• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

The story of today's conflict between al Qaeda and the west could be a palimpsest unwittingly obscuring the half-obliterated memory of a similar struggle from more than a thousand years ago: injured and humiliated common folk who prove susceptible to the call of a militant and avenging form of their religion; the manipulative radical ideology that promises its recruits an otherworldly reward in exchange for their making the ultimate sacrifice; the arrogant, self-satisfied occupying power whose chief goal is finding ways of extracting new profits from its possession.

There appears to be no political solution and no window on the future, other than the clarity of vision that a careful and empathetic rendering of history can provide.
There is, admittedly, much to learn, and better late than never: a rudimentary education in the historical complexities and continuities of Iraq and Iran. :salute:
 
Historical complexities? Just the age old impulse to gain and maintain power at all costs (the "Root Cause"tm of Terrorism)

How else can you explain behavior like this:http://www.backseatblogger.com/2006/07/02/children-used-as-human-shields/

 
Somalia looks like another front opening up, deja vu all over again.....

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004228.html

Somalia Churning Out Terrorists
Bill Roggio ;


As the situation in Somalia deteriorates and the al-Qaeda backed Islamic Courts Union (or al-Ittihad Mahakem al-Islamiya) consolidates power in the capital city of Mogadishu, the Ethiopian military has crossed the border into Somalia. Approximately 200-300 Ethiopian troops, about two companies including two armored platoons, have pushed upwards to 100 miles into Somali territory. It is unclear if their goal is to secure the lawless border, make a land grab or engage the militias of the Islamic Courts. The Ethiopian government denies reports its military has crossed the Somali border.

[...]

In 2002, a confidential report indicated Somalia contained 17 known operational terrorist training camps (see attached map). The environment in Somalia is said to compare to that of Afghanistan during the heyday of the Taliban. Terrorists from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula are said to be flocking into Somalia to staff the camps or enter training. Camps are said to be training recruits to employ improvised explosive devices (roadside bombs or IEDs) to counter the expected Ethiopian armor. The Islamic Courts are also scouring the Communist-era weapons caches for anti-aircraft weapons, small arms, and explosives.


It's looking more like pre-911 Afghanistan every day. I'm sure it's Bush's fault.






 
Back to Iran, perhaps with the application of a bit more effort by the Anglosphere West, we could bring the democratic movement to the tipping point:

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2006/07/9th-of-july.html

9th of July is not just another day of year in history for majority of Iranians.

Today is the anniversary of the Iranian student uprising of 1999. It is being commemorated by numerous blog posts and demonstrations around the globe. Other anti-regime events also took place on this date and a few people may know about it.

In 1980, hundreds of pro-Shah elements of the Iranian armed forces, mainly air force, took part in a coup, led by the late prime minister Bakhtiar, against the ayatollahs. The coup, unfortunately, failed and thousands of brave servicemen executed by the regime in few weeks after the coup failed and many others purged from service. The plan was to bomb Khomeini's residence, seize the Radio & TV run by the revolutionary guards, and invite the royal family back to Iran. According to the regime's officials, Soviets had a hand in helping discover the whole plot against the government.

In 1999, thousands of pro-freedom students of different universities across Iran rised against the Islamic regime and the protests lasted more than 10 days. 17 students killed, hundreds wounded and thousands detained. I completely remember those days as I was preparing for school exams and had to move across the city of Tehran to get to school. Streets were full of angry people and students but the presence of anti-riot police, islamic militants known as Basij told us that regime was ready to crush the protests at any cost.

the 18th of Tir (9th of July) protests have become a symbol of violent struggle against the clerical establishment of Iran.

Watch this excellent clip (h/t Chester)

In 2003, similar protests erupted and lasted for more than 10 days in June resulting in arrests of 4000 thousand students.

Today Iranian people are demanding civil liberties and political freedoms, separation of religion and state, equality and justice (especially for women), the immediate release of all political prisoners and most importantly a Free Referendum to determine the future government of Iran through a democratic process.

It's important to remind the free world about the freedom movement of the Iranian people and spread the word to get international community support for the freedom Iranians are fighting for.

All we ask for, is to help us get rid of tyranny and be free.

 
I don't know if the following article has been posted on this forum before, but I just came across it and found it quite interesting.  I'd be further interested to find out people's thoughts on it:

  Subject: Muslims, terrorists and  the USA....A different spin on Iraq war.
  This WAR is for REAL! 
  Dr. Vernon Chong, Major  General, USAF, Retired
  Tuesday, July 12, 2005
  To get out of a  difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is
now facing the most  serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we
have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
  The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very
few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize
what losing really  means.
  First, let's examine a few basics:
  1. When did the threat  to us start?
  Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the  United State is
concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the  following attacks
on us:
  * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
  * Beirut,  Lebanon Embassy 1983;
  * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
  * Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
  * First New York World  Trade Center attack 1993;
  * Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military  complex 1996;
  * Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
  * Dares Salaam, Tanzania  US Embassy 1998;
  * Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
  * New York World Trade  Center 2001;
  * Pentagon 2001.
  (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide).
  2. Why were we  attacked?
  Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The  attacks happened
during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and
Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as  there were no
provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate  predecessors,
Presidents Ford or Carter.
  3. Who were the  attackers?
  In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
  4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
  5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
  Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of  Germany was peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
difference. You either went along with the  administration or you were
eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians  killed by the Nazis for
political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).  (see
http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
<http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm> )
  Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the
six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of
anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world
focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his
way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or
any others.
  Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all
in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or  anyone else. The point
here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from
the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no
protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and  what they are
fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements --  killing all of us
"infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would  you do if the choice
was shut up or die?
  6. So who are we at war with?
  There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the
Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this
conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you  don't clearly
recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
  So with  that background, now to the two major questions:
  1. Can we lose this  war?
  2. What does losing really mean?
  If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions
  We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major
reason we can lose is that so  many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the
second question - What does  losing mean?
  It would appear that a great many of us think that losing  the war means
hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business,
like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can  get.
  What losing really means is:
  We would no longer be the  premier country in the world. The attacks will not
subside, but rather will  steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not
just quiet. If they had  just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an
increasing series of  attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was
clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to
them.
  We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of
reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot
help them.
  They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one  at a time. It will be
increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain  hostage. It doesn't
matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw  its troops from
Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told
them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done.
Spain is finished.
  The next will probably be France.  Our one hope on France is that they might
see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that
they can't resist the Muslim  terrorists without us. However, it may already be
too late for France. France  is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
  If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all
vanish as we know it.  After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they
were threatened by the  Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone
else?
  The  Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are
completely  committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be
likewise committed to winning at any cost.
  Why do I go on at such lengths about  the results of losing? Simple. Until we
recognize the costs of losing, we  cannot unite and really put 100% of our
thoughts and efforts into winning. And  it is going to take that 100% effort to
win.
  So, how can we lose the  war?
  Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding."  That is,
defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their  purpose, and
really digging in and lending full support to the war effort if we are united,
there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided,  there is no way
that we can win!
  Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and
death seriousness of this  situation.
  President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of  Transportation. Although
all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim  men between 17 and 40
years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like
we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going
to have to give up some of the civil  rights we have become accustomed to. We
had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will
most certainly lose all of them  permanently.
  And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up  plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact
added many more since then.
  Do I blame President  Bush or President Clinton before him?
  No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political
Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean,
lawful, honorable war.  None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your
head.
  Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration
that it  almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add
that  this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't
recognize  what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to
the  enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it
does  great damage to our cause.
  Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by  the politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war,  perhaps exemplifies best what
I am saying. We have recently had an issue,  involving the treatment of a few
Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of  our military police. These are the
type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off
buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise
murdering their own people just for  disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
  And just a few years ago these same  type prisoners chemically killed 400,000
of their own people for the same  reason. They are also the same type of enemy
fighters, who recently were  burning Americans, and dragging their charred
corpses through the streets of Iraq.
  And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing
videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of  American
prisoners they held.
  Compare this with some of our press and  politicians, who for several days
have thought and talked about nothing else  but the "humiliating" of some Muslim
prisoners -- not burning them, not  dragging their charred corpses through the
streets, not beheading them, but  "humiliating" them.
  Can this be for real?
  The politicians and  pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary
of Defense. If this  doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and
understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and
death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing
can.
  To bring  our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner
issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally
oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other
country, can  survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that
some of our  politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they
are  absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into
which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many  years.
  Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all  infidels! That
translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout
the world.
  We are the last bastion of defense.
  We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.'  That charge is
valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we  believe that we are
so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those
who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat
anything bad in the world!
  We can't!
  If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no
other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
  And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom
of speech,  freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal
rights  for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women,
or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of
the world.
  This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we
will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman
Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books  to be written
or read.
  If we don't win this war right now, keep a closeeye on how the Muslims take
over France in the next 5 years or less They will  continue to increase the
Muslim population of France and continue to encroach  little by little, on the
established French traditions. The French will be  fighting among themselves,
over what should or should not be done, which will  continue to weaken them and
keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
  Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away  from them by some external
military force. Instead, they give their freedoms  away, politically correct
piece by politically correct piece.
  And they  are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide
that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once
they are in power.
  They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start
brutally killing each other over who will be the few who  control the masses.
Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct,  about the "peaceful
Muslims"?
  I close on a hopeful note, by repeating  what I said above. If we are united,
there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in
our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will
unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever
you can to preserve it.
  After  reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our
children, our grandchildren, our country and the world
  Whether Democrat  or Republican, conservative or liberal and that include the
Politicians and media of our country and the free world!
  Please forward this to any you  feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our
"leaders" in Congress ought to read it,  too. There are those that find fault
with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this,
that we must UNITE!
 
     
        Hit the nail on the head on that one ! +100 , good read !  :salute:
 
couchcommander said:
No.

Clear and open demands, followed by negotiations, conducted in good faith and with a desire to resolve the issue (however in which we also ensure our fundamental requirements are not fettered away) If these are unable to resolve the issue, and we have sufficient evidence to justify killing lots of people, the direct application of force to specific targets to acheive specific limited objectives. i.e. not "take over Iran", but more along the lines of "destroy their capability to construct, support, and deliver nuclear arms". As I have advocated before in regards to NK, this should be followed by a policy of strict containment until they decide to come around - however I don't think the US would survive not having Iranian oil.

     The U.S. imports more oil from Canada than any other country in the world !
 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm

Rank Country of Origin Thousand Barrels/day
1 Canada  1,616
2 Mexico  1,598
3 Saudi Arabia  1,495
4 Venezuela  1,297
5 Nigeria  1,078
6 Iraq  655
7 Angola  306
8 Kuwait  241
9 United Kingdom  238
10 Ecuador  232
11 Algeria  215
12 Russia  158
13 Norway  143
14 Colombia  142
15 Gabon  142
16 Argentina  59
17 Brazil  51
18 Trinidad and Tobago  49
19 Indonesia  34
20 Australia  21
21 Libya  18
22 Cameroon  18
23 Guatemala  18
24 Malaysia  18
25 Brunei  15
26 China, People’s Republic of  14
27 Congo (Kinshasa) *    14
28 Oman  10
29 Congo (Brazzaville)  8
30 United Arab Emirates  5
31 Ivory Coast  5
32 Qatar  4
33 Yemen  4
34 Denmark  2
35 Peru  1
36 Syria  1
37 Thailand  1
  Other  158
  Total  10,088
  Persian Gulf **    2,400

Includes crude oil imported for storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

* Formerly Zaire
**Includes Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.

 
I should clarify - it seems to me that the impact of removing Iranian oil from the market would have quite an impact on the cost of oil, posing a problem, especially for the US.

.02 anywho, anyone who is truely informed can confirm/deny this?
 
Well couch, the post just above yours breaks down who produces what, and Iran isn't even broken out separately, but simply included in the "Persian Gulf".

While oil is fungible (i.e. a barrel of oil is pretty much the same wherever it comes from), in practical terms most of the oil imported into the United States comes from South America,the Carribean, and Canada. The Middle East exports most of its oil to Europe, China and India, which goes some way to explaining the attitude of appeasement that many European nations have. Removing Iranian oil will cause some shock, but the other producers will scramble to make up the shortfall, to cash in on the potential profits.

I suspect that the cumulative outcome of escalating oil prices will be the introduction of inexpensive (in relative terms) petroleum substitutes such as bio diesel, liquefied coal and synthetic fuels made from natural gas, which will have the paradoxical effect of dropping oil prices to the great benefit of nations like India and China. Pulling the price rug from under the feet of Saudi Arabia and Iran would destabilize their current regimes and dry up a lot of funding for terrorism, on the other hand, it will also have a negative effect on Iraq, which is establishing a consensual government and free market but will see its major export lose much of its value.
 
Michael Lendeen sums up the situation is the Middle East (SW Asia), but there are further currents running deeper; the Caucus, East Africa (particularly the takeover of part of Somalia by a Taliban like Islamic extremest faction), continuing fighting in Afghanistan, reservoirs of enemy in India and the Phillipines, and the continuing menace of home grown terrorists.

We can certainly subdivide the theaters according to geography, major players etc, but it should be long past apparent that this is a global conflict, and we should start preparing to accept the only way to protect the Western, democratic and free market civilization we live in is to start moving to a war footing. Once the Aglosphere mobilizes, there is no nation or coalition that can stand against us, and once the cancerous regimes which cause so much misery are crushed, then no nation or group of nations can rebuild these parts of the world with the speed and lasting results that we can (see Germany, Japan and South Korea for a few examples).

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDE4MDA3NDUyYjA0ZGY1MzQ4NjM5NjM1MWY4NDVkZGM=

The Same War
Hezbollah, natch.

By Michael Ledeen

No one should have any lingering doubts about what’s going on in the Middle East. It’s war, and it now runs from Gaza into Israel, through Lebanon and thence to Iraq via Syria. There are different instruments, ranging from Hamas in Gaza to Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon and on to the multifaceted “insurgency” in Iraq. But there is a common prime mover, and that is the Iranian mullahcracy, the revolutionary Islamic fascist state that declared war on us 27 years ago and has yet to be held accountable.

It is very good news that the White House immediately denounced Iran and Syria, just as Ambassador Khalilzad had yesterday tagged the terrorist Siamese twins as sponsors of terrorism in Iraq. For those who doubt the Iranian hand, remind yourself that Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary of the mullahcracy (with Syria providing some supplies, and free run of the territory), and then read what Iraq the Model had to say yesterday, Wednesday:

Hizbollah is Iran's and Syria's partner in feeding instability in Iraq as there were evidence that this terror group has a role in equipping and training insurgents in Iraq and Hizbollah had more than once openly showed support for the “resistance” in Iraq and sponsored the meetings of Baathist and radical Islamist militants who are responsible for most of the violence in Iraq.

Notice, please, that he says Iran “sponsored the meetings of Baathist and radical Islamist militants...” He is talking Sunnis here, the same Sunnis who, according to CIA deep thinkers and scads of academic experts, cannot possibly work closely with Shiites like, ahem, the mullahs of Tehran. Iraq the Model isn’t burdened by this wisdom, and so he just reports what he sees on the ground in his own country.

Notice also that over the weekend there was a “security summit” in Tehran, involving all of Iraq’s neighbors, at which Iran’s moonbat President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made one of his trademark understatements about Israel. “The existence of this regime will bring nothing but suffering and misery for people in the region,” he mildly commented, and then said that the anger of the people might soon “lead to a vast explosion that will know no boundaries.”

Sounds to me like he knew something before the rest of us. As well he should, because Iran has been quite busy in Lebanon of late. The Lebanese Tourism Ministry’s Research Center announced an amazing statistic in early July: in the first six months of the year, 60,888 Iranian tourists visited Lebanon. No other Asian country came close (the Philippines ranked second, with a bit over 12,000). I don’t think that there’s enough disposable income in mullahland to cover the expenses of more than ten thousand people a month headed for the Beirut beaches. Do you think, as I do, that a goodly number of those “tourists” were up to no good? Maybe some of them were working for the Revolutionary Guards Corps? Or were Hezbollah operations people? I’ll bet you your favorite farm that one of them was the world’s most wanted man, Imad Mughniyah, the operations chieftain of Hizbollah, the world’s most lethal terrorist organization.

Actually I won’t bet; it would be unethical. We know that Mughniyah flew to Damascus a while back with Ahmadinejad, and went to Lebanon to work with his buddies.

In this war, there is no meaningful distinction between Iran and Syria, they work in tandem. It’s just that Iran gives the orders and Syria obeys.

There’s a lot of fanciful analysis of the recent expansion of the war, revolving around a general “why?” and a more specific “why now?” Someone said that Iran was trying to distract world attention from the upcoming U.N. showdown over the mullahs’ atomic program, which seems silly to me. A U.N. debate serves Iran’s interest. It deflects attention from our growing awareness of Iran’s centrality in Iraq, and the urgency of going after the regimes in Tehran and Damascus. That is where Iran’s doom lies, not in the endless charade about the nukes.

I don’t think it is worth our time and energy to try to answer the “why now?” except to agree with Allahpundit who remarked that there does seem to be something special about dates numbered “11.” The important thing to keep in mind is that both the Gaza and northern Israel attacks were planned for quite a while, which means that Iran wanted this war, this way. It isn’t just a target of opportunity or a sudden impulse; it’s part of a strategic decision to expand the war.

Iran has been at war with us all along, because that’s what the world’s leading terror state does. The scariest thing about this moment is that the Iranians have convinced themselves that they are winning, and we are powerless to reverse the tide. As I reported here several months ago, Khamenei told his top people late last year that the Americans and Israelis are both politically paralyzed. Neither can take decisive action against Iran, neither can sustain prolonged conflict and significant casualties. Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader said, the terrorists are all working for Iran, and we will expand the terror war.

Don’t think for a moment that they worry about victims in Gaza or Lebanon. They are delighted to see Israel fighting on two fronts, because they will use the pictures from the battlefield to consolidate their hold over the fascist forces in the region. After a few days of fighting, I would not be surprised to see some new kind of terrorist attack against Israel, or against an American facility in the region. An escalation to chemical weapons, for example, or even the fulfillment of the longstanding Iranian promise to launch something nuclear at Israel. They meant it when they said it, don’t you know?

The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus, and they are not going to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can accomplish it.

Last week, President Mikheil Shaakashvili of free Georgia came to Washington and reminded us–not that it was much noticed — of America’s revolutionary mission. But President Bush heard it. “I just sent over to President Bush the letter that Georgian freedom fighters sent...seven years ago, and it never made it to the White House. It was intercepted by KGB and all the people who wrote it were shot,” Mr. Saakashvili said during a visit with the president in the Oval Office. “I'm sure lots of people out there in Korea (and he might well have added, Syria and Iran) are writing similar letters today. And I'm sure that those letters will, eventually, (arrive)...because that's a part of the freedom agenda that President Bush has and we strongly believe in.”

As do millions of Syrians and Iranians. And you know what? Millions of Arabs all over the Middle East do too. Give them a chance to fight for their freedom, as we did with the Georgians. The longer we dither, the more likely it becomes that we will sadly and unnecessarily find ourselves in a military confrontation of some sort, with all the terrible consequences that entails.

Faster, please. Your options are narrowing. You cannot escape the mullahs. You must either defeat them or submit to their terrible vision. There is no other way.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

 
Hey Mr. Majoor,

I'm all for the development of alternative fuel sources (in fact my leftist world would perferr the development of alternative energy sources period), and you are of course right on in that increasing the price will drive the development of these alternatives.

A quick google turns up both sides of the argument:

There is a view that it would be horrible:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/embargo-on-oil-too-costly-industry-chief-says/2006/01/15/1137259944361.html

And your view that there would be a temporary shock followed by an declination:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0327/p17s01-cogn.html
 
Lots of potential rotos coming up:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004317.html

The Wider War
Bill Whittle, in Strength (an essay from May 2004, you should read or read again); http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000099.html

Finally, consider this: Muslims are angrily at war with Buddhists in East Asia. Muslims are enraged with Animists in Africa. Of course, none of this approaches the sheer hatred that Muslims bear towards Hindus in the South Asia peninsula. And this foaming hatred blanches compared to the white-hot fury Muslims feel for the Christian American Crusaders. And this fury is but a candle to the incandescent, boiling, supernova of murder they feel toward the Jews.

Does anyone beside me detect a pattern here? You know, my Dad told me once, “Bill, if more than three people in your life are utter, total assholes, then maybe it’s you.”

Developments in the under-reported situation in Somalia; http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/07/20/africa/AF_GEN_Somalia.php

Ethiopian troops in armored vehicles rolled into Somali Thursday and set up a camp near the home of the interim president, residents said, less than a day after Islamic militants reached the outskirts of the base of a U.N.-backed, but largely powerless government.

A leader of the Islamic group controlling large parts of southern Somalia demanded that Ethiopian troops withdraw. "We will declare Jihad if the Ethiopian government refuses to withdraw their troops from Somalia. They must withdraw as soon as possible ... We will wait for some time to see if they respect our demands," Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed told The Associated Press.

A spokesman for the Ethiopian government had said that his country would protect Somalia's transitional government from attack by the Somali Islamic militias. Numerous witnesses told The AP that Ethiopian soldiers arrived Thursday afternoon in Baidoa, the only town held by the government, 240 kilometers (150 miles) northwest of Mogadishu and about 150 kilometers (100 miles) east of the Ethiopian border.

[...]

Militia loyal to Supreme Islamic Courts Union reached within 35 kilometers (20 miles) of Baidoa on Wednesday, prompting the government to go on high alert in anticipation of an attack. The militia was expected to pull back on Thursday, court officials said.

The Supreme Islamic Courts Council militia seized Mogadishu and most of the rest of southern Somalia last month and has shown signs of planning to install strict religious rule, sparking fears it was a Taliban-style regime. The U.S. has accused the militia of links to al-Qaida that include sheltering suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

 
I think that Jeffrey Simpson is suggesting that Islam may be on the verge of the sort of reformative ‘clash within a civilization’ which I believe is a necessary precursor to an enlightenment which, I believe again, is necessary if Islam is to exist at all, in the 22nd century, much less co-exist with anyone else.  (I say ‘I think’ because Simpson is, comme d’habitude, convoluted and obscure.)

Here is what he says in today’s Globe and Mail – reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060722.wcosimp0722/BNStory/Front/home
Can Islam co-exist with itself?

JEFFREY SIMPSON

The much-discussed clash of civilizations assists less in understanding the world than the clash within a civilization. Islam and other religions can co-exist; more troubling is whether Islam can co-exist with itself.

Just now, world attention focuses on another spasm of intense violence in the almost six-decade-long quarrel between Israel and some or all of its neighbours.

That quarrel, central to which is the apparently irreconcilable requirement of Israel's right to exist and the Palestinians' need for their own state, is but one manifestation of a worldwide debate/division within Islamic civilization. And that debate is about how Islam relates to other faiths and civilizations.

Conventionally, but wrongly, this debate is described as one between “moderates” and “terrorists” or “extremists” or “militants.” A multitude of shadings colours each word, not to mention the many strands of Islam from purist, astringent ones to sensuous Sufism. The greatest cleavage, between Sunnis and Shiites, is becoming even more intense.

Tensions almost everywhere in the Islamic world, often accompanied by violence, reveal the cross-cutting strands of Islam, at a minimum between those who wish to co-exist with other civilizations and those who do not. Some of these tensions, to be fair, are more about ethnicity and language than religious interpretation, as with the Kurds in Turkey. Other clashes within Islam are between civilizations, as between Persian Iran and Arab Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

In Southeast Asia, Islamic terrorist violence has marked Indonesia and the Philippines, while a militant form of Islam has infected northern Malaysia. In Thailand, Islamic groups have committed terrorist acts in the southernmost provinces, even though most Muslims there want no part of violence. Pakistan, a state created so the Muslims of British India could have their own country, remains internally riven by cleavages, many of them ethnic but some over how to marry Islam to the state. In Algeria, a purist Muslim group actually won an election, but the military annulled it. The fear of what a free election might produce is among the reasons why various Arab regimes won't organize elections, except sham ones.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban and its sympathizers continue to provoke instability, desiring to replace the government with one based on a ferociously intolerant interpretation of Islam. In the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas rejectionists (of Israel as a “Western” intrusion into an Islamic part of the world) battle with Fatah, a group that begrudgingly and belatedly became wedded to a “two state” solution. Lebanon is split not just between Christians and Muslims, but among Muslim communities, the splits having produced a confusing civil war and ongoing strife.

In sub-Saharan Africa, this same conflict appears between those Muslims who want to accommodate others and those who want to dictate to them, often violently. In Sudan, Muslim raiders kill black Africans, the “others,” in Darfur. In Somalia, Muslim warlords have just been replaced by a gang of Muslim purists.

No amount of political correctness can obscure the fact that, although not all terrorists are Muslims, many of them are. They organize themselves differently depending on circumstance, aim at different targets, pop up in different parts of the world. Like all fanatics, they purport to speak for the future and represent the people, especially those oppressed not only by colonial outsiders from another civilization but those within Islam who co-operate with the outsiders. Osama bin Laden typifies this dual rage.

In some (but not all) Western societies, this rage has inspired terrorist cells. Scattered mosques, imams and websites preach the purity of the faith and the threats to it from decadent Western civilization. Of course, these cells represent a tiny fragment of Islamic communities in Canada, the United States, Europe and Australia. But that police have broken up what they insist are terrorist cells in such peaceful countries as Canada and Australia illustrates that no nation can remain immune from this fight within Islamic civilization. It threatens us, as well as other Muslims.

Christendom featured ferocious doctrinal fights that shaped whole countries, inspired rebellions and revolutions, ignited wars that lasted decades — and also provoked a clash of civilization with the Ottomans, aboriginals, Africans, Hindus, Confucians and just about every other non-Christian group in the world. Think of the Christian countries of Europe racing to discover new lands, planting the cross of Christ, battling “others” in the name of one variation within the faith.

History suggests the battle within Islam — about interpreting the faith, applying it to government, directing how Muslim communities should relate to “others,” projecting hope for those without much of it, explaining the sorrows of the present by reference to a golden past, rationalizing lying and violence — will define our world for a very long time indeed.

jsimpson@globeandmail.com

His opening sentence is nonsense.  Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations is a highly successful and useful model precisely because it does explain what we see around us.  Simpson is correct that the clash with Islam deserves our attention.

I see several competing factions:

• The East Asians – probably already enlightened but under intense pressure to abandon their modern, tolerant, highly successful secular version of Islam and adopt the medieval Arab or equally medieval Persian versions;

• The Central and West Asians who have already abandoned secularism and modernity;

• Ditto the Persians;

• The Arabs – who never gave modernity a chance in any meaningful way, except, perhaps, in Egypt and Palestine in the ‘20s and ‘30s;

• The North-East Africans who are under the influence of the Arabs; and

• The North-West Africans who were, also, briefly, modern but are slipping/have slipped backwards.

I agree with Dr. Wafa Sultan – see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47695/post-414487.html#msg414487 – who says that the clash is between modernity and barbarism.  While I suspect that an overwhelming majority of individual Muslims in the Far East, Central and West Asia, Persia, Arabia and Africa want to be modern and to live modern, secular, albeit socially conservative lives – just like many, many North Americans – I believe that the intelligentsia throughout all those regions is equally or more committed to moving everyone back, waaaay back to an 8th century Middle Eastern paradise where people like them rule over everyone else.  I think Dr. Sultan’s provocative choice of the word barbarism is apt because the 8th century was a barbarous time throughout Europe, the Near East and West Asia – only South and East Asia were anything like civilized by any sensible definition of that word.

I agree with Simpson that it is only a tiny minority within Islam which is virulently anti-Western and advocates/uses terrorism to advance its cause - the problem is that the entire Muslim world is starved for information and opinion is easily swayed by the barbarous intelligentsia which controls most of the information flow; thus the terrorists are painted as heroes and martyrs and the people most Muslims want to emulate (that would be us) are made out to be monsters.  Propaganda works – even, maybe especially, the crude kind.

We need to turn Muslims, especially that tiny minority which is our declared enemy, inwards – we need to remind them that the battle is for the soul of Islam.

Then we need to arm and equip those who are not part of the barbarous intelligentsia and terrorist fellow travellers.  We need not be too careful about who we support and it should be practical, physical – never moral – support: arms and money.  These revolutionaries will not be our friends, much less our allies – they will not thank us and we should not act in any manner which deserves thanks.  Our aim is to turn the entire Islamic Crescent into a charnel house – for decades – in the hope that some faction which supports religious reformation will emerge powerful enough to start that process.  This is, as Simpson says, the work of generations.  I see it, as a start, as a new Thirty Years War (just as ferocious, too) followed, sometime later, by an enlightenment (which took us a century to accomplish).

I repeat: we are not at war against terror or even all terrorists.  After all we have used terror ourselves (what do you think Churchill meant when he said ”Set Europe ablaze” – was he going to invite the Germans to a fall festival complete with bonfires?) and we have decorated our own Canadian terrorists who served in SOE.  We are at war with some movements which, generally, share a few Characteristics: they are Islamic, they crave the barbarous medieval and reject the modern, they are intolerant – they are fundamentalists who believe, firmly, that they and only they are ‘right’ and, by and large, they are Arabic or Persian by ‘culture’.

The way to defang them, in the short term, is to turn them against the rest of the Islamic world.  The only way to defeat them is to force them to defeat one another until the horrors of internecine war requires them to reform and enlighten themselves.

It is a pity but I am convinced t is the only rational long term plan.
 
If government is about governing, limiting - a governor is not only a person it is an inanimate object that prevents an engine from being operated at its maximum, unsustainable limit and instead limits the engine to operations in a sustainable, comfortable zone - then government's primary function is not to defend its subjects but to control its subjects.

It controls its subjects to their benefit otherwise it doesn't long keep their support.

It also controls its subjects to the benefit of their neighbours.  By keeping the neighbours happy then it leaves the subjects free to continue their daily life unhindered.  I have heard and used the analogy of:  bear on a chain, bear in a cage, bear in a zoo, bear in a park or bear at large - which one is free?  None is completely free because their ability to act is always constrained or governed.  Even if the bear is unaware of it actions have consequences.  A bear at large, a free bear, killing a person is likely to end up dead at the hand of a government in which it has no active participation.

The role of the government then becomes that of agent to negotiate the greatest degree of freedom for its subjects in consultation with their neighbours's governing agent.

An acceptable and successful government is one that negotiates that goal and maintains that state of affairs.

However, people being who they are, no government can be sure that every person within the boundaries they claim will support their decisions - even if the majority does.  Equally they can't be sure that every person within their boundaries will accept the limits that have been negotiated with the neighbours and accepted by the subjects of the government.  At that point, for a government to maintain credibility both with its neighbours and its own subjects which have, perhaps reluctanctly, accepted the need for limits and restrictions, it must be able to act against those that oppose it.

When persuasion and bribery don't work then coercion is left.  The government needs coercive power and needs to be willing to use it against its own subjects. 

In the english speaking world we have become used to splitting soldiers from police.  Soldiers face external enemies and are allowed a freer hand with deadly force.  Once upon a time it was virtually an ungoverned use.  Police face internal enemies and are tightly controlled as to how they can conduct there activities.  This is necessary because if the government gives its agents a free hand with deadly force is not likely to maintain the support of the subjects for long.

And yet, at the same time, that deadly force must be deployed within borders.  The government and its agents will not be popular with the people being subjected.  Ultimately though it must prevail otherwise its credibility with the neighbours and its supportive subjects, hopefully the majority, will be damaged or destroyed.  At that point either chaos prevails or the neighbours take a hand in matters and try to sort things out themselves.  Thus Lebanon and Afghanistan, part of the old USSR, not to mention most of Africa and now Iraq.

It seems that there are already ample destabilizing forces at play that we don't need or want to create more. 

What we do need, IMHO, is to create more stabiliizing forces capable of exerting control, but, that are also capable of garnering the support of their subjects and also the acquiescence if not support, of their neighbours.  Afghanistan is a great model in this regard and frankly Iraq is having to fight its way down the same path.  My Scottish Ancestors of which you have all heard too much, did not come easily or willingly to the Enlightenment that lead them to help create the modern institutions that govern Canada, the US, Britain, Australia, India and many more.  They were beaten over the head for many centuries before they saw the light.  Some will no doubt say that that is typically Scottish tendency.  Anybody else would only have taken decades to come to the same conclusion.

Governing is never going to be popular.  Policing still less so.  When police are confronted by subjects that won't be subjects then Soldiering is required. 

The only question that remains is who is going to do the Governing, Policing and Soldiering.  Is it going to be done by the community or by the neighbours?  If it is done by the neighbours against the wishes of the community history suggests that that solution won't last for long.  If it is done by the community, acting against itself, there is the risk of the policing not being accepted.  They and the government can stand accused of toadying to the neighbours.  Ultimately Civil War is a possibility.  Again we can look at Lebanon,  Afghanistan and Iraq.  However, once those battles have been fought, once a level of acceptance and acquiescence is achieved then those communities, like Britain and the US become relatively stable. At least until generations pass and history is forgotten.

We don't need to foment more instability.  What we would be better doing is doing more of what is being done in Afghanistan and frankly what has been done successfully in the Gulf States.  I am thinking particularly of Oman.  As well you might consider Jordan.

Oman in the 60's and 70's was as backward as Afghanistan.  It was ripe for destabilisation to the possible advantage of Russia just as happened in Aden and Yemen. Destabilisation doesn't guarantee control of the outcome.  The solution to Oman was to have the modern son overthrow the mediaeval father, thereby keeping bloodlines and belief-systems intact but setting the stage for a different approach to governance that ultimately allowed the new Sultan to gather and maintain enough support from his own population that he found people willing to tackle their fellow subjects and bring them into line with the will of the majority.  The Sultan's Army and Police were trained, and supported and often accompanied by foreigners (Brits) but ultimately they created their own free-standing institutions.  Jordan was a similar situation. 

Those that might argue that Jordan, Oman and Malaysia are unsuccessful solutions because there is continuing unrest and continuing use of coercion, not to mention bribery and persuasion, to maintain stability might give a thought to the fact that even in Canada, the US and my homeland of Scotland unrest continues.  Strikes happen.  Blockades happen.  Insurrection happens (how else to describe Caledonia, Gustafsen Lake, Ipperwash and Oka or riots in Montreal, Seattle, Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago, or those of the Thatcher era).  Governing constantly requires active policing and occasionally soldiering.

And once in a while the neighbours have to be reminded by soldiers to keep their noses out of the affairs of others.

I don't think that the willy-nilly fomentation of chaos is going to get where we need to be.  I think that we are going to have to do something much harder.  Forego the notion of allowing people to pick their own governments unhindered by the wishes of the neighbours.  We have to make people understand that the government is as much a creature of the neighbours as it is the domestic population.

That means that we actively get involved in selecting governors and saying that these governors of yours and these policies of yours are acceptable to us.  These ones aren't.  Pick who you like but if your pick presents a threat to us and ours, either by commission or by negligent omission, then be aware that we will take matters into our own hands.

If your lawn isn't being maintained to the standards of the neighbourhood and is devaluing our property the we will require you to cut the lawn, or we will cut it for you.

The solution is not in creating chaos.  It is in creating order with the lightest possible hand.

 
Wether you agree with Edward or not, the conditions for a "Thirty Years War" already exists inside South West Asia. there are three major competing visions for regional hegemony in the area, Shia Theocracy, Wahhabi theocracy and secular Ba'athist rule. The Ba'athists have received a severe body blow from OIF but are still active and in control of Syria, the Shia theocrats are working towards nuclear weapons and a regional "strike force" in the Hezbollah, while the Wahhabi's have spread their venom across East Africa, inside Pakistan and Afghanistan, and are making inroads in Indonesia and yes, the West as well.

In crude terms, the Shia theocrats (Persians) are in the lead, with a powerful State apparatus and concentration of forces. The Ba'athists still have potential, given their control of a Syria and all the advantages of having access to the power of the State, but are currently handmaidens to Iran in a marriage of convenience. The Saudi Wahhabists have the advantage of global dispersion, so will have to be rooted out through a wide arc of the world, a daunting task for the West, much less the Iranians.

Although a "vulture" strategy of allowing South West Asia to implode and picking up the pieces seems superficially advantageous, historical analogies suggest otherwise. We already know the nations of "Old Europe" were double dealing with Ba'athist Iraq in terms of nuclear technology in the 1970's, The United States played off Iraq and Iran in an attempt to reach equilibrium, and Old Europe and Russia were into "Oil for Food" in the 1990's. We also know China is seeking ties with Iran as a way of securing access to oil. Like it or not, these nation's entanglements have the potential of intensifying the wars as they support their favorites, as well as creating potential expansions of the conflict(s) as the Imperial sponsors are tempted to intervene directly to shore up their positions or take advantage of their opponent's weakness.

The other disadvantage of the "vulture" strategy is Darwinian selection. The eventual victors will be the most adaptable, vicious and intelligent group left, and there is no grantee they will be the harbingers of the "Enlightenment". It is far more probable they will carry out the "Counter reformation" instead, with even worse consequences for Islam, that region of the world and Western Civilization.
 
So what's the ultimate outcome? One of the three win out, with or without the "wests'" help and that leaves a radical Islamic force (for want of a better word) and the "west" . Do they then go toe to toe or is it going to be like the cold war where each side used proxies?
 
Wether you agree with Edward or not, the conditions for a "Thirty Years War" already exists inside South West Asia.

Agreed entirely although given that the recalcitrants have been exchanging bullets with the modernists since before colonial days ended (would Kemal Ataturk's revolution in Turkey in the 1920's be a useful starting point?) perhaps we should be thinking longer term than that.  The Dutch had their 80 years war with Spain and the French had their Hundred (115 actually but at some point it probably seems futile to continue counting) with the English.  By that standard we are already past the Dutch Wars which included the 30 years war.

The game's still to play for.  I am betting the Bank of England will win this one.  Not necessarily it directly but the secret to British Hegemony was the Bank of England.   The Spanish played the Dutch by the old rules of cash on hand.  When they ran out of gold the Dutch won.  The Brits beat all comers since 1698 with the power of the Bank of England and debt financing. They paid other people to do their fighting on land in the 18th century while they seized the seas. Ever since Britain has fought wars, gone into debt, struggled with bankruptcy, especially during World War 2 but ultimately it has been able to prosecute the wars it chose.  They have just paid off World War 2 and are in fairly good shape to support another.

The American's using the same system have even deeper pockets.

I am betting that ultimately this will come done to whoever America backs - answer in the next decade or so.
 
Rather than take on all comers (a mugs game if there ever was one), we can slip in and upset the applecart in Aikido or Judo fashion by supporting selected players (even if they are not notionally on our side, self preservation goes a long way in those parts ofg the world):

http://article.nationalreview.com/

Let’s Be Friends with Syria
It would drive the Iranians crazy.

By James S. Robbins

Let’s begin with a quote: “The operations of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon are in the interest of people of Arab countries and the international community.” If someone in the U.S. wrote that it would be dismissed as some kind of far-out pro-Israel propaganda. But since it was written by Ahmed Al-Jarallah, editor-in-chief of the Arab Times, it is a bit harder to disregard. Mr. al-Jarallah is know for being a bit sensationalistic at times, but his editorial, entitled “No to Syria, Iran Agents,” is noteworthy for stating a usually unspoken truth — that there are limits to what can be justified under the banner of “resistance to Israeli aggression.” Hamas and Hezbollah may wave the bloody short, but they are simply tools in the hands of Damascus and Tehran, both working other agendas.

If Hamas and Hezbollah (not to mention their sponsors) believed they could count on the unquestioned and reflexive support of the Arab world in their recent clashes with Israel, they were clearly mistaken. The divisions began to emerge at the Cairo conference of Arab foreign ministers shortly after the start of the Israeli offensive. Arab unity — a difficult proposition at any time — began turning into open division. The countries siding against Hezbollah included Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, and the Fatah wing of the Palestinian Authority. On the other side, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and Algeria. Hamas, not present, could also be put in this group, as could Iran, naturally.

What we see are the outlines of a new international alignment in the Middle East. The states critical of Hezbollah see the group as at best an uncontrollable menace to regional stability, and at worst the leading agent of Iranian influence. The opposition to what in the past would have been a pro-forma blanket condemnation of Israel took some countries by surprise, and a motion to hold another meeting to discuss the crisis was defeated by its original supporters for fear of exacerbating this disunity.

Concern over the potential of Iranian regional hegemony is partly inspired by realist politics — would you want your crazy neighbor to get his hands on a nuclear weapon? But it is also a function of fear of the spread of Shiite influence into traditionally Sunni-dominated areas. This was the point that King Abdallah II of Jordan made in December 2004 when he noted the emergence of a “Shiite crescent” ranging from Iran to Lebanon. The antipathy between the two major Muslim sects should not be underestimated. In some ways it is a deeper division than between Muslims and Jews, because someone of another faith is simply deluded while a Muslim who is part of a rival sect is an apostate, someone who has no excuse and who should know better. Unbelievers should be converted, but apostates must be killed.

Thus while the Jewish state rains air strikes down on “the Party of God,” Saudi establishment cleric Shaykh Abdallah Bin-Jibrin has issued a fatwa addressing the question, "Is It Permissible to Support the So-Called Rafidi [Shiite] Hizballah?" His answer: a resounding no. One cannot join Hezbollah, lend support to Hezbollah, or even pray to God for Hezbollah’s success. “Our advice to Sunnis,” he writes, “is to disown [the Shiites] and disown anyone who might join them… Anyone who might support them is nothing but one of them. God has said 'They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you who turns to them (for friendship) is of them'."

Syria is the lynchpin of the equation. It is the main transit route for Hezbollah’s materiel support, and it serves the same role for insurgents and supplies headed for Iraq. Since February 2005 Syria and Iran have been openly allied. Though three-fourths Sunni and a Baathist dictatorship, the common interests and common enemies of these two countries more than make up for their religious and ideological differences.

I have long thought that the time was ripe for a diplomatic opening to Syria. Bashar Assad should be offered the same deal as Muamar Khadaffi — basically, stop doing things that annoy us, get rid of your WMD and missile programs, and you can be our friend. And it is good to be our friend, particularly if you are a dictator seeking to avoid regime change. This deal should have been pursued long ago, coincident with the same move by Libya. Alas, we went another way, and since Syria had few allies in the region, Damascus was forced towards Tehran. But it is never too late to sell out an ally, and unless the dictator gene skips a generation, Assad the younger will eventually realize that aligning with Iran only further isolates and weakens his regime.

The current crisis presents the United States with a great opportunity. This conflict is only partly about disarming Hezbollah according to the dictates of UNSCR 1559 or 1583. It is also only partly about Iran using the crisis to divert attention from their nuclear program. It is most significant for exposing the emerging order, the new lineup of states united in opposing Iranian regional hegemony. Splitting off Iran’s most important regional ally and rendering impotent its most dangerous terrorist surrogate group would constitute a major defeat for the Iranians in their drive to extend their influence across the Middle East. Hopefully our diplomats will be clever enough to see the contest in those geopolitical terms and not enter the fray believing that they will have achieved final success if they broker some kind of ceasefire. For Hezbollah, “ceasefire” is just another word for “reload,” and Iran has plenty of ammunition.

— James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation, and author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Picket and the Goats of West Point. Robbins is also an NRO contributor.



 
Back
Top