9-11-2011

Never Forget.

The Reckoning

Beyond 911

The Taliban are not moderates

Bob Kerrey in the WSJ:

"Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.

"When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more than your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors."

Ed Morrissey writes in Hot Air:

" The Taliban are not moderates, and they share the same ideological, political, and tactical goals as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Anyone saying anything differently is simply selling a false argument for a dishonorable retreat in the face of our enemies.

"It's not a theocracy anymore"

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps:

“It is not a theocracy anymore,” said Rasool Nafisi, an expert in Iranian affairs and a co-author of an exhaustive study of the corps for the RAND Corporation. “It is a regular military security government with a facade of a Shiite clerical system.”

Defiance in Iran

Pictures from Iran

On Flickr.

State-sponsored Madrasah

Christopher Hitchens has an interesting take on GITMO in Slate:

"Suppose that you were a secular or unfanatical person caught in the net by mistake; you would still find yourself being compelled to pray five times a day (the guards are not permitted to interrupt), to have a Quran in your cell, and to eat food prepared to halal (or Sharia) standards. I suppose you could ask to abstain, but, in such a case, I wouldn't much fancy your chances. The officers in charge were so pleased by this ability to show off their extreme broad-mindedness in respect of Islam that they looked almost hurt when I asked how they justified the use of taxpayers' money to create an institution dedicated to the fervent practice of the most extreme version of just one religion. To the huge list of reasons to close down Guantanamo, add this: It's a state-sponsored madrasah."

How to fight North Korea

Nicholas Guariglia writes:

"...start a serious reverse-propaganda program of beaming real information into North Korea, similar to Radio Free Europe at the end of the Cold War. We should weaken the tyrant’s rule from within; when done properly, it works almost every time. To paraphrase my friend Michael Ledeen: there are many ways to destroy a dictator when you have his oppressed people on your side."

Missile Defense

Michael Ramirez

More reasons to keep the F-22

United Press International Reports:

WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two Russian planes flew within 500 feet of U.S. Navy ships participating in military drills with South Korea, military officials said.

A few hundred more 5th generation F-22 stealth fighters to patrol our skies for these lumbering Russian bombers would be a good thing. Why stop at 183? Whether Russia is just trying to effusively flex its aging muscles or not, the reality of the threat is obvious for the world to see.

The F-22 for a Bold, New, Dangerous World

Vice President Joe Biden was right; the new administration is being tested. This week alone brings a number of ominous signs of conflict the world will expect the United States to deal with. These are issues that will have to be handled fastidiously.

Wired reports that U.S. MNF-Iraq shot down an Iranian UAV last month. This opens yet a new front on the Iraq war.

Further east, Japan has threatened to shoot down North Korea's "satellite launch." If Japan follows through on its word, the action may cause North Korea to begin matching its rhetoric with deeds.

Lastly, Russia's interfax news agency is reporting the possibility that Russian strategic bombers could be flown out of Cuban and Venezuelan air fields. This obviously smacks of a second Cuban missile crisis.

These aerial crises stand apart from current wars being fought on the ground by the U.S. and its allies in the middle east. Military strategists, such as Thomas P.M. Barnett, have rightly argued the need for a robust American ground force which can provide not only security, but also civil affairs and humanitarian aid.

However, these increased threats to American air dominance among its adversaries may give the strategists pause. For example, Secretary of Defense Gates halted further production of the new fifth generation F-22 fighter at 185. The school of thought questioned the need for so many stealth, agile, supersonic dog-fighters in an age when insurgencies are fought in the cities and villages of third world countries. Others added the yet-to-be-fielded F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as another argument to kill the F-22 and thereby cut Defense spending.

The F-22 program was put on hold because opponents argued the fighter was built to help wage obsolete Cold War battle. Yet, as recent bellicosity from Russia, Cuba, Iran and North Korea demonstrate, many of our old adversaries are still in a Cold War mindset.

The United States should re-think a growing need for the F-22, especially considering the price tag of the F-35.

The Petraeus and Bush relationship

Great article by Thomas Ricks in the Washington Post:

"As Centcom commander, Fallon was technically Petraeus's new boss. In practice, however, Petraeus bypassed the chain of command and answered directly to Bush, enjoying what was probably the most direct relationship between a frontline general and his commander in chief since the Civil War."

This description may lend some credence to the claim by some that Fallon and Petraeus hated each other. Now, for any student of the Civil War, Lincoln's relationship with his generals draw many interesting comparisons with that of Bush and Petraeus. Prior to, and during the battle of Chancellorsville, for example, Lincoln received reports via courier directly from Major General Joe Hooker. Furthermore, Lincoln himself visited the front to participate in strategy planning with the general. Hooker was appointed by Lincoln to change the course of the war, much as Petraeus was. Neither Lincoln's Secretary of War, nor his Army Chief of Staff supported Hooker's appointment, and they had little dealings with the commander of the Army of the Potomac. They left him to deal directly with the President, which was just what Hooker preferred.

"What happens when the bluff no longer works?"

Dexter Filkins, writing for the New York Times:

"Pakistan’s double game has rested on two premises: that the country’s leaders could keep the militants under control and that they could keep the United States sufficiently placated to keep the money and weapons flowing. But what happens when the game spins out of control? What happens when the militants you have been encouraging grow too strong and set their sights on Pakistan itself? What happens when the bluff no longer works?"

The best reporting by the New York Times in a long, long time.

"Most of the victims are fellow Muslims"

War Updates at the Strategy Page:

Worldwide, violence continues to decline, as it has for the last few years. Violence has also greatly diminished, or disappeared completely, in places like Iraq,
Nepal, Chechnya, Congo, Indonesia and Burundi. Even Afghanistan, touted as the new war zone, is seeing less violence this year than last.

And as for Islamic terrorism, the real losers are Muslim civilians:

The War on Terror has morphed into the War Against Islamic Radicalism. This religious radicalism has always been around, for Islam was born as an aggressive movement, that used violence and terror to expand. Past periods of conquest are regarded fondly by Moslems. The current enthusiasm for violence in the name of God has been building for over half a century. Historically, periods of Islamic radicalism have flared up periodically in response to corrupt governments, as a vain attempt to impose a religious solution on some social or political problem. The current violence is international because of the availability of planet wide mass media (which needs a constant supply of headlines), and the fact that the Islamic world is awash in tyranny and economic backwardness. Islamic radicalism itself is incapable of mustering much military power, and the movement largely relies on terrorism to gain attention. Most of the victims are fellow Moslems, which is why the radicals eventually become so unpopular among their own people that they run out of new recruits and fade away. This is what is happening now. The American invasion of Iraq was a clever exploitation of this, forcing the Islamic radicals to fight in Iraq, where they killed many Moslems, especially women and children, thus causing the Islamic radicals to lose their popularity among Moslems.

Meanwhile, many more are dying from non-terrorist related conflicts:

While Islamic terrorism grabs most of the headlines, it is not the cause of many casualties, at least not compared to more traditional wars. The vast majority of the military related violence and deaths in the world comes from many little wars that get little media attention outside their region. Actually some of them are not so little. While causalities from terrorism are relatively few (usually 5,000-10,000 dead a year worldwide), the dead and wounded from all the other wars actually comprise about 95 percent of all the casualties.

Much more at the link above.

Free Tibet, America?

"Free Tibet, I mean, actually, I mention this in America Alone. It’s not really what the book’s about, but I just happened to mention it in passing. Free Tibet is the classic liberal cause. It’s the all-time great bumper sticker. You go to any college in America, they’ve got a Free Tibet society. Everyone’s got the bumper stickers. The left, God bless them, got the bumper sticker in 1957, they put it on the Ford Edsel, and every time they buy a new car, they peel the Free Tibet bumper sticker off and put it on the new car. It’s the quintessential liberal cause in that nothing has happened. Nothing is done. It’s a bumper sticker, and that’s where it ends, and Tibet is less free than it ever was, and in fact, has been comprehensively wrecked and undermined by the Chinese. Butthey don’t mind as long as they get their little bit of posturing out of it."

The above is Mark Steyn on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. We've been tryin got "free tibet" for how long?

I write this as a former card-carrying member of "Students for a free Tibet" back in high school.

The "spillover effect from what happened in Iraq"

According to Mark Steyn on The Hugh Hewitt Show:

"I think in the months before the invasion of Iraq, the Middle East is a tough nut to crack. But if you're going to find the point at which to try and crack it, Iraq was the one that made sense. And we saw certainly in the early days, the impact it had destroying the Baathist regime, in, for example, Jordan, where at one point, the Baathists were a minor electoral player in Jordanian politics. And in fact, even in a moderate Arab nation like Jordan, the spillover effect from what happened in Iraq, and from the possibilities in Iraq, actually improved the quality of Jordanian democracy. You know, the fact is that a superpower is not a superpower if it cannot influence events in the world. The Middle East exported its pathologies across the planet. That's really what happened on September 11th. And so the only way you can reverse that is by fixing the problem at source, which was the point of going somewhere like Iraq. "

And we should also recall Libya's agreement to dismantle all its WMD's just months after the US swept through Iraq in 2003.

More Syrian/Iranian Intrigue

First, from the Jerusalem Post, Oops: 'Dozens died in Syrian-Iranian chemical weapons experiment'

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a Jane's Defence Weekly report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

H/T Powerline

More from Gateway Pundit.

Regarding the Israeli strike on Syria, Bret Stephens adds to the commentary:

What's beyond question is that something big went down on Sept. 6. Israeli sources had been telling me for months that their air force was intensively war-gaming attack scenarios against Syria; I assumed this was in anticipation of a second round of fighting with Hezbollah. On the morning of the raid, Israeli combat brigades in the northern Golan Heights went on high alert, reinforced by elite Maglan commando units. Most telling has been Israel's blanket censorship of the story--unprecedented in the experience of even the most veteran Israeli reporters--which has also been extended to its ordinarily hypertalkative politicians. In a country of open secrets, this is, for once, a closed one.

And North Korea...

As for the North Korean theory, evidence for it starts with Pyongyang. The raid, said one North Korean foreign ministry official quoted by China's Xinhua news agency, was "little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security." But who asked him, anyway? In August, the North Korean trade minister signed an agreement with Syria on "cooperation in trade and science and technology." Last week, Andrew Semmel, the acting counterproliferation chief at the State Department, confirmed that North Korean technicians of some kind were known to be in Syria, and that Syria was "on the U.S. nuclear watch list." And then there is yesterday's curious news that North Korea has abruptly suspended its participation in the six-party talks, for reasons undeclared.

This is all confusing and speculative... but intriguing nonetheless.

Newfound French Belligerence Toward Iran

Just as Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov said today:

“We are convinced that no modern problem has a military solution, and that applies to the Iranian nuclear programme as well”

...Iran threatens missile attacks on US targets:

Iran threatened to fire long-range missiles at American targets in the Middle East yesterday as the war of words between Teheran and the West continued to escalate.

A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country's ballistic missiles.

The Shahab-3 rocket has a range of 1,250 miles, allowing it to strike an array of Western targets across the Middle East.

"Today the Americans are around our country but this does not mean that they are encircling us. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," said Gen Mohammed Hassan Koussechi.

Lavrov's hopelessly idealistic comments were in response to France's increasingly stern rhetoric toward Iran. Captain Ed calls it The New French Realism:

"The change of government in Paris has given French diplomacy a new and welcome dose of realism. Bernard Kouchner has made it clear that Gallic patience has come to an end where Iran is concerned. If Iran continues in its nuclear intransigence, Kouchner announced, the world must prepare for war

"...In stark contrast to the role played by the Chirac government, Nicolas Sarkozy has made it plain that he wants to work with the US on security concerns in the Middle East. Iran used to be a major client for French industry, just as Iraq once was under Saddam Hussein. France therefore has had influence in Teheran that neither the British nor the US have had, but their attempts to use it to curtail the Iranian nuclear quest came to naught.

"Their sudden support for keeping military options open may get some attention from the mullahcracy."

Iran's state media has even taken the time to criticize the French as well. You know Sarkozy must be doing something right. France's rhetoric reminds me of a scene from Braveheart:

Stephen: Fine speech. Now what do we do?
William Wallace: Just be yourselves.
Hamish: Where are you going?
William Wallace: I'm going to pick a fight.
Hamish: Hope we didn't get dressed up for nothing.

Now what will the French do? Hold true to their word and stand by America.

Iran, Syria and North Korea Worse For The Wear

Former Spook laughs at Iran's promise of retaliation should Israel strike it or friend Syria:

For the record, Iran actually has two missiles capable of reaching Israel, the Shahab-3 (with a maximum range of 800 miles, and the recently-delivered BM-25, a North Korean derivative of the Soviet-designed, SS-N-6 submarine launched ballistic missile (maximum range: 1500 miles). The operational status of the BM-25 is uncertain; a German diplomat reported last March that Iran had acquired 18 disassembled missiles from North Korea, presumably with a smaller number of launchers. Iran has never conducted a test launch of the BM-25, so it's unclear if the missile would be available for operations against Israel and U.S. targets in the Middle East.

As for the Shahab-3, that system attained its initial operating capability less than three years ago, after a long and troubled development. Most estimates place the number of Shahab-3 airframes in Iran at no more than 40, with a launcher inventory of less than half that total. Obviously, the number of available launchers is critical, since it limits the number of missiles that can be fired at any given time. So much for that 600 missile salvo.

Pat Dollard follows up: Iran Doesn’t Have 600 Missiles

Syria and North Korea's nuclear link is now confirmed.

Speaking of Iran, how is its proxy war in Iraq going?

The Revolutionary Guards, or at least the al Quds force (which specialize in supporting pro-Iranian terrorists in foreign countries) is having a hard time in Iraq. With the collapse of al Qaeda in Iraq (because the Sunni Arabs turned on them), U.S. troops are now concentrating on Iranian supported groups. Coalition commando forces are specifically looking to capture as many al Quds operatives as they can. As a result of this, Iran has been pulling its al Quds people out of Iraq. Those that have been captured so far have given up embarrassing and damaging information.

All this should add up to a wake-up call for Iran and Syria. They should be very shaken right now. And why?

the operation caught Damascus by surprise (there was apparently little reaction from Syria's air defense system); the Israelis inflicted serious damage on the target, and both the F-15I crews and the commandos escaped unscathed. Syria has threatened retaliation, but its options are limited.

and

Then, there's the matter of that commando team. If the Times is correct, those personnel arrived in the target area a day ahead of the fighters, inserted (we'll assume) by Israeli Sea Stallion helicopters. As we've noted before, the successful infiltration of a commando team by helicopter, deep into Syrian territory, is an impressive operational feat, indeed. But getting the commandos (and their choppers) all the way across Syria (and back again), undetected, represents a monumental challenge, even for a state-of-the-art military like the IDF.

It has also been learned that the strike was "coordinated" with the U.S.

Poor Iran. Even the French have deserted it. And now there are ever more rumors of war, as reports cite 2,000 targets in Iran. Three U.S. aircraft carriers are also now in the Persian Gulf.

Iran's woes deepen.

The Syria/Iran/North Korea Nexus

It was reported last week that the U.S. confirmed Israeli air strike on Syria:

A US official has confirmed that Israeli warplanes carried out an air strike "deep inside" Syria, escalating tensions between the two countries.

The target of the strike last Thursday remained unclear but Israeli media reported that a shipment of Iranian arms crossing Syria for use by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon was attacked.

Some have theorized that Israel was testing Syria's Russian-made missile defense system. Captain's Quarters disagrees:

Israel would not risk war with Syria just to test out an air defense system that Iran might get. They would risk war to stop Hezbollah from rearming to the point where they would launch another attack on Israel and provoke another war in the sub-Litani region, and they would have every right to do so.

So far, Israel has not spoken publicly of the flight/attack, only heightening speculation. The Economist reports however, that "Israeli air force officers are said to be jubilant about the mission's success." See maps here from Gateway Pundit.

Jules Crittenden thinks that "that what we’re seeing is the beginnings of a serious effort to put two of the world’s leading supporters of terrorism in a box." (H/T Instapundit)

And now, there are rumors of North Korean involvement in Syria. And Ace makes a good point:

That the Syrians are closed lipped and not flooding the zone with "oh poor innocent us" footage and pics of stuffed animals from the site speaks volumes about what got hit.

It also speaks volumes that Germany is fed up with Iran.

But were Syria and North Korea colluding to develop or distribute nuclear weapons? Captain Ed thinks so:

This operation had been planned since the spring, when the facility first came to the attention of the Israelis. The Syrians had apparently bought North Korean technology and materiel at about the time that Kim Jong-Il had started to cooperate with the West on nuclear disarmament. Analysts believe that Kim either hoped to hide his work by sharing it with the Syrians or just get as much hard currency as he could grab through proliferation. No one doubts that the Syrians would love to have nukes, nor does anyone doubt where those weapons would go -- and Israel, as they did with Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak, decided to eliminate the threat before it reached fruition.

And as Gateway Pundit noted, North Korea denounced the attack. While Syria issued a murky "Israel will pay." Hmmm. Perhaps North Korea was not simply shipping "cement," after all. Hot Air has a very good round up of the North Korean angle.

Rumors of Turkish assistance to the Israelis are also swirling.

And in related news, Russia is now ready to ship enriched uranium to Iran. This should come as no surprise. But this should: Iran accuses Canada of torture and racism

Canada? Yes, Canada.

Canada's envoy John Von Kaufmann said that Iran's "deteriorating human rights situation" contravened its international and domestic obligations, citing "treatment of women as second-class citizens" and suppression of peaceful demonstrations for women's rights. The complaints were echoed by those of the European Union. But Iran's envoy, A. Eshragh Jahromi, said that Canada should have its own record scrutinized.

Amnesty International responded:

"Such comparisons are nonsensical," says Pat Maguire, Persian Gulf co-ordinator for Amnesty International in Canada. "The human rights conditions in Iran are appalling, and bear no resemblance to Canada's."

Update: Tigerhawk does a great job keeping up with the story:

"...this is the really loud message -- the Arab world, taken as a whole, has responded with... silence. No other Arab government complained about the raid, forcing Syria to take its protest to the United Nations alone. No mobs poured into the famous "Arab street," no flags were burned, no cars torched, and no "rage boys" screamed into television cameras. The message to Syria and Iran could not have been more clear: The Arabs are far more worried about Iran and its satellites than they are about Israel."

Tigerhawk also notes that more information is emerging:

By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake.

As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.

This "historic" event is being compared to the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor in Osirak.

Who's your Daddy, now, Ahmadinejad?

Some Bank On Withdrawal And Defeat

Obama wants American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible:

CLINTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

The presidential hopeful would have us relinquish the advantage built on hard fought victories, just as AQI miscalculates:

If al-Qaeda hoped to win the Sunni tribes in western Iraq back to their banner, they severely miscalculated in their assassination of Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha.
Instead of cowing his tribesmen and intimidating them back into submission, 1500 of them defiantly lined the road for his funeral, swearing revenge on AQI

To heighten the degree of America's successful pursuit of victory since 9/11, Larry Kudlow writes:

Since September 11, the economy hasn’t suffered a single down quarter. In fact, it has notched 23 straight quarters of economic growth … Overall, the American economy is, adjusting for inflation, $1.65 trillion bigger than it was six years ago. To put that gigantic number in some perspective, the U.S. economy has added the equivalent of five Saudi Arabias, eight Irans, 13 Pakistans, or 15 Egypts, depending on your preference. And while 9/11 did cause the stock market to plunge, the Dow is 37 percent higher than it was on Sept. 10, 2001, creating trillions of dollars of new wealth for Americans. What’s more, the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent today vs. 5.7 percent back then. Not bad at all.

H/T Dr. Sanity


Even the marginally liberal Economist argues that the United States must stay.



However, for a Democratic presidential victory, those who would downplay American success in the war on terror have not only ignored the fact that al Qaeda is on the run around the world and in Iraq, but even resort to launching a character assassination attack on the General. Hillary Clinton is guilty as well.


My party, the Democrats, need Petraeus to lose. It's unfortunate, although perhaps a necessity within the political sphere that one side take the contrary view for the sake of it. And in doing so, they group themselves with American enemies such as Iran and the ousted Iraq Baath party.


Too bad for Democrats this view banks on American defeat. Too bad for America, as well.