More specifically, the Geek is considering Afghanistan and Iran.
The Iranians have made it abundantly clear that the open-handed approach of the Nice Young Man From Chicago is a non-starter. The mullahs and their frontmen have brought forth their latest proposal for Making The World A Better Place. The Iranians have presented the West with a collection of soft, warm fuzzies dealing with high-minded and lofty sounding banalities. The Geek would love to quote them at length, but given the demonstrable Iranian record in sponsoring terrorism, bloody suppression of internal dissent, and rabid pursuit of strategic weapons, to do so would force him to engage in projectile vomit.
A proper comparison would be that of Stalin's government issuing a call for world reconciliation right after the NKVD had imposed collectivization on the peasants of the Ukraine or Hitler's regime calling for world peace on 3 September 1939. Suffice it to note that the Iranian five page proposal for nuclear disarmament, "Palestinian" rights, and expanding the UN Security Council are in that league when it comes to base hypocrisy and utter cynicism.
No sooner had the Iranian exercise in ignoring the issue at hand--the mullahs' pursuit of nuclear weapons--hit the desks of the Security Council permanent members foreign ministries than the Russian ForMin, Sergey Lavrov, opined that there was no need for further sanctions, let alone the use of force, as the Iranian proposal gave much reason for hope and grounds for discussion.
Lavrov helpfully pointed out that Iran and Russia were "partners" and that Iran had never done Russia any harm. The two states are partners in that Russia has not only sold arms--and a heavy water reactor suitable for producing plutonium--to the mullahs but has run diplomatic interference for them in every conceivable international forum. While the Chinese have been silent to date, there is no doubt but that Beijing will follow Moscow this time as it done previously.
In a move that is not surprising, the US State Department immediately branded the Iranian letter as being "not really responsive." You have to love diplomatic speech. "Not really responsive" is a lot nicer than simply dismissing the five pages of softly sentimental claptrap as a "mess of caca."
Of course the Russians are hoping for a little bit of the old quid pro quo from Tehran. The nature of the exchange desired by the Kremlin was buried in ForMin Lavrov's statement. He noted with pleasure that Iran was interested in "what positive role it could play in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the region." By "region" Mr Lavrov was thinking of some places far closer to the hearts of the Russian leadership than Iraq or Afghanistan. Places which fall under the general rubric of North Caucasus. The Kremlin hopes without any basis in fact that Tehran can exercise some moderating influence on the Islamist jihadist leaning nationalist insurgents in Chechnya and surrounding territories.
The mere reality that the Iranians have no more influence upon the insurgents of the North Caucasus than Obama has on Tehran is no reason for the Russians not to hope to the contrary. Hope is a lot easier to hold than effective operational dominance oriented counterinsurgency is to develop.
Of course the combination of the Iranian demarche and the Russian response does kick the can back to the Americans. President Obama set what seemed to be a deadline for a constructive and realistic stance by the Iranians as occurring some time this month. Depending upon the interpretation the deadline can be either the opening of the UN General Assembly or the meeting of the G-20 in Pittsburgh. Both are coming down the pike in the next couple of weeks. And, no matter how one parses the Iranian letter, it is neither constructive nor realistic.
Israel is getting nervous. Reports out of the country indicate some real fear that Obama is going to move the goalposts further down field. Say until the end of December. Or, even more alarming, that President Obama will concede that the Iranians can continue enriching uranium as long as they promise, really, really promise that they will not make a bomb out of the stuff. This sort of policy shift would allow the president to claim that he had not backed down, that he was not acceding to an Iranian bomb, but was acknowledging the country's right to possess peaceful nuclear technology.
Of course, such a distinction does not constitute a meaningful difference--regardless of international inspections or mullah promises. Once enough low enriched uranium is on hand, the time and effort needed to upgrade the stuff to weapons grade is marginal. And, there is little if any doubt that Iran now has sufficient low enriched uranium on hand for the rapid production of anywhere between one and three weapons of modest yield.
Worse, give sufficient time (say somewhere between three and six months), the Iranians would not only be able to distribute their low enrichment stockpile to several hardened sites but also divert centrifuge production to the making of high enriched uranium. Time is on their side. Period.
The rubber will hit the road for the Israelis before the Spring Equinox. Assuming no improvement to the Iranian air defense capacity, the Israeli Air Force with some assistance from the navy can hit successfully the majority of the critical, identified Iranian nuclear facilities. But, the time frame available for this is limited--quite limited. To have a good chance at success, the attack(s) will have to take place during the next 120 to 180 days.
This means that the rubber will hit the road for the Obama administration as well. While it is in keeping with Israeli history for them not to seek American permission before launching an attack as in the case with the Iraqi nuclear reactor nearly thirty years ago, it is not likely that this would be the case with an attack on Iran. The stakes for both Israel and the US (to say nothing of the rest of the world) are simply too high for a launch-now-tell-later approach.
The same time frame applies for the situation in Afghanistan. To accomplish the goal stated by President Obama last month--the defeat of al-Qaeda (and by implication, Taliban)--will need more American trigger pullers. Not trainers and advisors. Not rear echelon wallahs. Trigger pullers. Men who kill up close and personal. Men who take risks. Men who die.
At a minimum the US must put another twenty thousand right index fingers on an equal number of triggers. Obama's fellow "progressives" are against this idea. Senator Reid is against the notion. So is Speaker Pelosi. So is an increasing number of We the People.
All of this implies that President Obama will have to demonstrate an amount of intellectual and moral courage which he so far seems to lack. He has to be what he pronounced on the campaign trail that he did not want to be--a wartime president. He has to show leadership, real, honest to gosh leadership. Not the milksop sort he has been addicted to over the past year and more, a pose of nice words, lofty phrases, fine sentiments.
President Obama has to convince the American people--and more importantly his soulmates within the Democratic Party's "progressive" element that the US effort in Afghanistan is not only a task of world historical importance, but that our goal of obliterating the Islamist jihadist entities there is achievable. The president must articulate what is at stake in that hell hole of mountains and deserts, Islamism and tribal loyalites.
What is at stake is not the building of a modern nation-state in Afghanistan. That is both irrelevant and potentially counterproductive. The stake is far more important and far closer to home. On this eighth anniversary of the most deadly attack ever delivered to the continental United States by a foreign enemy, it is critical to remember that Islamist jihadism can only be countered, defeated, removed as an ever looming threat by the obliteration of the Islamist jihadists in Afghanistan and along the Pakistani border. And, by so doing, provide an object lesson to all future governments everywhere what the consequences of harboring a hostile group will be.
Only by the infliction of condign and salutary punishment on al-Qaeda and Taliban can future Islamist jihadist groups and governments which sponsor, support, or offer "Islamic hospitality" to these bad actors be deterred. Only by this exercise in punitive military operations can future American national security be protected.
This is what is at stake in Afghanistan. Not the Karzai government. Not "full and fair elections." Not women's rights. Not the notion of creating a Western style bureaucratic state with all the paraphernalia of post-modern statehood. None of these.
President Obama must make it clear to all of We the People--and members of his own party in particular--that it is future American lives and national security which is being fought for by the trigger pullers on the ground. He must do what Bush and Cheney never did--make the goal clear, the cost honestly appraised, and the consequences of failure apparent to even the most ideologically blinded "progressive."
Unlike the war in Vietnam, the American war in Afghanistan is one we cannot afford to lose. The consequences would be too great, too long lasting for us to shrug off defeat along with the lives of those Americans killed in Afghanistan.
Death is a terrible price to pay. But, a much, much worse price would be a future lived in fear. A future filled with terror both actual and potential. The only way to have the chance to prevent future 9/11's is to fight it out now in Afghanistan. Fight and win.
Obama faces two possible defeats in the next few months. If he is defeated by either the mullahs or the Islamist jihadists, his loss will be shared not only by all of us alive today, but by those Americans yet to be born.
Sometimes being president just isn't any fun. And, it will get even less fun before the first flowers of spring pop thorough the snow next Spring.
No comments:
Post a Comment