Chickenhawk in Chief

Barack Obama scored big points during the 2008 campaign by reminding voters of his opposition to the war in Iraq in 2002 (when he was an Illinois State Senator without an actual vote). He called it "Bush's war of choice" and repeatedly spoke of its folly; later, as a United States Senator in 2006 and 2007, he voted against the Bush "surge" and consistently called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. At the same time, in an obvious effort to push his "tough on terrorism" credentials, Obama repeatedly criticized Bush for ignoring the all-important war in Afghanistan, and made it clear that as president, he would finish the job of destroying Al Qaeda there. "Afghanistan is a war of necessity, not of choice" he has said many times. Many conservatives (myself included) always suspected that Obama was using Afghanistan as a cudgel with which to beat Bush (and McCain) around the head and shoulders on the unpopular war in Iraq -- a calculated political move that was more about getting elected than it was about really winning in Afghanistan. Back in February when I was a guest on a John Andrews' talk show Backbone Radio, I talked about Obama's emerging foreign policy as one of "valuespolitik". When I was asked about Obama's plans for Afghanistan, I made the comment then that I believed Obama would never allow a growing war in Afghanistan to get in the way of his domestic agenda -- making the comparison to how LBJ tried to manage the war in Vietnam so as not to destroy his "Great Society" programs. Obama would temporize, stall, delay and find some reason to abandon the war, because it is clear that the fierce opposition to the war from Obama's left-wing political base would make having "guns and butter" not possible -- particularly for this president with his grand plans to remake American society.

I never saw making such a prediction as going out on a limb, of course, because I always saw Obama as a "chickenhawk" -- someone who talks tough about military action but never puts himself (or his interests) in the cross-hairs. I always knew that Obama's true goals were redistributionist, and that his primary objective was (and is) to remake America in a "kinder, gentler" image that removes the rough edges in favor of a safer place for union members, ACORN supporters and others needing protection from the jungle of American capitalism. Obama-the-opportunist used tough talk on Afghanistan to convince the American people into believing that he was up to the job. Like everything else in his campaign, it was pure manipulation.

But posturing never stands up to reality, and this month events on the ground in Afghanistan are going to push Obama to making a real decision on Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal was sent to Afghanistan to develop a "Patraeus-style" counterinsurgency plan, and to come back with a recommendation (and request) for the forces he needs to be successful. He has now done so. But based on comments made over the weekend by Obama on his round-robin of talk show appearances, the president is now hesitating on his commitment to finishing even the "war of necessity". My bet is that he will use the compromised Afghan national elections of the past two weeks to make a case for pulling back -- and that he will find some "middle-ground" approach that will reduce the number of troops in favor of reliance on "high-tech" weapons like pilot-less drones, cruise missiles and the like. An "offshore" war fighting strategy.

Leslie Gelb has an interesting take on Obama and Afghanistan in the Wall Street Journal this morning entitled "Obama's Befuddling Afghan Strategy". Gelb is no conservative, and supported Obama in the 2008 election. He seems to be confused by Obama's flip-flop on support for the mission in Afghanistan, though he also clearly understands that Obama's left-wing base wants an immediate withdrawal. "Americans are now confused and caught somewhere between remembering the president's insistence on Afghanistan's importance to U.S. security and rapidly rising pressure from his party to bring the troops home." For Gelb, however, "the president's failure in Afghanistan would be America's failure, and we cannot allow this to happen."

It is good that someone on the left understands that central point -- but it gives me little confidence that the president will not let our efforts in Afghanistan go down the proverbial rat hole. Temporizing on Afghanistan would be just like Obama-the-chickenhawk. And it is exactly what we should expect from a president who seeks accommodation with Iran, Russia and other states who manifestly do NOT have our interests at heart. Obama said he wanted to "reset" our relations with the rest of the world and he is certainly doing so. We are now forsaking our friends and embracing our enemies, and are now on the verge of abandoning a critical component of the war on terror.

That certainly is change -- but not the kind I can believe in.

Iran's election shows Obama is a lot like Bush

Barack Obama apparently has more in common with his reviled predecessor, George W. Bush, than anyone on the left would like to believe. We've seen, of course, some grounding in Obama's national security policy since the election that has prompted him -- and other Democrats -- to maintain many of the Bush era's tactical policies in the war on terror (oops -- I meant "the fight against man-made disasters".) And while it true that he has recently sidled left on many issues -- releasing Gitmo detainees to Bermuda and Palau so that they can bask in the sun, for example -- the Obama administration has not gone nearly as far in rolling back the Bush national security regime than the left-wing base of the party has wanted. But the Obama administration's response to the Iranian elections shows a different kind of "Bushism", one that is less about policy and more about temperament and judgment. It seems that Obama's tepid response to the protests and the obvious fraud in the results may be a response to the president's simple inability to adjust his strategy to new information on the ground. As Robert Kagan writes in the Washington Post today, Obama has a plan for dealing with Iran, and it is based on having a stable leadership in place:

One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."

This approach had always been a key element of a "grand bargain" with Iran. The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal. The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism.

It would be surprising if Obama departed from this realist strategy now, and he hasn't...Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.

So it appears that the tail (Obama's original strategy of engaging Iran's hard-line government in diplomacy) is now wagging the dog -- namely the unprecedented grass-roots democratic movement that is collectively risking life and limb on the streets of Tehran. The goal of the U.S. government should be to encourage and empower true democracy in Iran -- not to legitimize the totalitarian Islamic regime that is in power. By the luck of the Iranian regime's sheer arrogance, that opportunity now exists. But Obama is too vested in his original course of action to change, and can't seem to see that a new approach might now be warranted. He's following a strategy that is almost certain to fail; most people can clearly see that the prospects of real progress with the theocracy in Iran is poor at best. It's a double down on a bad hand.

The parallels with Bush in Iraq in 2005-2006 are striking. During the height of the insurgency and the sectarian strife that followed, Bush stuck far too long with the failed "attrition" strategy of Gens. Abizaid and Casey, preferring to double down on a bad hand of his own. The tactics of the American military in Iraq were clearly not working; month-after-month the evidence was coming in that things were getting worse and not better. Bush knew that his strategy in Iraq was failing, and yet seemed paralyzed to make the kind of strong, decisive decision to change that he was known for. Not until early 2007 did the surge take root with real changes in tactics, strategy and personnel.  For far too long, Bush didn't have the judgment and temperament to look closely at the results of his previous policies.  The result was that the successful surge of 2007-2008 could have likely been done earlier,  in 2004-2005, with much better results for both America and Iraq.

Obama is in the midst of a similar paralysis; he needs a "surge" on Iran, but he is afraid to tear up his script. His policy of "negotiating without preconditions" with Iran is a cornerstone of his foreign policy plan, and his deep belief in the power of his own diplomatic skills in getting some trans formative change from Iran is dominant. Its where hubris meets naivete -- and its a dangerous place for America to be.

Obama is no friend of Israel

Last year I wrote a piece that examined the stark dichotomy in political views between American and Israeli Jews. American Jews vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and see liberal policies -- both domestic and foreign -- as largely consistent with their world view. Indeed, in the 2008 election, 78% of American Jews voted for Obama -- an outcome that was a full 10 points better than most of the pre-election polling. Contrasted with the pre-election polling of Israeli Jews, which preferred John McCain by better than 2:1, and it is clear that their is a wide gulf between the reflexive idealism of American Jews and the sober realism of their Israeli counterparts. Today we have proof that Israeli Jews understood Obama better than those in America. In a widely anticipated speech today in Cairo, Obama gave his version of Kennedy's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, pandering to Muslims by showing that he "feels their pain", apologizing for a litany of American sins, while drawing a stark moral relativism between Israeli and Palestinian violence. Indeed, Obama has now made clear that he sees Israel as just as much to blame for the continuing violence in the West Bank and Gaza, and has openly called for a "two state" solution to be the stated policy of the United States. Before he left on his trip to the Middle East -- where he pointedly chose not to visit Israel -- Obama called for a freeze on settlements in the West Bank -- a message he conveyed directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month.

For anyone paying attention, Obama's statements toward Israel are chilling -- and reflect the generally accepted belief among the left that the Palestinians are the victims and the Israelis are the aggressors.  Obama is quickly proving that old adage: with friends like these, who needs enemies?

There was much to dislike about Obama's message in Cairo, where he attempted to draw linkages between our Judeo-Christian history and Islam. It was pandering at its finest. Further, he gave this speech in Egypt -- one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East, and spent a good portion of the speech trying to explain away our efforts to bring democracy to millions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was yet another example of the leader of our nation taking great pains to minimize the good and noble sacrifices we have made in the name of freedom, while attempting to curry favor with regimes that continue to repress their people.

To American Jews I can only say this: you've been hoodwinked. Though you say overwhelmingly that the security of Israel is important to you, you have voted for a man who actively supports the appeasement of your terrorist enemies. By voting for Barack Obama, you have actually created a new existential threat -- that of an American administration focused on Palestinian rights and grievances, and committed to diplomacy with Iran and Syria. In one presidential election, you have done great damage to Israel -- a nation that you claim to love and cherish.

One can only hope that Benjamin Netanyahu has the moral courage to defy Obama and his appeasers; to remain steadfast in facing down the threats from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. It is Israel's only real hope for survival.

Is this the best we can do?

Much is being made of the Dick Cheney vs. Barack Obama "debate" now going on in the media over national security. The Wall Street Journal has it on the front page today, after Cheney and Obama gave dueling speeches yesterday -- Obama from the rotunda of the National Archives and Cheney from the American Enterprise Institute. As has been his consistent message, Obama again reiterated his view that the Bush administration had "gone off course" in using enhanced interrogation techniques and off-shore prisons, saying that he is seeking to restore "the power of our most fundamental values". The former Vice President, meanwhile is having none of it. Calling the Bush policies "legal, essential, justified, successful and the right thing to do", he again took on the administration's critics by pointing out that "After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked or scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed."

This is an exceedingly vital debate. President Obama has made decisions on the basis of politics that I believe are putting our nation at risk. He caved to the left in precipitously deciding to close Guantanamo without any alternative plan; now it turns out that many of the most hated Bush policies -- using military tribunals and indefinite detention -- will continue. Why? Because more than half of the remaining Guantanamo detainees are too dangerous to try in court or to release back into the civilized world. But where will they go once Guantanamo is closed? No one has a clue, because nobody in Congress wants these lethal prisoners in their backyard. In the halls of Congress, NIMBY is the rule -- unless, of course, it's pork.

The problem for those who think that Obama is on a dangerous path, however, is that it is Dick Cheney leading the charge. Where is the spokesperson for the opposition to this president who isn't past his prime and considered a cross between an "angry white man" and Darth Vader?

We know, of course, that John McCain -- the Republican candidate for president just a short 6 months ago who got more than 44 million votes in the election -- is of little help on this issue, having campaigned himself against enhanced interrogation and for the closing of Guantanamo. So he's been -- by necessity and by temperament -- silent in this debate. But where are the others? Are there any conservatives who have a future (as opposed to a past) in politics willing and able to stand up and say to the nation what it already suspects? That Obama's inexperience and desire to "make everyone happy" is putting us at risk? That his world view -- and thus his emerging foreign policy -- is dangerously naive?

You have to give Obama credit -- he certainly likes to talk as if he is reasoned and balanced in his approach, that he has command of the vital issues that face us as a nation. He is nothing if not outwardly confident. But this president doesn't deal well with specifics and facts. He's long relied on soaring rhetoric that sounds great but says nothing. Like many liberals, he makes statements of opinion as if they are fact, saying it in such a way that it seems beyond dispute -- but offering no evidence to back it up. As the WSJ recounts in its lead editorial today: The President went out of his way to insist that its existence "likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained," albeit without offering any evidence, and that it "has weakened American security," again based only on assertion. What is a plain fact is that in the seven-plus years that Gitmo has been in operation the American homeland has not been attacked.

It is also a plain fact -- and one the President acknowledged -- that many of the detainees previously released, often under intense pressure from Mr. Obama's anti-antiterror allies, have returned to careers as Taliban commanders and al Qaeda "emirs." The New York Times reported yesterday on an undisclosed Pentagon report that no fewer than one in seven detainees released from Gitmo have returned to jihad.

Mr. Obama called all of this a "mess" that he had inherited, but in truth the mess is of his own haphazard design. He's the one who announced the end of Guantanamo without any plan for what to do with, or where to put, KSM and other killers. Now he's found that his erstwhile allies in Congress and Europe want nothing to do with them. Tell us again why Gitmo should be closed?

President Obama is making things up out of whole cloth and peddling them as fact; he is tremendously vulnerable on these issues, because what he says doesn't pass the simple smell test. Why is it Dick Cheney -- a man whose career is over -- shooting the arrows at the president and his party over this?

Is this really the best we can do?

Speak softly and carry a limp stick

Way back in July, 2005 -- just days after the deadly terrorist attack on the London Transport system that killed 51 people -- I wrote a post at my blog entitled Britain's Homeless. The post was prompted by a report issued by the Royal Institute of International Affairs that linked the London attack to British support of the Iraq war, which the report's authors claim has made "Britain a more likely target for terrorism, claiming that there is “no doubt” that the 'invasion has enhanced propaganda, recruitment and fund-raising for al-Qaeda'. Unfortunately, in the almost four years since that post little has changed in Britain. Con Coughlin has recently written a provocative piece in the U.K. Telegraph entitled "Britain is fighting a war -- and we are too soft on our enemies". He cites that fact that there is growing evidence of the complicitness of UK Muslims in the war on terror that has put UK military lives in danger -- and that this information has been suppressed by UK authorities for fear of -- you guessed it -- inciting Muslim anger:

The active involvement of radical British Muslims in the Afghan insurgency has led senior officers to claim that they are engaged in a "surreal mini-civil war" in Afghanistan. And yet, for all the compelling evidence that British-based Islamist radicals are actively participating in a jihad against Britain and its coalition allies, the Government, together with those who have opposed our involvement in the War on Terror from the start, seems determined to give the Islamist radicals the benefit of the doubt.

Even when incontrovertible proof is found that British Muslims are aiding and abetting the enemy in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Government's instinct is to try to cover up their involvement, for fear of further inflaming Islamist sensitivities.

Twice in the past year I have been admonished by our military establishment for revealing details about the support British sympathisers are providing to the Afghan insurgency, whether it involves actually fighting alongside the Taliban or providing them with the means to kill and maim British personnel. Officials did not question the reports' veracity. On both occasions, I was told that it was simply not helpful to expose such details, as they might cause offence to the Muslim community, or encourage Islamist radicals to intimidate British soldiers returning from combat.

This kind of thinking is appeasement, pure and simple. If we just be "nice to them" they will certainly leave us alone, won't they? Speak softly and carry a limp stick. I wonder whether the people of Britain are really as dumb as the UK government apparently thinks they are?

Tony Blair, to his credit, was steadfast in calling out the threat of Islamic terrorism and the importance of being honest about the nature of the forces working against us. In an important speech he gave recently to the Council on Global Affairs that I wrote about last month, Blair said that the "(radical terrorist" 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."

Alas, Tony Blair is no longer in power. In his place is Gordon Browne, a leader invested in accommodation who seems to be afraid of his own shadow. And lest you think that this is just a British problem, you should think again. The same policies of appeasement are winding their way through the Obama administration: We move to close Guantanamo without a reasonable alternative, we unilaterally give away our ability to even threaten the use of enhanced interrogation of terrorist detainees, and we release selective memos and photographs that put the worst light possible on America's effort to protect itself. It is at the core of the left's "shared values" strategy: part self-flagellation as a way of purging guilt, part moral high ground for the purpose of showing the new face of our kinder, gentler foreign policy. For Barack Obama and his administration, it is clearly the most important part of America improving its image in the eyes of the world.

If this makes you feel safer, there is a bridge I have to sell you...