The Iranians are coming

As the Obama Administration works to promote its version of socialist democratic rule at home, the Islamic Republic of Iran is looking to expand its power base in the Middle East. Without a doubt, the President Obama's long-time opposition to our efforts in Iraq and his stated intent to lessen our footprint in the region is having an effect: it is signaling to our enemies that we are not serious in our opposition to those who wish to destroy the United State and Israel. Of course, Obama is among those who believe that the U.S. presence in the Middle East is part of the problem, not the solution -- so this should come as no surprise. For years the left's opposition to our presence in Iraq was based principally on the notion that we were making things worse -- an occupying force, rather than an army of liberation -- and that if we would "just leave", the forces of evil that were routinely blowing up children and civilians would retreat back into the shadows. It is the single animating theory of liberal non-interventionism: America's values (liberty and democracy) are no better than any others, we have no business trying to promote it abroad, and the use of force in their defense is never justified.

This kind of world view will lead quickly to a power vacuum where one can least be afforded. From Egypt to Syria, Lebanon to Israel, Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the message being sent is that the United States is in retreat. As Amir Taheri wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, the Islamic Republic of Iran is preparing actively to fill the void:

Convinced that the Obama administration is preparing to retreat from the Middle East, Iran's Khomeinist regime is intensifying its goal of regional domination. It has targeted six close allies of the U.S.: Egypt, Lebanon, Bahrain, Morocco, Kuwait and Jordan, all of which are experiencing economic and/or political crises.

The move of Iran into the vacuum of American isolationism is calculated policy by those who run Iran -- which is trying now to portray the country as a "rising superpower" in the region, with the United States being the "sunset power" in decline, seeking to remove its troops from Iraq while seeking an acceptable exit strategy for Afghanistan. As Taheri notes, the message is "The Americans are going, and we (Iran) are coming".

And why should this not be an effective message -- with it increasingly clear that the U.S. government has been taken over by the Pelosi radicals who reject the notion of America exceptionalism, and an Obama administration that is so clearly in love with the idea of diplomacy? Gone is the Bush-era certainty that American foreign policy stands for the "liberty doctrine" of spreading democracy and freedom -- even it it requires confronting evil with force. In its place now is the nuance the left craves, with talking-heads from the UN, Europe and other multi-lateral institutions trying to find some fictitious "common ground" with a revolutionary regime that wants to remake the world in its image. It's a case of naivete meeting wishful thinking.

Taheri quotes a senior Lebanese political leader as saying "There is this perception that the new U.S. administration is not interested in the democratization strategy". As he notes in the conclusion of his piece:

"That perception only grows as President Obama calls for an "exit strategy" from Afghanistan and Iraq. "Power abhors a vacuum, which the Islamic Republic of Iran is only too happy to fill."

Where have you gone, Tony Blair?

Tony Blair gave a speech yesterday to the Council on Global Affairs. Almost to the day ten years previously,in April 1999, Blair spoke to the same group and laid out his ideas on "liberal interventionism". At the time you may remember, NATO was actively engaged in deposing Slobodan Milosoevic in the former Yugoslavia.  The attacks on 9/11 and the war in Iraq were still to come, of course, but Blair understood then -- as he does now -- that there are cases when military intervention is necessary to defend our interests. His concept of interventionism was the basis for Blair's steadfast support of the war in Iraq in 2003, and remains a key concept in his morally-centered vision of foreign policy. In a foreign policy establishment that has recently been taken over by idealists and apologists, Blair's view reminds me of how much I miss this courageous statesman on the world's stage. It is worth reading some of Blair's speech yesterday -- courtesy of the Wall Street Journal. It lays out clearly a view of the threat of Islamic radicalism that I completely agree with, and the importance of being resolute in combating it.  It is also the antithesis of Barack Obama's personality-driven foreign policy, where the power of Obama's simple presence is supposed to tame dictators and despots into "seeing the light".

"President Obama's reaching out to the Muslim world at the start of a new American administration is welcome, smart, and can play a big part in defeating the threat we face. It disarms those who want to say we made these enemies, that if we had been less confrontational they would have been different. It pulls potential moderates away from extremism.

But it will expose, too, the delusion of believing that there is any alternative to waging this struggle to its conclusion. The ideology we are fighting is not based on justice. That is a cause we can understand. And world-wide these groups are adept, certainly, at using causes that indeed are about justice, like Palestine. Their cause, at its core, however, is not about the pursuit of values that we can relate to; but in pursuit of values that directly contradict our way of life. They don't believe in democracy, equality or freedom. They will espouse, tactically, any of these values if necessary. But at heart what they want is a society and state run on their view of Islam. They are not pluralists. They are the antithesis of pluralism. And they don't think that only their own community or state should be like that. They think the world should be governed like that.

In other words, there may well be groups, or even Governments, that can be treated with, and with whom we can reach an accommodation. Negotiation and persuasion can work and should be our first resort. If they do, that's great, which is why if Hamas were to accept the principle of a peaceful two state solution, they could be part of the process agreeing it [sic]. But the ideology, as a movement within Islam, has to be defeated. It is incompatible not with "the West" but with any society of open and tolerant people and that in particular means the many open and tolerant Muslims."

This should be required reading in the salons of Europe, the halls of the UN and the corridors of the White House. It is critical for our security that we are able to speak openly and honestly about the nature of the threats arrayed against us. Diplomacy has its place, but comes with very real limits when interests, values and ideology are diametrically opposed. And while the left may believe that we can find some "rapport" and "accommodation" with Islamic radicals who seek to create an Islamic world, the reality is that this is a clash of civilizations that will have only one winner.

It is "us" or "them". This Blair understands. Pity that our president doesn't get it.

Shooting blanks

It is April 2010. Islamic terrorists have been caught attempting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New York with sophisticated high-explosives. The plot was recently uncovered by the CIA, and the FBI and New York law enforcement officials foiled the attempt to destroy the bridge in progress. Two of the terrorists committed suicide when caught, but two others were captured before they could explode their suicide vests. In the ensuing hours, the NSA picked up chatter indicating that one or more additional attacks were underway somewhere on the Eastern seaboard of the United States -- though when and where could not be ascertained. The two terrorists caught are immediately transported to an FBI holding cell. Using the tight rules for interrogation that the Obama administration has decreed, the FBI attempts to get them to tell authorities the operational details of the impending attacks. Neither will talk.  Interrogators are stymied by the fact that these terrorists know that the Obama administration has banned any enhanced interrogation techniques and they only need to stay silent. They do so, refusing to talk. As the clock ticks, Federal authorities raise the Homeland Security threat level and hope for the best -- knowing that they can do little to gain the information needed to prevent the additional attacks from happening.

Sound far fetched? Hardly. This is very real possibility that America could face in the future. The Obama administration has now created a situation where it has not only publicly banned the use of enhanced interrogation, but has made it abundantly clear that those officials who might -- in a moment of crisis -- issue an order to obtain information through the use of such techniques will be subject to future prosecution once the emergency has passed. In this environment, no one will be willing to cross any lines to ensure that we obtain the intelligence necessary to save American lives. The Justice Department will have issued directives making it clear that there is no gray area in questioning terrorist suspects, and that not even the "smoking gun" scenario that administration critics have warned about is justification for the use of harsh interrogation techniques. We have chosen our democratic values over our security, and it has been made clear that this is not a choice that is subject to interpretation. Terrorists get some hot coffee, a warm bed to sleep in and a government provided attorney. And the rest of us suffer the consequences.

This is a scenario that Barack Obama should think long and hard about. He needs to understand that the threat from Islamic terrorism remains grave, and that we need all the tools at our disposal to ensure our safety. Former CIA Director George Tenet and current National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair have made it clear that the now-banned interrogation techniques were extremely effective in gathering actionable intelligence that has saved American lives. We have now unilaterally disarmed ourselves in the fight against an existential terrorist threat -- like going into battle against AK-47 assault rifles with a single-shot pellet gun. Hardly a fair fight.

The real issue here is that the decision not to provide immunity to those who approve the use of enhanced interrogation when the nation is under threat will have a chilling effect in the future. It will now be impossible to find anyone to recommend, approve or execute any technique that will create personal legal jeopardy. Even with a smoking gun or impending attack, Obama has tied the nation's hands. We are now shooting blanks.

Barack Obama, you may think you are the most moral man in America, above reproach and without any doubt of your wisdom. But someday it may be you who personally has to issue an order you have deemed illegal, because there is no one in the chain of command who is willing to do it for you. And it might be you who has to get face-to-face with a terrorist in order to glean the information you know will save American lives, because no interrogator will do more than ask for name, rank and serial number.

And if you cross the line, Mr. President, you might find a president in the future instructing the Justice Department to investigate you for breaking the law.

You should be careful what you wish for, Mr. President.

Obama in wonderland

We've long known that Barack Obama is a man for whom image is everything. His appearances are carefully scripted down to the last detail,from the backdrop behind him during speeches to the adoring crowds at the front nearest the podium. He is coiffed and elegant, married to his teleprompter and ever-conscious of every utterance he makes. Barack Obama is the nation's actor-in-chief -- playing the role of American idealist, a role he is certain that will make America (and himself) more popular in the eyes of the world. But will it make us safer? This is the key question, because it is now apparent that our national security policy is now based not on the hard tactics of counter-terrorism, but on our popularity. This is now clear after his recent "apology tour" through Europe, and his glad-handing of dictators at the Americas Summit last week, where he allowed the prestige of his office to be downgraded to the likes of Hugo Chavez. And now, with the release of the "torture memos" that detail Bush administration interrogation techniques, Mr. Obama has now made it clear that he'd rather be popular than be safe.

Barack Obama and his administration are now on a quest to show once and for all that America seeks redemption for past "sins" after 9/11 where (in the president's words) "we lost our moral way". In doing so, he has now unleashed the furor of the left and the partisan attack dogs in Congress, and you can expect endless hearings and show trials to bring former Bush administration officials to account for their crimes. And what crimes are these? Endeavoring to keep the nation safe after a series of coordinated terrorist attacks on American soil that killed over 3,000 innocent Americans.

Some crime that is.

The decision to release these interrogation memos -- while leaving open the possibility of prosecuting the Bush administration lawyers who wrote them -- is based on a core belief that such actions before the court of world public opinion will make us safer. As Dorothy Rabinowitz points out today in the Wall Street Journal, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on last Sunday's "This Week" that the White House is being guided by "higher concerns" than whether or not our past interrogation techniques yielded important intelligence that saved American lives. Rather, we are seeking to elevate our image in the eyes of the world and improve our status with the terrorists who want to destroy us. As Rabinowitz says:

"This would undermine al Qaeda, Mr. Emanuel explained, because those interrogations of ours helped to enlist terrorists to their cause. All of which was why the publication of the memos -- news of which would presumably touch the hearts of militants around the world -- would make America safer."

Thus in Obama's world, some quid-pro-quo actually exists with terrorists who behead their captives and wantonly commit mass murder against innocent civilians. This is the "blowback" school of thought -- that we have brought terrorism upon ourselves because of our hubris, our aggressive nature, our imperialist foreign policy, or our willingness to use loud music and cold temperatures in questioning detainees we've captured on the battlefield. This is the idealism of the left -- and Obama has now taken American national security smack into the middle of it. If it makes you feel better to take some moral high ground on this issue, fine. But don't delude yourself into thinking that it makes us safer. Al Qaeda and its minions hated us before "enhanced interrogation" and will hate us long after we become more popular in the court of world public opinion.

As I have written many times before, Islamic fundamentalism is an ideology that seeks our total destruction so that a world Islamic order can be formed. It isn't a popularity contest -- it is a clash of civilizations and a battle for our very future. And even more importantly, it is a battle where our enemy preys on our every weakness -- like our belief that we can talk our way into some accommodation with them. You can bet that somewhere in a cave on the Af-Pak border, Osama Bin Laden is laughing out loud at his good fortune to now have Barack Obama in the White House. Bin Laden and his ilk know the folly of what we have now embarked on. While it may make us feel better to have our values front and center, it also makes us weaker. And we are more vulnerable because of it.

We are now officially in Wonderland, headed down the rabbit-hole into a world that is actually well-known to us. We saw it in the 199os when we treated terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. We saw it in the first WTC attack in 1993, the Kenyan Embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers attack and the bombing of the USS Cole. We saw it all during the Clinton years, when we were popular but also vulnerable. Well before the first use of "enhanced interrogation", our enemies were working to destroy us. We've seen this all before.

Through his looking glass, Barack Obama apparently believes that past is not prelude, choosing to bet our security that we can be both popular and safe.

In Wonderland, of course, anything is possible.

America is better than Utopia, Mr. President

Utopian visions have stirred men’s souls at least since the time of the ancient Greeks. The philosopher Plato unmasked the folly and the evil of all such schemes in his famous "Republic." He did not merely criticize a current tendency but a perennial human temptation. President Barack Obama is a utopian who believes that there are no limits to what can be done with political power. In contrast to the United States Constitution, the powers of which James Madison described as "few and defined," the ideological goal of the current administration is "transforming" the human condition.

Not content with equality in political rights and economic opportunities, Obama seeks to redistribute the wealth. To this end, he means to increase the income tax on the most productive and eliminate it for the least productive. By simultaneously commandeering votes with groups like ACORN, he will ensure that those who pay no taxes will access the money of those who do.

Obama has shown no respect for the law of nature that persons of the opposite sex alone should be married, that marriage should be upheld as a vital institution, or that unborn children should not be wantonly slaughtered. That is why he equivocates on same-sex marriage, ended restrictions on federal money for abortions overseas and for embryonic stem cell research, and supports legislation to end all restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

In perhaps the biggest conceit of all, our President actually says that he can negotiate with the world’s most aggressive dictatorships and make them see the wisdom of restraining their military ambitions. Iran and North Korea somehow will stop producing nuclear bombs and missiles, the Taliban and Hamas will see the error of their ways, and Hugo Chavez, Danny Ortega and even the Castros will change their opinion of us.

Obama pledged during the campaign to cut back on nuclear weapons unilaterally and has repeated the pledge recently. He says that our moral leadership will show the rogue nations of the world that we mean them no harm and that we can develop common interests.

The only sensible response to socialism at home and ill-conceived peace missions abroad is to point out that "there is nothing new under the sun." There will always be persons--and nations--who envy the success of others, blaming others rather than themselves. What talents they do possess they turn to tearing down others’ achievements. Socialism, as Winston Churchill so sagely remarked, produces nothing and makes people equal in their misery.

Mankind is certainly capable of improvements, as our ancestors showed when they founded the freest nation in the history of the world. But the enemies of the American Constitution, foreign and domestic, stretch the limits of human nature and wind up making things infinitely worse with socialism, communism and fascism.

The task of each generation of Americans is to elect leaders who understand that we are better off buying and selling with each other, in our neighborhoods or across national boundaries, than trusting governments to determine who should benefit from its power to redistribute the wealth through taxing and spending.

Those same leaders need to follow the maxim of Alexander Hamilton that nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests. Although the most reliable friends are those with a common heritage of liberty, we should never imagine that American independence can coexist with the fiction of a "community of nations." Many nations are as envious of our freedom, wealth and power as the least successful among us are of the most successful.

It is not in the character of the United States to be belligerent toward the world, but neither should it procrastinate while threats build up to such a degree that we lack the will and the means to counteract them and we are forced to wage defensive war, as we did in 1917 and 1941.

And certainly no America President should ever apologize abroad for policy differences with his predecessors, not to mention frivolously gloss over the great divide that separates the majority of Americans who embrace the Judaeo-Christian tradition and those who adhere to Islamic doctrines. For whatever Christians may have done in the Arab world a thousand years ago, there are no modern-day Christian equivalents of the violent Muslim minority that has declared war on the "Infidel."

Obama cannot legislate inequalities away or make the lion lay down with the lamb. Indeed, it is better for us to trade, as civilized nations do, than to seize wealth by force, as barbarians do. Meanwhile, we must always keep our guard up.