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.

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...

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.

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.