|
|||||
|
|||||
Winning Ugly – Victor Davis Hanson, National Review
There is no need to review the now common judgment on the Iraqi war as a fiasco, quagmire, or “worst” something or other in American history.
We have paid over four years, a high price in blood and treasure in our effort to foster consensual government after the brilliant three-week victory over Saddam Hussein. A common complaint is that our presence in Iraq only empowered both Syria and Iran. They supposedly “won” as we soon became overextended in two unwinnable theaters — and were paralyzed into general inaction by the terrorism and the sectarian killing in Iraq.
It is certainly true that the sharp post-invasion increase in the price of oil — $30-36 per barrel oil in 2003 has now soared to over $80 — has led to trillions of dollars pouring into a volatile Middle East, where millions have been siphoned off to radical charities, madrassas, mosques, and terrorists. Both bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri, while in hiding, are still loose, releasing serial propaganda videos — and getting money from somewhere.
The country at home is torn apart over the Iraq war. Ads in our papers are harder on General Petraeus than they are Osama bin Laden. And while we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, the dollar is at an all time low; we are running continual budget deficits; and we service enormous national and trade debts…
Saved by the Surge – John Podhoretz, New York Post
Is the surge in Iraq working? Consider this plain, simple and overwhelmingly power ful fact: Hundreds and hundreds of Iraqis are alive today, on Oct. 2, who'd be dead by now if there had been no surge.
There were 1,975 Iraqi civilian fatalities in August. In September, the number fell to 922 - a drop of 53 percent.
How do we know this decline is due to the surge? We can't know for certain, of course. And there's a caveat: The fatality reduction in September is particularly dramatic because there was no attack last month to match the horrible slaughter of hundreds of members of the Yazidi sect in August…
Lame-Duck Democrats – The Australian editorial
You know the wheel has turned back in favour of the US engagement in Iraq when Republican presidential hopeful John McCain gets a bounce in popularity because of his hardline stance in support of the war effort. Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton has been quietly repositioning herself to face the new reality that public support for the war has grown in response to report to Congress by the military commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, that the troop surge had had an impact on the level of sectarian violence. The new reality is, as The Australian's Washington correspondent, Geoff Elliott, has reported, that it is the Democrats and not President George W. Bush who are starting to look like lame ducks on Iraq. After a year of bluster directed at cutting war funding and getting US troops back home, the Democrats have been unable to get anything substantial through Congress. The only vote that passed in the past two weeks on Iraq was to condemn the actions of the leftist anti-war group Moveon.org for an advertisement that went close to accusing General Petraeus of treason.
The new reality on Iraq has again exposed the partisan reporting of the ABC's Media Watch program, which last month attacked The Australian's political editor, Dennis Shanahan, for his reporting from Iraq that General Petraeus would tell Congress that the troop surge had had an impact. Within days of Media Watch's criticism, the accuracy of Shanahan's report was confirmed, leading to a change in sentiment by the US public to one more favourable to the war…
The Value of an Exit Strategy – E. J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post
Astonishingly, 26 Republican senators broke with President Bush's Iraq policy last week. But you may not have noticed this, and it's not your fault.
Sen. Joe Biden's resolution calling for a federal solution to the Iraq mess -- sometimes known as "soft partition" -- got almost no attention, even though it passed, 75 to 23. There seems to be far more interest in how fundraising is going for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.
The vote on Biden's proposal to devolve power to Iraq's regions and three major groups could turn out to be a milestone in the effort to end the war. It was also a reflection of how much Republican frustration there is with the Iraqi government and the direction of President Bush's policy.
From the beginning, Bush has insisted that Iraq's current crop of politicians could broker peace among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and make a strong central government work. But that idea is increasingly implausible. The administration's deeds (as opposed to its words) are a tacit admission of failure…
Tainted by the PKK - Tulin Daloglu, Washington Times
When Turkey refused to give the United States a northern front to invade Iraq, the U.S. accused its NATO ally of breaking faith. But NATO did not endorse the war in Iraq, and though it provides training to Iraqi security forces, it refrains from taking an active role on the ground.
Meanwhile, when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited New York last week, he was asked about reasons for anti-Americanism in Turkey. "[W]e have found U.S.-made heavy artillery — such as tanks and cannons — in the PKK camps," he said. Yet, there is no evidence that the PKK, Kurdish separatist terrorists, are attacking with tanks and cannons. But Mr. Erdogan's claim forces to light the question of whether Turkey's refusal to give the United States a northern front into Iraq and American inaction against the PKK are causing Turkey to re-evaluate its NATO membership…
Blackwater Waves – Washington Post editorial
The Blackwater USA security company was a polarizing force in Iraq and in Washington well before its personnel engaged in a controversial shootout in downtown Baghdad last month that left at least 11 Iraqi civilians dead. State Department personnel who rely on more than 800 of the firm's guards for safe travel around Iraq say they appreciate its work; none of those guarded by Blackwater has been killed, though 30 of its own personnel have died. But uniformed U.S. military officers understandably resent the private fighters, who tend to be preening and much better paid than the average soldier. Army sources grumble that Blackwater plays by far more aggressive rules than U.S. troops and needlessly alienates Iraqis. Congressional Democrats despise the firm because it symbolizes the private contracting of military missions that many oppose in principle. Like the services contractor Halliburton, Blackwater also has Republican connections that make it an even more inviting target.
The latest shooting incident -- one of at least five this year in which Blackwater guards have killed Iraqis -- is still under investigation by a U.S.-Iraqi commission. Teams from the State Department (which is getting FBI help) and the Pentagon are conducting separate reviews of private security contractors. Already, though, it seems clear that Blackwater's critics are right in one important respect: There are inadequate controls over security firms, especially those working for the State Department…
New Boss, New Millitary Course - Boston Globe editorial
Ordinarily, the swearing in of a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a routine event with no significance for national security decision-making. But that was not the case with yesterday's changing of the guard, in which Navy Admiral Mike Mullen replaced Marine Corps General Peter Pace. President Bush chose not to nominate Pace for a customary second two-year term as chairman after Pace became too identified with the Iraq war mistakes of Bush's former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
The official reason given by Defense Secretary Robert Gates for denying Pace a second term is that the nomination process would have been "very contentious." But it is also clear that Gates wants a top uniformed officer who will provide more unvarnished advice than Pace did, both within the administration and in congressional hearings.
A key challenge Mullen, Gates, and Bush face is how to maintain the US ground forces they believe necessary in Iraq while also keeping Afghanistan from sliding into chaos. At the same time, the military has to be prepared for a sudden conflict elsewhere that requires US troops...
Admiral Mullen Reports for Duty - Derrick Jackson, Boston Globe
We have a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The question is: What will happen if he says something that the commander-in-chief does not want to hear?
Navy Admiral Mike Mullen yesterday replaced Marine General Peter Pace because Pace became too much a symbol of the Iraq quagmire. In June, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he originally wanted to renominate Pace for another two years. But Gates determined that the nation would not have been served by a "divisive ordeal" of renomination hearings.
"The focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past rather than the future, and further, that there was the very real prospect the process would be quite contentious," Gates conceded.
Almost by default, Mullen was viewed in Washington as fresh air, unafraid to blow back at the hot air that got us into Iraq in the first place. So far, he does not appear to be a senseless cheerleader. In his July Senate confirmation hearing, he was pressed by South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham to "assess our likelihood of winning, given what you know now."
Mullen said, "I would be concerned about whether we'd be winning or not." ...
Seeing the Caskets – Bruce Fein, Washington Times
Members of Congress aim to enrich understanding of the Iraqi war. They would enact legislation to substitute sunshine for the prevailing Defense Department photo blackout of soldiers' coffins on their journeys back to the United States. One picture is worth 1,000 words.
The eye more effectively pricks the soul and stirs the conscience than volumes of philosophy. During the Vietnam War, the photo of a Vietnamese child's terror while engulfed in flames underscored the human cost of the conflict. Photos of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq would similarly concentrate the minds of the public and Congress on the steep price of persisting militarily in Iraq for the sake of persistence, just as photos of the September 11 abominations correctly focus attention on the terrorist danger. Photos of coffins are surrogates for numerators in the Iraqi war equation. When they become larger than the war's denominators, the public may come to clamor for an end to aimless American deaths…
Shifting Targets – Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker
In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”
The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism…
Sanctions Won’t Stop Iran – Selig Harrison, Washington Post
Suppose that the Bush administration abandons its campaign for economic sanctions, tones down talk of war and opens direct negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program. Suppose also that it drops its insistence on the suspension of uranium enrichment as a precondition for dialogue.
Would Iran accept the terms for denuclearization accepted by North Korea in the direct negotiations that led to the Feb. 13 agreement with Pyongyang and that are now being implemented in fits and starts: a no-attack pledge, normalized economic and diplomatic relations, economic aid, and removal from the U.S. list of terrorist states?
Based on a week of high-level discussions in Tehran recently and on previous visits during earlier stages of the nuclear program, my assessment is that Iran would demand much tougher terms, including a freeze of Israel's Dimona reactor and a ban on the U.S. use of nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf…
Nuclear Secrets – Wall Street Journal editorial
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously kept a satellite photograph of the Korean Peninsula in his office at the Pentagon. The picture was taken at night and showed a brightly illuminated South Korea under a sea of darkness where the North was known to be. Only the city of Pyongyang gave off a faint glow.
The photo could serve as a metaphor for the six-party nuclear-disarmament talks, which keep getting murkier when they should be opening more to world scrutiny. They adjourned Sunday without the agreement the diplomats were promising, though with a draft plan the parties are taking home to their superiors for comment and whose details remain secret.
Granted, diplomacy requires some confidentiality, but transparency and verification are crucial to disarmament, especially when dealing with a regime like Kim Jong Il's. The February 13 six-party accord called for Pyongyang to deliver a comprehensive accounting of its nuclear program and arsenal within 60 days. We're still waiting.
Transparency is all the more essential given recent news reports about likely North Korean nuclear proliferation in Syria. Washington says the main goal of the six-party talks is to prevent proliferation, and North Korea promised to cease and desist. Yet Pyongyang seems to have been caught in the act in Syria only months after making that promise. The Israelis were worried enough to risk a confrontation with Syria by bombing the site, not to mention flying over Turkish air space. Notably, the Turks didn't object…
The Queerest Denial – Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been doing a brisk business in harassing, entrapping, lashing, imprisoning and executing homosexuals since nearly the moment it came to power in 1979, with little notice in the West beyond the occasional human-rights report. So when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the startling claim at Columbia University last week that "we do not have homosexuals in Iran like you do in your country," it offered what could have been a learning opportunity to those who think Iran is just another misunderstood regime with an equally misunderstood president.
Such wishful thinking. The Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls spent a fair bit of time Wednesday night debating what to do about Iran, without once mentioning Ahmadinejad's peculiar world view. These are the same debaters who in August went before a gay audience to denounce Bush administration policies as "demeaning" and "degrading" toward gays. In the Nation--a magazine that excoriated Ronald Reagan upon his passing for his "inaction and bigotry against gays"--editor Katrina vanden Heuvel has nothing to say about the subject either. Instead, she devotes her latest column to denouncing last week's symbolic Senate vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization…
Germany’s New Role Against Terror - Yonah Alexander, Washington Times
In the post-September 11, 2001 era, the United States has emerged as the leading nation in combating terrorism. The United Kingdom, as America's most loyal partner in Europe, has provided vital political and strategic support in the global war against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
Since Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair on June 27, the question has arisen whether No. 10 Downing Street will focus more on national challenges rather than regional and global security concerns, particularly in light of last summer's car bomb plots in London and Glasgow. If the answer is yes, it is likely Germany, the United States' other pre-eminent European ally in the War on Terror, will replace Britain as the key counterterrorism player in the region…
Terrorism Detainees and Habeas Corpus – Jim Saxton, Washington Times
This past week, the House Armed Services Committee was to consider Democratic-introduced legislation that would grant habeas corpus rights to foreign terrorist detainees. In a last-minute move, they decided to cancel today's proceedings.
Did the Democrats see the light and decide to scrap this bill altogether? Probably not, as it will more than likely pick back up next week. A delay in this case is a good thing though. It might give the committee more time to discuss the proposed legislation behind closed doors in a bipartisan manner to ensure all members understand the stakes of this proposal…
Defence Choices Could Haunt Us – Dave Peebles, Canberra Times
To govern is to choose. Unfortunately, when it comes to Australia's defence capabilities, the Howard Government has often failed to choose, or has chosen badly.
The Government has proceeded on the assumption that Australia does not have to choose between competing strategic interests. In 2002, Defence minister Robert Hill said "it probably never made sense to conceptualise our security interests as a series of diminishing concentric circles around our coastline, but it certainly does not do so now". But the advantage of focusing on concentric circles around our coastline and our region is it establishes a clear hierarchy of priorities. Such a hierarchy can be disputed, but the Government is yet to replace it with its own clear statement of priorities. At $22 billion in 2007-08, defence funding may be generous, but it's still finite. In trying to do a little of everything, the Government risks doing nothing well. Broadly speaking, there are three possible force structures for the Australian Defence Force, depending on the judgments made about Australia's interests and objectives, and likely security environment.
The first force structure proceeds on the assumption that "old security" threats like inter-state conflict are no longer relevant, and that the biggest challenges to Australia's security are "new security" threats such as internal conflict and failed states in our neighbourhood. The assumption is that Australia needs to prepare for more operations like INTERFET in East Timor and RAMSI in the Solomon Islands. New Zealand has geared its defence capabilities to respond to such challenges.
For Australia, such a force structure would involve increasing the army to 10 infantry battalions, with an emphasis on light infantry. Ten battalions would give Australia the capability to deploy in a number of different locations across the immediate region if needed. Such battalions would be deployed to keep the peace, not to engage in intense fire-fighting, and so their training would emphasise cross-cultural communication and negotiation. The Peace Monitoring Group in Bougainville, for example, was largely made up of unarmed Australian military personnel…
Musharraf Hangs On – The Australian editorial
General Musharraf seized power in a coup in 1999 and is so loath to lose political authority that he says he will stand down as army chief of staff after he is confirmed for another term as president later this month. Given his position depends on his ability to call out the troops, this is a concession of sorts. The country's small minority of Islamic extremists loathe General Musharraf for his alliance with the US. The great majority of politically engaged Pakistanis despise him for his perversion of the political process. For three months earlier this year, lawyers successfully fought in the courts -- and the streets -- to stop General Musharraf corrupting the Supreme Court by sacking the independent-minded Chief Justice. And exiled politicians are waiting for the first sign of weakness to challenge the President's power.
But up until now, while each succeeding crisis besmirched his reputation and dented his credibility, General Musharraf has managed to hang on. Last week he had another unexpected stroke of luck when the Supreme Court ruled he could stay in uniform when the electoral college, made up of state and provincial legislators, elects a new president this week. While his supporters there have the numbers, continuing to command the army will not hurt the general's chances. And despite his promise to stand down as army chief if he wins the presidential poll, the opposition parties, slated to win January elections, will believe it when they see it…
Bloodied in Burma – Washington Times editorial
Reports of a massacre by Burma's military junta are trickling out of that long-oppressed country. Here's what we know. A brutal crackdown by the regime has dispersed the saffron-robed monks and their supporters from the streets. The military junta has imposed an information stranglehold via an Internet and cell phone blackout. There is good reason to fear the worst with this regime's history. At minimum, we know that it has has pulled out most of the stops to suppress a new generation of dissidents…
Our Inaction Gives Tyrants Carte Blanche – Vaclav Havel, The Australian
In the coming days, the destiny of Burma (also known as Myanmar) and the fate of more than 50 million Burmese will be decided. Today's crisis has been brewing for many years. But nobody knew with any precision just when open revolt against Burma's military dictatorship would erupt.
I fear that, with only a few exceptions, most countries have been caught off guard, once again, by the rapid course that events have taken in Burma. So they seem to be completely unprepared for the crisis and at a loss as to what to do.
How many times and in how many places has this happened? Worse, however, is the number of countries that find it convenient to avert their eyes and ears from the deathly silence with which this Asian country chooses to present itself to the outside world…
No Going Back for Burma – Trevor Wilson, Sydney Morning Tribune
The crisis confronting Burma is dramatic testimony to the comprehensive failure of international policy towards a ruthless regime.
Burma is a case where every approach seems to have failed: formal and informal sanctions, engagement, self-imposed and externally imposed isolation and business as usual.
We should be clear about where policies have partially succeeded and why they might have failed overall.
The "constructive engagement" policies of Australia, Japan, countries in the Association of South-East Asian Nations and some United Nations agencies are widely criticised even though they have contributed directly to greater Burmese conformity with international norms than would otherwise have been the case. This includes greater compliance on issues such as narcotics trafficking, money laundering and people trafficking…
Ignoring Burma - Gerald Steinberg, Washington Times
The conflict and human rights crisis in Burma (also known as Myanmar) has suddenly exploded, and, very belatedly, the discredited United Nations human rights mechanisms and the army of associated nongovernmental organizations (NGO) are calling for international action. But a large part of this Burma tragedy results from the fact that, as in the case of the mass killings in Darfur, members of the self-proclaimed international human rights network have devoted very few of their resources to the junta's abuses.
The military regime, which seized power in 1988, turned Burma into one of the most isolated and repressive nations in the world, with frequent violent attacks and murder of opponents and critics…
Myanmar Mess: Blame Beijing - Ralph Peters, New York Post
As the junta's misbehavior worsened in Myanmar (as those thugs have re-chris tened Burma) last week, pundits suggested that we should force China to pressure its client to treat the pro-democracy demonstrators politely - by threatening to boycott next year's Beijing Olympics.
Sorry, but Myanmar's far more important to China's vision for the coming decades than the Pollution-and-Oppression Games. The bullies in Beijing see the Olympics as a coming-out party - but Myanmar is a strategic lifeline…
Mr. Putin’s Game – New York Times editorial
Russians and a lot of Russia watchers have been wondering not if, but how Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, would hold on to power. We fear we got our answer yesterday. Mr. Putin, who must step down as president next year, announced that he will head the election list of the dominant party, United Russia, in December’s parliamentary election.
That will guarantee him a seat in the lower house, from which he could become prime minister. Mr. Putin said that it was still too early to think about that, and it would depend on whether the next Russian president was “a decent, capable and effective person” with whom he could work. Conveniently, Russia’s Constitution puts the prime minister in direct line to succeed the country’s president, should that job description prove too much for Mr. Putin’s successor to handle…
Putin's Bid for Tsardom - London Times leader
President Putin’s announcement that he would like to become prime minister is a coup de théâtrefor which this shrewd political operator is justly famous. For months speculation over his future has obsessed Russia. He has insisted repeatedly that, after he leaves office in March, he wants to continue serving his country in some capacity. How he would do so has always been unclear, however. Would he take the job as head of Gazprom, the vast state energy monopoly that is so vital to Russia’s future? Would he revitalise the job of National Security Adviser? Or would he become a roving ambassador, holding no official post but exercising influence behind the scenes as Deng Xiaoping did in China?
In a recent conversation with The Times and other Western reporters and academics, Mr Putin made it very clear that he had no intention of leaving the political scene. He made it equally plain that he would not change the Constitution, but would retire, as required, in March. He did not rule out returning as president in 2012 - though tried to downplay this scenario. But he insisted Russia must still have a strong president, as its parties were still too undeveloped to play the role they do in Western democracies...
Democracy Upsets Vladimir Putin - London Daily Telegraph leader
Vladimir Putin's greatest international humiliation was visited on him three years ago when his placeman for the presidency of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was driven out of office by the Orange Revolution.
Mr Putin's tormentors are now back with a vengeance. Preliminary results from Sunday's parliamentary elections suggest that the opposition leader - and heroine of the Orange Revolution - Yulia Tymoshenko has triumphed at the expense of the hapless Mr Yanukovych. If the result is confirmed, the orange coalition could shortly be back in control.
Mr Putin is unlikely to respond with equanimity to this turn of events...
“Who Knew?” – Andrew Somers, Washington Times
These days, most of what Americans read or hear about Russia tends to be negative, focusing on political or geopolitical developments that at best we find difficult to comprehend, and at worst, appear threatening to America's interests. President Vladimir Putin seems cold and calculating and increasingly unfriendly. The Cold War image of the dangerous Russian bear seems to be reemerging.
Having lived in Moscow for the past seven years as head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, representing more than 800 America companies doing business there, and dealing almost daily with the Russian government at all levels, I understand some of these qualms. But I also see a different picture — a much more optimistic picture — which I believe is perhaps more important in understanding today's Russia, though I have seldom seen it reported or discussed…
The U.N.’s Power Grab – Frank Gaffney Jr., Washington Times
If Americans have learned anything about the United Nations over the last 50 years, it is that this "world body" is, at best, riddled with corruption and incompetence. At worst, its bureaucracy, agencies and members are overwhelmingly hostile to the United States and other freedom-loving nations, most especially Israel.
So why on earth would the United States Senate possibly consider putting the U.N. on steroids by assenting to its control of seven-tenths of the world's surface?
Such a step would seem especially improbable given such well-documented fiascoes as: the U.N.-administered Iraq Oil-for-Food program; investigations and cover-ups of corrupt practices at the organization's highest levels; child sex-slave operations and rape squads run by U.N. peacekeepers; and the absurd, yet relentless, assault on alleged Israeli abuses of human rights by majorities led by despotic regimes in Iran, Cuba, Syria and Libya…
Draft General Pace – National Review editorial
Gen. Peter Pace has retired after four decades in uniform, most recently as the first Marine to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Defense secretary Robert Gates declined to recommend Pace for another two-year term in the military’s top job, fearing that contentious Senate confirmation hearings would rehash past decisions about the war in Iraq. But Pace has another route to the Senate: Virginia conservatives should recruit him to be their candidate in next year’s race to replace the state’s retiring senior senator, Republican John Warner.
Former Virginia governor Mark Warner is the presumptive Democratic candidate for John Warner’s seat. On the Republican side, Rep. Tom Davis is considered Senator Warner’s heir apparent, though he hasn’t declared his candidacy yet. Another former Virginia governor, Jim Gilmore, is expected to challenge Davis for the nomination. If the GOP field is limited to these two candidates, conservatives who hoped that John Warner’s longed-for retirement would give them a chance to “trade up” will be disappointed in their choice…
-----