of us confident for the great work ahead of us. Thank you very much.
To the roaring cheers of the local media, on Sunday the Schalit family embarked on a cross-country march to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s residence. They set out two days after the fourth anniversary of IDF Sgt. Gilad Schalit’s captivity.
Outside their home in the North on Sunday, Gilad’s father Noam Schalit pledged not to return home without his son. The Schalit family intends to camp out outside of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s home until the government reunites them with Gilad.
For weeks the local media – and especially Ma’ariv and Yediot Ahronot – have portrayed the Schalit family’s trek to Netanyahu as a reenactment of Moses’ journey to Pharaoh. Like Pharaoh, the media insinuates that Netanyahu is evil because he refuses to free Gilad from bondage.
The only drawback to this dramatic, newspaper-selling story is that it is wrong. Gilad Schalit is not a hostage in Jerusalem. He is a hostage in Gaza. His captor is not Netanyahu. His captor is Hamas.
And because the story is wrong, the media-organized cavalcade of ten thousand well intentioned Israelis is moving in the wrong direction. And not only is it going in the wrong direction, it is doing so at Gilad Schalit’s expense.
The truth that Yediot and Ma’ariv’s marketing departments ignore is that Schalit’s continued captivity is a function of Hamas’s growing strength. To bring him home, Israel shouldn’t release a thousand terrorists from prison. It shouldn’t strengthen Hamas.
To bring Gilad Schalit home a free man, Israel must weaken Hamas. And this is an eminently achievable goal. Gilad’s father Noam knows it is an achievable goal. That is why last week Noam Schalit was the most outspoken critic of Netanyahu’s decision to abandon Israel’s economic sanctions against Hamas-controlled Gaza. That is why over the past four years the Schalit family has staged countless protests against Israel’s massive and continuous assistance to Hamas-controlled Gaza.
If anything positive is to come from this march, then when the Schalit family arrives in Jerusalem they should abandon the newspapers’ demand that Israel surrender to all of Hamas’s demands. They should acknowledge that doing so will only guarantee that more Israelis will be kidnapped and murdered by Hamas and its allies.
If the Schalits wish to criticize the government, they should criticize Netanyahu and his government for the steps they have taken to strengthen Hamas. The Schalits should demand that the government reinstate and tighten Israel’s economic sanctions against Gaza. They should demand that Israel end its supply of electricity and gasoline to Gaza and take more effective action to block smuggling into Gaza through the tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border. All of these actions will weaken Hamas, and so contribute to the prospect of Hamas being forced by the Gazans themselves to release Schalit to his family.
ONE OF the important truths ignored by Israel’s pathological media is that Hamas and its Iranian sponsor are not all powerful. They are vulnerable to criticism from their own publics. And Israel is capable of fomenting such criticism.
For example, the imprisoned terrorists whose release Hamas demands in exchange for releasing Schalit have consistently responded rationally to Israeli threats. The Knesset is slowly debating a bill that would worsen prison conditions of terrorists. And the terrorists are worried. Their worry provoked them to demand that Hamas be more forthcoming with Schalit.
By the same token, were Israel to cut off electricity to Gaza – an act that is not merely lawful, but arguably required by international law – we could expect residents of Gaza to express a similarly rational demand to Hamas. That is, were Israel to weaken public support for Hamas, Hamas would be more likely to bow to Israel’s will.
And if Hamas is vulnerable to public criticism, the Iranian regime is downright terrified of public criticism. Take the regime’s behavior in the wake of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla campaign. In the days that followed Israel’s bungled May 31 takeover of the Mavi Marmara terror ship, Iran announced it was sending two of its own ships to Gaza. Israel responded rationally and forthrightly. The government warned that any Iranian ship would be viewed as an enemy ship and Israel would respond in accordance with the rules of war.
As Iran expert Michael Ledeen has argued repeatedly, the Iranian regime is terrified of getting the Iranian people angry over its radical foreign policy. In light of its precarious standing with its own public, Israel’s forthright threat of war brought the regime to its knees.
Last Thursday Hossein Sheikholdslam, the Iranian regime functionary responsible for the Gaza-bound ships told the Iranian news service IRNA that plans to send the ships were scrapped because Israel "sent a letter to the United Nations saying that the presence of Iranian and Lebanese ships in the Gaza area will be considered a declaration of war on [Israel] and it will confront it."
During the war with Iran’s Hizbullah proxy in 2006, thousands of Iranians demonstrated against Hizbullah. They demanded that the regime invest its money in the local economy and not in Hizbullah and the Palestinians. Were Israel to present Schalit as an Israeli victim of the Iranian regime, it could provoke a similar popular outcry against Iran’s support for Hamas.
The media-manipulated Schalits are not the only ones acting precisely against their own interests. The government is acting with similar madness in its relations with the Obama administration. Indeed, Netanyahu ended Israel’s lawful economic sanctions against Hamas-controlled Gaza, (sanctions that served, among other things as a bargaining chip for freeing Schalit), because the Obama administration placed overwhelming pressure on him to do so.
Not wishing to let the Mavi Marmara crisis go to waste, US President Barack Obama has used it as a means to weaken Israel against Hamas. Obama announced that he is giving Hamas-controlled Gaza $400 million in US aid. He forced Netanyahu to end Israel’s economic sanctions against the illegal Hamas regime. And he continues to threaten to abandon US support for Israel at the UN. Moreover, according to remarks by a senior Hamas terrorist to the London-based al Quds al Arabi newspaper on Friday, the Obama administration maintains direct ties to the Hamas leadership in Syria.
When Netanyahu entered office last spring his desire to appease Obama was understandable. At the time, he was operating under the hope that perhaps Obama could be appeased into ending his onslaught against the Jewish state. But the events of the past year have made clear that Obama is unappeasable . Every concession Israel has made to Obama has merely whetted the US President’s appetite for more.
The policy implications of this state of affairs are clear. First, Israel must strive to weaken Obama. Since Israeli concessions to Obama strengthen him, Israel must first and foremost stop giving him concessions.
Weakening Obama does not involve openly attacking him. It means Israel should act in a way that advances its interests and forces Obama to reconsider the desirability of his current foreign policy.
Regionally, Israel should make common cause with the Kurds of Iran, Iraq and Syria who are now being assaulted by Iran, Turkey and Syria. Doing so is not simply the moral thing to do. It weakens Iran, Syria and Turkey and demonstrates that Obama’s appeasement policies are harming those who love freedom and empowering those who hate it.
By the same token, Israel should do everything it can to strengthen the Iranian Green movement. Every anti-regime action in Iran – regardless of its size – harms the regime and therefore helps Israel. And every anti-regime action in Iran exposes the moral depravity and strategic idiocy of Obama’s policy of appeasing the mullocracy.
As for the US domestic political realm, in Ambassador Michael Oren’s all but schizophrenic recent statements about the Obama administration’s policy towards Israel we may at last be witnessing an embrace of political sanity on the part of the government. For the past several months, Oren has acted as the Obama administration’s most energetic cheerleader to the US Jewish community. Oren has repeatedly and wrongly reassured US Jewish audiences that Obama is a great friend of Israel, that his Democratic Party remains loyal to the US-Israel alliance and that the Republicans are wrong to claim that there is a difference between the two major US political parties when it comes to supporting Israel.
The pinnacle of Oren’s pro-Obama campaign came with his interview last week with the Jerusalem Post. There he brought all of these false and counter-productive claims into the public realm. Apparently Oren’s decision to make his adulation of the Obama administration public finally forced his bosses in Jerusalem to order him to cease, desist and do an about face.
And so, last week, Oren told a closed audience of Israeli diplomats the truth. Under Obama, Oren whispered, there has been a "tectonic rift" in US relations with Israel. While some of Obama’s advisors are sympathetic to Israel, these advisors have no influence on Obama’s positions on Israel. No doubt recognizing how silly his about face made him look, Oren tried to deny his statements at the Foreign Ministry. But it is hard to imagine anyone will take him seriously.
During his visit to the White House next week, Netanyahu should follow the path set by Oren’s quickly leaked remarks. Netanyahu should abstain from praising Obama for his friendship and speak instead about the fact that the US-Israel alliance is vital for both countries’ national security.
NETANYAHU SHOULD insist on the right to call on questioners at his joint appearance with Obama. And he should use those questions and those appearances to discuss why Israel’s actions are not only legal and necessary for Israel, but vital for US national security. During his stay in the US, Netanyahu should discuss the global jihad, Islamic terrorism, the freedom loving Kurds and the freedom loving Iranian people every chance he gets. Indeed, he should create opportunities to discuss them.
Here we see a crucial point of convergence between the Schalit family march to Jerusalem and Netanyahu’s trip to Washington. To increase the effectiveness of their efforts on behalf of Gilad, ahead of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, the marchers should split into two groups.
The first group should continue to Jerusalem and demand that Israel take a firmer stand against Hamas. The second group should walk to Tel Aviv and camp out outside the US Embassy. There they should demand that the administration end its contacts with Hamas, end its pressure on the Israeli government to strengthen Hamas, cancel Obama’s plan to give an additional $400 million dollars in aid to Hamas and use the US’s position on the UN Security Council to condemn Turkey for its material support for Hamas.
For too long, by allowing themselves to be led by our deranged media, Israeli citizens and governments alike have ignored the basic fact that the answer to every question is not more Israeli concessions. Contrary to what our tabloids would have us believe, surrender is only one option among many. It is time we try out some alternatives.
In recent months there has been a growing interest in the deepening relationship between Brazilian President Inacio Lula da Silva and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Brazil has long been an American ally and analysts are questioning the motives behind Lula’s eagerness in furthering ties with Iran; a long-time US enemy. Understandably, this new friendship has raised concerns among many foreign relations experts and the intelligence community.
But this relationship is not new. In reality, Brazil began economic relations with Iran in the early 90’s when they started trading foodstuffs. It was only in 2003 when both nations started to make energy sector deals that the National Iranian Oil Company granted Brazil’s oil giant Petrobras rights to explore Iran’s offshore oil reserves in the Persian Gulf. Petrobras signed a second, larger exploration deal with Iran in 2004 for $34 million to drill in the Caspian Sea. And just this year, in April, the president of Petrobras announced that, in spite of the current lack of investments in Iran, they plan to keep their offices there. There have been reports that in recent years the Brazilian oil giant has invested some $30 million in oil development; however, test wells have failed to provide commercially viable volumes. This cooperation was made possible through government-owned companies and high-level state-to-state discussions.
Brazilian companies have found ways to circumvent the trade sanctions that the UN Security Council placed on Iran. Using a triangular trade network, Brazilian goods stop in Dubai, and in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), before entering Iran. Sugar and beef are two of the most significant commodities traveling from Brazil to Iran in this fashion. Brazilian-Iranian trade totaled over $1.5 billion in 2007.
In addition to these economic ventures, Brazil and Iran enjoy a close diplomatic relationship. In November 2008, President Lula invited Ahmadinejad to visit Brazil, and Iran invited Brazil to join the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In June 2009, Lula da Silva congratulated his Iranian counterpart on his re-election and expressed his hope for expanded relations between Iran and Brazil, stating, "I believe the visit of the Iranian President to Brazil and my return visit will play a significant role in expansion of ties between the two countries."
However, what has many US government and intelligence officials worried is a May, 2010 trip Lula took to Tehran where a nuclear fuel swap agreement was signed between Brazil, Turkey and Iran.
For years, the international community has been attempting to curb nuclear proliferation in one of the most volatile regions of the world, the Middle East. Since 2006, there have been four rounds of sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to halt a nuclear program that the U.S., the European Union, and Israel believe is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons. These sanctions have sharpened political division among world powers, especially when both Turkey and Brazil, non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, have and continue to resist U.S.-led efforts to push for sanctions over Iran’s failure to halt its uranium enrichment program.
Is Lula in Support of a Nuclear Iran?
Brazil’s policy towards Iran’s nuclear program has been to engage in normal relations despite sanctions against Tehran; Brasilia’s stated position is that the International Atomic Energy Agency should resolve the dispute over the program. In September 2007, Lula da Silva said, "Iran has the right to proceed with peaceful nuclear research and should not be punished just because of Western suspicions that it wants to make an atomic bomb. Iran has committed no crime regarding the U.N. guidelines on nuclear weapons." Then in November 2008, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim stated, "Brazil does not recognize unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran, whether by the United States or the European Union. The Iranian government should fully cooperate with the agency because it is the best way to avoid sanctions."
In July of last year, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman embarked on a ten-day visit to several Latin American countries, including Brazil. Speaking at a press conference with President Lula da Silva and Celso Amorim, Lieberman insisted that Brazil use its influence to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Lula responded by criticizing Israel’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, stating, "Brazil would like all countries to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and would like to see the Middle East free of nuclear weapons." In late November 2009, the IAEA issued a warning to Iran for building a second enrichment plant in secret. But Brazil, along with five other countries, abstained. Brazilian IAEA Ambassador Antonio Guerreiro explained the abstention, saying, "the resolution clears the way for sanctions and sanctions will only lead to a hardening of the Iranian position."
In February 2010, after speculation that Brazil could be involved in direct bilateral talks to provide Iran with high-grade uranium, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said, "at no time in conversations held with Iran was enrichment of Iranian nuclear material discussed." But Lula was working together with Turkish and Iranian leaders on the deal that was just signed between the three nations.
The Deal
The Obama administration has been trying to convince Brazil and Turkey for months to support a new packet of UN sanctions against Iran. In fact, on March 3, 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Brasilia for talks aimed at convincing senior Brazilian officials to back new punitive measures against Iran’s nuclear program. Clinton said: "It has been found to be a violation by the International Atomic Energy Agency and by the United Nations Security Council. These are not findings by the US. These are findings by the international community. It is going to be the topic at the United Nations Security Council. So I want to be sure (President Lula) has the same understanding that we do as to how this matter is going to unfold."
But on June 9, 2010, it was clear Mrs. Clinton had been unsuccessful. A divided United Nations Security Council voted to tighten sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Brazil and Turkey, both non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, and both having a voting history of supporting the US agenda, voted against the measure in a public display of support for Iran, openly snubbing the United States.
The agreement Lula helped broker would require Iran to ship more than 2,500 pounds of its enriched uranium across the border to Turkey. In exchange the Iranians would receive fuel rods containing about 250 pounds of uranium enriched to 20% for use in their low-wattage Tehran Research Reactor, which the regime says will be used for medical purposes. But the Brazil-Turkey deal does not change Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s centrifuges will continue working and the regime’s stockpile of enriched uranium will continue to grow.
In reality, this deal is worse than a nearly identical proposal made by the Obama Administration last fall that was rejected by Iran. First, the amount of uranium that Iran has agreed to ship to Turkey is identical to the amount proposed last fall, except more time has passed and now Iran has a much larger stock, retaining more than enough to make a nuclear weapon. Second, the new deal has an out clause that allows Iran to demand its uranium back at any time. Third, there are no provisions to allow inspectors into Iran’s enrichment facility near Qom. In essence the deal will allow Iran to enrich uranium at a considerably higher level of purity, that is, higher than levels permitted by international law.
Brazil: a Dwindling Friend or Emerging Enemy?
Many analysts are puzzled by Lula’s behavior. Is he being used by Ahmadinejad to advance Iran’s nuclear program and help Tehran gain more presence in Latin America? Perhaps. In fact, in late May 2009, the Israeli news website Ynet obtained a detailed dossier drafted by the Israeli Foreign Ministry on Iran’s activities in South America. The report claimed that Iran had begun building friendships in Latin America as early as 1982. The Foreign Ministry report claimed that particularly "since Ahmadinejad’s rise to power, Tehran has been promoting an aggressive policy aimed at bolstering its ties with Latin American countries with the declared goal of "bringing America to its knees." So Lula could be serving that purpose though not unknowingly.
It could also be that Lula is the one that could gain by this friendship. He is leaving office in January, 2011. With the Iranian deal he helped broker with Turkey; he has received the world’s attention as a successful negotiator involving major powers such as the United States and Iran. This has raised Brazil’s status as an emerging power and could also serve Lula well in any new endeavor of international relevance at any world body he wishes to pursue. In addition, one of Lula’s goals has been to gain a seat for Brazil as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
As stated, Lula da Silva is a pragmatist but as leader of the Workers Party he is also a man of the left. He has deftly navigated between maintaining a positive relationship with the West while deepening his ties with Iran, Russia and China. This is also the same Lula that was a co-founder along with Fidel Castro of the Forum of Sao Paulo (an organization with a membership that includes many communist and guerilla groups and was formed largely to counter the influence of the US). It is also the same Lula who has chosen for the duration of his presidency to either support or ignore but never to question or counter the policies of his comrade, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Now that Lula only has a year and a half remaining in his presidency, he is more actively pursuing his true ideological tendencies.
In addition, the Iranian deal reveals something extremely worrisome about a new world order. Brazil and Turkey were considered to be more US friendly and have always stood with Washington in its struggles. Turkey is a NATO member and Brazil has emerged as an economic and political power on the world stage. This agreement shows that Lula has come to realize that being at odds with the Obama administration’s agenda brings no real consequences. In essence, many foreign policy experts conclude sadly that there is a loss of respect for the US on the world stage.
Notes
"Brazil Oil Giant Petrobras to Keep Iran Office- Estado," By Tom Murphy. Fox Business, April 12, 2010. "Building Latin Ties," Iran Daily, September 4, 2008; "Brazil 2004 Exports to Iran Seen At $1 Billion," Latin American News Digest, June 18, 2004. "According to Brazil, There Was No Fraud", O Estado de Sao Paulo digital, June 15, 2009. Turkey and Iran: A genuine friendship or a relation of convenience. By Salah Bayaziddi, The Kurdish Globe. June 19, 2010. "Brazil Doesn’t Recognize Unilateral Sanctions on Iran," Tehran Times, November 10, 2008. "Brazil Gives Israel Cold Shoulder Over Iran," Fars News Agency, July 23, 2009. "Brazil Not in Talks to Enrich Iran’s Uranium," Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2010. "Clinton Seeks to Press Brazil on Iran," by Matthew Lee, Associated Press, March 3, 2010. "Iran, Turkey, Brazil, and The Bomb." The Weekly Standard. May 20, 2010. "Israel: Ties to South America Aiding Iran’s Nuclear Program," Ynet, May 25, 2009.
When the United States commanded "street respect," it was achieved by adhering to a policy of "peace through strength." This was a proven policy that, regretfully, has been squandered over the past almost two decades. Nowhere is this more evident than in the failure of President Obama’s outreach to America’s enemies, particularly those in the Islamic world. The repeated humiliating gestures to Iran have been met with nothing but public mockery and contempt by the illegitimate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has cast our president as an amateur.
The latest round of watered-down United Nations sanctions against Iran for its continued enrichment of uranium at an accelerated pace and to 20 percent purity – far in excess of what is required for a medical reactor – is another facade. China’s and Russia’s votes for the weakened sanctions were bought only by exempting their key business ventures with Iran. Further, Brazil and Turkey’s agreement with Iran on processing its nuclear fuel only provided cover for Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. This agreement on the eve of the U.S. sanctions vote was nothing but a slap in the face to our president. He is seen as someone who can be rolled. This is clearly evident from Mr. Ahmadinejad’s brazen ventures with the ideologue Hugo Chavez and his placement of Iranian Quds Forces in Venezuela.
Compounding our relations with Turkey, our old Cold War NATO ally that refused to let our forces transit its territory into Northern Iraq in 2003, was Turkey’s sponsorship of the Gaza-blockade-running ship. From this act, the perception is that Turkey has allied itself with the Muslim Brotherhood and other advocates of global jihad. Even though Israel botched the confrontation, you don’t let an ally down. It is clear that Turkey is hedging its bets on a new regional power structure.
In the past, with our 6th Fleet controlling the Mediterranean, it would have been inconceivable that such an operation would have been undertaken. Today, however, with the 6th Fleet reduced to just one ship, my old flagship the USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20), there is not much deterrence, particularly when it is conducting an exercise in the Baltic Sea.
At home, President Obama’s growing image of ineffectiveness and weakness has been reflected in his slow reaction to the oil leak in the Gulf and his inability to mobilize the resources of the U.S. government to contain it. Furthermore, to refuse to accept the oil-spill containment resources offered by 13 countries, citing the Jones Act (which easily could be waived) was unconscionable.
Abroad, we are still involved in fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have made some semblance of progress in Iraq, but Afghanistan is an entirely different situation. With a weak, corrupt central government with little control, our "population-centric" mini-nation-building is not feasible. In order for such a strategy to be successful, we must have a trustworthy, reliable partner. Certainly, President Hamid Karzai’s performance to date is not reassuring. The culture of corruption is endemic throughout the country.
You also must have a national army and a functional police force that have a sense of national commitment and pride. As of now, such characteristics have not been evident. Mr. Karzai’s recent firing of two Cabinet ministers with close ties to the U.S., plus his refusal to remove his corrupt half-brother from a position of power in Kandahar, suggests that he is positioning himself for a future alliance with the Taliban and Pakistan.
I have always had trouble with the concept that it is better to put your forces at risk in an effort to limit fatalities to the civilian population. In war, you always try to limit civilian casualties, but when the insurgency is embedded with them, it becomes a difficult situation. Those Washington politicians who state that this a burden we are prepared to accept know full well it will never be their butts on the line. My paramount concern has always been the safety of my men and women. In short, the restricted rules of engagements in force in Afghanistan are tying the hands of our military and costing American lives.
Let’s remember, we never went into Afghanistan for nation-building. We went in to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda’s base of operations. Columnist Tony Blankley said it best when he wrote recently that "only self-deception" can justify further sacrifice of our forces in Afghanistan.
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.
