Deceptive Democrat or Republican Manchurian Candidate? Webb Misrepresents Eisenhower

In today’s Washington Post, E. J. Dionne analyzed the Democratic response to the State of the Union Address. Dionne praised Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, for his precise use of language, compared Webb’s delivery and style with Ronald Reagan, and labeled Webb a “Reagan Democrat.” Of course, Webb served as Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and is a former Republican, so it is plausible that Webb observed and admired Reagan’s public speaking skills personally. However, Dionne made this comparison based on Reagan’s penchant for speaking his mind plainly and ascribed the same skill to Webb.

If Dionne’s conclusion that Webb spoke his mind in the Democratic response is true, Democrats and Republicans alike should immediately seek clarification from Webb regarding his misrepresentation of President Eisenhower’s motivations and strategies for bringing the Korean War to a speedy conclusion. A hat tip is made to TigerHawk for pointing out an intriguing comment posted by a reader of his blog regarding Webb’s remarks. In his response to the State of the Union, Senator Webb stated:

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President,he brought the Korean War to an end. [Eisenhower] took the right kind of action... for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action.... If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

At first glance, Webb’s comment comes across as more “end the war now” propaganda, but a TigerHawk reader presented this historical reminder:

Interesting that Webb invoked Eisenhower ending the Korean War. According to this cached google report (and multiple other sources), "Nearly three years later, Truman's successor, President Dwight Eisenhower, also wielded the threat of U.S. nuclear use. In May 1953, Eisenhower authorized an expanded Korean bombing campaign, prompting the North Koreans and Chinese to respond by increased ground action.

As part of the heightened military activity, the Joint Chiefs presented six different scenarios for ending the war, "most envisioning the possible use of atomic weapons," according to an official Pentagon history. "After the NSC reached a seeming consensus on May 20 to employ atomic weapons both strategically and tactically--that is within and outside the Korean Peninsula--the administration communicated its resolve to the Chinese and North Koreans. . . . Both Eisenhower and [Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles believed the message had the desired effect" of ending the war, the history reads." So, is Webb saying the US should threaten the use of nuclear weapons to end the Iraq war?

As a former Secretary of the Navy, it is unlikely Webb was ignorant of Eisenhower’s “Big Stick” nuclear diplomacy that forced the communist enemy to end the conflict, albeit leaving a divided Korean Peninsula. If one assumes Webb had his historical facts straight and he speaks plainly, as Dionne asserts, Webb’s intentions behind the Eisenhower example raise significant questions. Is Webb, in reality, a Republican “Manchurian Candidate” who has infiltrated the Democratic Party and is now acting on pre-programmed commands from the "Vast Neocon Conspiracy"? Or was his withdrawal from the GOP merely a tactical decision by which he knew he could successfully run for office as a war hero Democrat in a party so desperate for military credibility it nominated John Kerry in 2004?

If Webb was aware of the Eisenhower strategy to end the war, and Webb will be “showing him [Bush] the way” by recommending we emulate Eisenhower, how sorry will Democrats be for helping such a man get elected? It should not be forgotten that Truman became President in April 1945 and made the decision a few months later to utilize atomic weapons to convince Japan to surrender and end the war quickly. By 1953 when Eisenhower threatened China and the North Koreans with nuclear weapons, precedent had been established that this was a successful option to end conflict. World War II, and Korea both demonstrate that nuclear weapons, threatened and utilized if necessary, bring war to conclusion much faster than the “regional diplomacy” Democrats believe is the only way out of Iraq. The President, though his opponents refuse to admit it, had it right: The only way out of Iraq is through victory.

Not surprisingly, no Democrat has articulated what “regional diplomacy” means when the diplomacy would involve convincing Iran not to overrun Iraq the moment our troops pull out, or convincing Syria to stop sheltering and funding Hezbollah and terrorizing Lebanon, or securing an end to thousands of years of conflict between Jews and Palestinians. Why would any nation in the Middle East take our soft walking diplomacy seriously when our big stick has been pocketed and redeployed elsewhere without defeating the enemy? That’s a question the “clear speaking” Senator from Virginia seems to avoid. When negotiating an end to war, it is always desirable to negotiate from a position of strength.

The fact that this statement about Eisenhower needs explanation refutes Dionne’s exaggerated comparisons of Webb to Reagan. Webb gave us no “Evil Empire” identifications of our enemies (though he certainly fanned the flame of class envy), no direct appeals to action like “tear down this wall,” (though his new motto may be “rob from the rich to give to the poor”) and no glimpse of the man’s personality (not to be confused with military service record), which Reagan gave in every speech with a gleam in his eye. By omitting the context in which Eisenhower called for a speedy end to the Korean War (threatening to use nuclear weapons on China and the North Koreans) Webb provided obfuscation and misleading metaphor where plain speaking was needed. Unfortunately, Webb’s State of the Union response came shortly after my “Recent DC ‘Snow Jobs’” post. Webb would surely have been near the top of that list for his either ignorant or blatantly calculating misrepresentation of Eisenhower.

Technorati Tags: Senator James Webb State of the Union Address E.J. Dionne Dwight Eisenhower Korean War Nuclear Diplomacy Reagan Democrat Democratic Response Manchurian Candidate Secretary of the Navy Reagan Iraq War

Intelligence Analysts Consistently Underestimate China, North Korea, Iran

Look, up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s merely a Chinese satellite-killing warhead successfully tested earlier this month. While publicly assuring the world its intentions in space are benign (much like Iran assuring its nuclear program is solely for electricity), the Chinese military demonstrated new warfare capabilities US intelligence analysts incorrectly assumed China would not possess for another 10 years. The ability to destroy enemy satellites places China in position to directly confront the US successfully if necessary, but the more likely scenario, particularly in the near future, would involve China utilizing anti-satellite technologies to aid nations such as Iran or North Korea in the event the US and its allies attempt to dismantle the nuclear programs of either nation through military action.

An overlooked aspect of this development is the intelligence failure that underestimated Chinese capabilities. For analysts to estimate that China was 10 years behind US space warfare capabilities is puzzling, given the fact that in September 2006, National Reconnaissance Office Director Kerr confirmed that China had “painted” a US satellite at least once with a ground-based laser, a beam capable of illuminating the satellite for laser-guided warheads or damaging the satellite’s reception/transmission functions.

Intelligence analysts have a responsibility to be sensibly paranoid when assessing an enemy’s capabilities, and should approach such threat assessments from the perspective that erring on the side of caution is the safest course. Perhaps the American attitude of technological superiority holds too much sway within the intelligence community. To calculate that China, a nation that produces (and “acquires” the technology for) more electronics than any in the world would be 10 years behind the US military is truly a supreme act of cultural utopian arrogance by American intelligence analysts. China has proven most adept at infiltrating government agencies and contractors (and their databases) and have spirited away some of our most critically sensitive military technology, including designs for multiple warhead nuclear delivery systems.

China is far more advanced in the art of stealing our military technology than America is at noticing the theft or implementing measures to prevent it. For example, the Chinese theft of W-88 warhead technology occurred in the mid 1980s but was not discovered by US intelligence until 1995. Analysts would argue that such an example merely shows that even when possessing the stolen technology it took China nearly 10 years to successfully test the warhead, thus validating the predicted 10 year gap theory. However, considering that network intrusion is the gravest risk to our military technology and China is masterful in that craft, analysts should actually base their Chinese capability assessments on the assumption that American technology in the design phase 10 years ago has likely been acquired and developed by China along similar time lines as American development.

One wonders, given this incredible underestimation of China, a nation we know much more about and can monitor more closely than Iran, how accurate are analysts’ assessments that Iran will not have nuclear weapon capabilities until 2015? That estimate was made after a “major US intelligence review” in 2005, and analysts concluded that Iran was 10 years away from possessing the capability to produce a nuclear bomb.

These analysts were wrong about North Korea, wrong about China’s space weaponry, and it is prudent for current and future administrations to assume that the 10 year prediction for Iran is another dangerous underestimation. Ahmadinejad refuses to allow IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, and he openly challenges America, the only obstacle to the goal of Iranian nuclear weaponry, to try to stop him. With the technological assistance of North Korea and the UN Security Council vetoes of China and Russia confidently in pocket, Iran will surely produce a deployable nuclear weapon much sooner than analysts predict.

Technorati Tags: Chinese Espionage Intelligence Estimates Space Weapons Satellite Killer Nuclear Secrets Intelligence Failures North Korean Nuclear Assistance Chinese Military Intelligence Analysts Iranian nuclear program Ahmadinejad Chinese Satellite Technology

Recent Washington DC "Snow Jobs"

In honor of the first snowfall in Washington DC this winter, it seems appropriate to recognize recent DC “snow jobs” that recently blanketed the nation with a fine layer of obfuscation:

1. The John Warner, Susan Collins, and Norm Coleman “Snow Job” – Yesterday, these 3 illustrious (or is that blusterous?) Republican senators joined the Democrat chorus singing longingly for an end to President Bush’s attempt to liberate an oppressed people and help them along the path toward a stable representative democracy. According to these three, the President’s strategy for a surge of troops and renewed efforts to secure and hold Iraqi cities is flawed and doomed to failure.

They are simultaneously disappointed with the current situation, opposed to the idea of a troop increase, and politically petrified of casting senate votes to end the funding of the war and bring the troops home, as anti-war activists desire. What a quagmire these Republican ship jumpers find themselves in! What policy will achieve the goal of representative democracy for Iraqis and renewed American credibility as a formidable preserver of freedom? Victory! What is it Americans want to see, at least the half that place national security and America’s credibility over a desire to embarrass President Bush? Victory! To bluster about any other outcome being satisfactory is a “snow job” that must make Iraqis despair of ever achieving success and safety. Neither will occur unless America fights to win.

2. The Maxine Waters “American Money is too Precious to Give to Anyone but Americans Snow Job” -Radio host Jerry Doyle made a profound comparison during yesterday’s show. Doyle pointed out that Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-CA, is co-sponsoring a resolution to gradually end funding for the Iraq War because America is allegedly not winning the war and thus it is a waste of taxpayer money. By that same logic, Doyle argued that the government should cut off federal funding of all gang task forces in Waters’ Los Angeles district, since millions of dollars have been spent to end the gang problem there but recent statistics indicate there are over 40,000 known gang members in Los Angeles, and those numbers are growing along with the violence and financial crimes they perpetrate.

If Waters favors pulling our troops out of Iraq because we cannot win there, and leaving the cities and nation for the terrorists to plunder, Doyle suggested, America should do the same with Los Angeles. The city will never solve the gang problem, so why try? Los Angeles residents should be forced to pull out and relocate (like Democrat suggestions for our troops to be “redeployed”). Thus the anti-gang strategy, like Waters alleges of Bush’s Iraq strategy, is a failure not worth further expenditure. Gangs that infiltrate and intimidate Los Angeles, like the terrorist thugs threatening Iraqi citizens, are not worth fighting. No expenditure of taxpayer money for programs that yield negative results can be justified in Waters’ opinion.

Instead of using the tired excuse of wasted taxpayer money to obscure her true objection to the war, Waters should propose a Congressional resolution declaring that Iraqi freedom from a murderous tyrannical dictator and an attempt to protect a fledgling democracy until it can sustain itself is unworthy of our national affluence and largesse. According to Waters’ previous statement to Congress, we should stop spending money to help a constitutional government in the Middle East and use it only to benefit our own people. She made the following Ameri-centric statement: “This conference report throws billions of dollars into the sands of Iraq, while at the same time this Administration and the Republican Congress call for drastic cuts to dozens of vital domestic programs. This is immoral and wrong. We should be investing in schools and health care for all Americans.”

I think all Americans would agree our schools are better and safer than those in Iraq and that the health care options available to Iraqis, where terrorists are detonating IEDs near hospitals, are a tad less comfortable than what we enjoy in America. Waters is very generous with precious American taxpayer money when she brings millions of dollars in federal funding to her pet causes in Los Angeles, such as failed public schools, failed gang task forces, and failed government welfare programs. Yet money to protect a democracy besieged by terrorists is too precious to share with non-Americans. Civil liberties, it seems, are only for Americans in Waters’ narrow vision of our world. For an avowed civil rights activist, that is quite a “snow job.”

3. The Tony Snow “Snow Job” – In a previous post this site railed against the Bush Administration’s decision to place the NSA domestic surveillance program under FISA court monitoring. Later that day on his radio program, Sean Hannity interviewed Tony Snow briefly about this decision and Snow responded in a very dismissive manner, as if Americans should not be concerned with this development. Snow assured listeners that the President would never give up any tools available to him in the Global War on Terror, and that the President continued to retain the power to legally authorize electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists in the US under exigent circumstances. The truly deep “snow job” came when Tony Snow denied that the FISA monitoring decision was a response to political pressure. According to Snow, the FISA situation was under review for two years and the administration was satisfied with the alleged reforms to speed and flexibility implemented by the FISA court review.

This begs the question, “what will the President do if the FISA court denies an application for surveillance but the President and his intelligence advisors are convinced the suspect must be monitored?” Unfortunately Sean Hannity did not ask this question. Instead he took Snow’s response at face value and then moved on to the upcoming State of the Union Address. If the President retains the power to legally authorize surveillance utilizing the NSA domestic surveillance program as Snow asserted, then why apply to FISA at all? If a FISA court denies an application for surveillance, the President can ignore that judgment and authorize it under his Constitutional powers as Commander in Chief, as Lincoln, Roosevelt, and other war time Presidents have done, only with less sophisticated surveillance methods.

If the FISA court judgment can be ignored under exigent circumstances, then ALL FISA court judgments are moot, since by definition, a war is an exigent circumstance and thus the President holds exclusive authority to approve monitoring of US citizens suspected of communicating with the enemy, which is the precise purpose of the NSA domestic surveillance program. Thus, if the President holds the legal power to authorize such programs, what motivations, other than political pressure, prompted this administration to reform and utilize the FISA courts which it has intentionally, legally, and justifiably circumvented since the Global War on Terror began? Snow’s dismissal of public concern over this decision signaled discomfort with the situation and a desire to move on to other issues in the interview. A “snow job” from Snow was understandable given the expected duties of his position, but it was disappointing nonetheless.


Technorati: Iraq War Global War On Terror NSA Bush Administration FISA Maxine Waters Tony Snow Sean Hannity John Warner Susan Collins Norm Coleman Jerry Doyle Los Angeles Gangs