Conservative Defends Hillary from Obama

Conservatives should rise to defend Hillary Clinton from Barack Obama’s assault on her Iraq War authorization vote. Why, my readers will ask, should conservatives support Hillary in any way? The answer is quite simple: our nation’s survival may depend on such action. By that I do not mean that supporting Hillary in and of itself will save the nation, but rather finding common ground for agreement on that one issue, the rightfulness of a war authorization vote, will help liberals and conservatives alike to recognize that some situations require military intervention, and WMD development or concealment is one such situation.

Yes, Hillary has flip-flopped on her support for the Iraq War as her 2008 presidential campaign has advanced, and yes, her criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the war have been shrill at times. She merits the conservative disdain she has reaped through such behavior and calculated political maneuvering. However, conservatives and fair-minded liberals should consider the consequences of not defending Hillary’s vote to authorize the use of military force to enforce UN Resolution 1441 against Saddam Hussein’s reported WMD stockpiles, especially in light of the rapidly approaching showdown with Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts.

Yesterday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated the Iran will “never abandon” its nuclear ambitions regardless of how many UN resolutions or sanctions are employed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program. In the face of such recalcitrance, strong and decisive leadership will be needed, and undoubtedly there will be future votes in the House and Senate to approve or disapprove of the use of military force against Iran. I am certainly not implying that Hillary would provide such leadership if elected president. My views on her politics and personality are known to Capital Cloak readers. Her disdain for the military is well known. However, if Barack Obama succeeds in convincing a majority of the Democratic Party, or worse, a majority of all American voters, that Hillary’s war authorization vote was “irresponsible and naïve,” as he has characterized it, it will signal that even when presented with overwhelming intelligence from every allied nation worldwide, America might likewise consider military action against future foes like Iran as “irresponsible and naïve.” That form of national paralysis could prove fatal in confrontations with determined enemies.

Specifically, Obama chastised Hillary for voting to authorize a war “without asking how we were going to get out.” That is an opportunistic argument coming as it does from one who has never been in position to make such difficult decisions. Obama, of course, was not a senator yet when the Iraq War vote took place, and was not privy to the intelligence documents that the colleagues he now derides as naïve were briefed on prior to committing troops to Iraq. For any nation embarking upon a war effort, the way out is obvious: win, and win decisively. The eventual outcome of war is not perfectly predictable, and history proves that war strategies often change mid-course, usually after initial campaigns meet with unexpected or underestimated resistance. Perhaps Obama should study the initial battles of our own Civil War, paying particular attention to the overconfidence and short-sighted planning of the Union’s early generals. That war, which eventually ended slavery in America, was entered into by the Union army with virtually no prior planning for “how we were going to get out.” Does Obama consider Abraham Lincoln to have been “irresponsible and naïve” to enter a war with poor prior planning?

I suspect that Obama is glad today that Lincoln ignored his critics at the time and pressed forward in a just cause. Obama, despite being a senator from Illinois, is certainly no Lincoln when it comes to perseverance in wars for freedom. Or perhaps he does not consider the Iraqi right to freedom to be as inalienable as his own.

In the case of Iraq, winning the war involved more than removing Saddam Hussein, a task that was even simpler than our military planners projected. Removing Saddam and accounting for his WMD were merely the great opening battles of the war for Iraqi freedom (hence the name Operation Iraqi Freedom). The way out of Iraq, which Obama and unfortunately now Hillary as well fail to see is an Iraqi parliament capable of sustaining and defending itself from domestic and foreign efforts to topple it. In that sense, Obama and others should limit their criticism to the fact that our goals in Iraq have not been reached rather than condemn the initial decision to act against Saddam’s defiance toward the UN over his well-documented WMD programs.

It is no coincidence that former Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell, who recently claimed in dramatic Monday morning quarterback fashion to have urged President Bush no to invade Iraq despite the overwhelming intelligence detailing Saddam’s WMD facilities and ambitions, has been advising Obama on military and foreign policy issues. Whereas criticisms of the decision to invade Iraq from Obama are truly “irresponsible and naïve,” they merely reflect the influence of General Powell.

There is clearly little common ground between conservatives and Hillary Clinton. After all, she burned whatever rickety bridges may have once existed when she blamed the “vast right wing conspiracy” for damaging her husband’s self-destructive presidency. Yet when a political opportunist like Obama criticizes Hillary for voting to remove an oppressive dictator and secure the WMD the world was convinced he possessed, we should defend her for making that decision. Despite her current efforts to cast herself as a candidate who would work to end the war, she was right to vote as she did. At least in Hillary’s case America knows that in a sobering moment with long-term consequences, she once voted to eliminate a rogue nation’s WMD programs. Obama, on the other hand, never has faced such a decision but we can conclude from his criticisms and General Powell’s influence that were Obama to be president, he would be loathe to act when facing the threat of WMD acquisition by rogue nations.

For conservatives, neither of these candidates is politically appealing, but Obama’s contagious depiction of Hillary or anyone else who voted to authorize the Iraq War as “irresponsible and naïve” must be prevented from infecting our future decisions when faced with similar or more dangerous threats, such as Iran. Liberals and conservatives can disagree on a host of social, moral, and economic issues, but on the issue of preventing radical Islamic regimes from enriching uranium and proliferating nuclear weapons or technology, there must be unity and shared determination. Regardless of her current views of the Iraq War, Hillary was right to authorize it, as was President Bush to request it, based on the intelligence available at that time. President Bush or his successor, Democrat or Republican, will face the decision to act against Iran since Iran has made it clear it will never halt its uranium enrichment. Obama’s attacks on Hillary’s war vote are irresponsibly making it more difficult for a president to make a convincing case for future military action of any kind to Americans.

Having never faced a difficult decision like a war vote, Obama can conveniently profit from hindsight and impugn the responsibility and motives of those who voted for the Iraq War. Of Obama I would ask the same question I posed to General Powell in a previous post: what further evidence would you have needed to convince you that action against Saddam was necessary given the intelligence already in hand? There is no more clear evidence of Obama’s disingenuous criticism of Hillary on this issue than the words of Obama’s consultant on foreign policy and military issues, General Powell. Powell himself made the case for war to the UN, including the following dramatic statement:

…We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

I’m still waiting to see a news headline that reads, “Obama Calls Own Adviser Powell ‘Irresponsible and Naïve’ for Launching Iraq War.” After all, the entire House and Senate voted to authorize war based on what leaders such as Powell recommended at the time. If Hillary was “irresponsible and naïve” for following Powell’s advice, Obama must by default be equally irresponsible and naïve for taking current advice from the same source.

For conservatives and liberals alike, it is important to separate the rightfulness of the decision to invade Iraq from the subsequent execution of the war or its current status. There is always room for improvement in the handling of wars, and the one constant of conflict is that human error is inescapable. However, the drive to impugn the motives of those who voted to disarm and depose Saddam Hussein will only serve to cripple our national resolve to take similar actions in the future when necessary. Taking Ahmadinejad’s words at face value, such actions will be necessary again soon.

Hillary gets a lot of things wrong, but deserves positive reinforcement when she does something that is in the best interest of America and global security. Her Iraq War vote was the right thing to do at the right time. If conservatives do not defend such action by a liberal when it is hypocritically and opportunistically attacked, then we will have only ourselves to blame if fewer liberals choose to make sound national security decisions in the future.


Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War Vote, Colin Powell, 2008 Campaign, Presidential Candidates, Conservatives, Liberals

Intel "Experts" vs. Magic 8 Balls

Get out your Ouija boards, Tarot cards, Magic 8-Balls, and tea leaves, because with these you could predict with as much accuracy as any “expert” how long it will take for Iran to produce a functional nuclear weapon. The dynamics of the debate over Iran’s capabilities change from week to week. The divergent opinions of nuclear “experts” and intelligence agencies signal a frightening admission that when it comes to estimating when Iran will master the uranium enrichment and warhead production processes, the only certain thing is uncertainty.

In January I warned that America’s intelligence analysts were underestimating Iran’s determination and aggressive overtures to accomplice nations such as Russia, and North Korea. At that time, the consensus among intelligence analysts was that Iran could not construct a nuclear weapon earlier than 2015. On April 3rd I alerted readers that Iran’s unprecedented speed in building 3,000 centrifuges forced intelligence experts to revise earlier estimates and point to 2009 rather than 2015 as the year by which Iran would weaponize uranium. On April 10th I wrote about the revised revisions of WMD specialists alarmed by reports and video footage from within the Natanz nuclear facility south of Tehran. At that time “experts” warned that Iran, if all factors fell into place and centrifuge construction continued at a torrid pace, might produce sufficient enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by the end of this year. Following this pattern, it would seem logical to predict that the next revised estimate might warn of Iran weaponizing uranium before Alex Rodriguez hits his 20th home run of this young season (he has hit 14 in 18 games in April thus far).

So much for patterns or analysts’ credibility! An esteemed British theoretical physics professor and Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, now agree that Iran is actually three or four years away from producing deployable weapons grade uranium. After interviewing Professor Norman Dombey, the UK Telegraph reported:

But the smallest particle of dust - even a fingerprint - can disrupt enrichment. Iran will have to spin all the centrifuges inside a vacuum without any interruption for a period of about one year.

If any machine breaks down - or if dust enters the system or if the power supply is lost - the process must halt and start again.

Prof Dombey estimates that Iran will need about two years simply to master the process of running centrifuges. Then, making allowances for interruptions caused by breakdowns, it could take another two years to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb.

The Telegraph article also asserted that even if Iran eventually masters the enrichment process, it will still be faced with the task of building a warhead and fitting it to a missile delivery system. I do not separate this task from the more complex enrichment problem. Iran’s role as provider of 20% of the world’s crude oil places it in a strong position to purchase warhead delivery missile technology from a number of willing nations already doing business in Iran. Iran need not “figure out” how to build the missiles. It can simply buy them and clear that hurdle while the centrifuges are spinning straw into gold, as it were.

Intelligence analysts have now changed their estimates to read quite differently than just two years ago. Then, the consensus was that Iran would not be capable of producing sufficient uranium for 10 years. Now, analysts no longer speculate about capability to produce. That has become, apparently, an accepted fact. Estimates now focus only on whether Iran will encounter technological glitches that will hamper production. The UN and the U.S. missed the opportunity to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions decisively before they moved from construction to production. Now our intelligence “experts” are counting on Iran’s centrifuges to break down or work less efficiently than planned to buy time for negotiations and sanctions. What these “experts” will not predict is how soon Iran will have sufficient enriched uranium if all the centrifuges operate perfectly, because they apparently refuse to believe in that possibility. According to Gary Samore, Vice President of the Council on Foreign Relations, "The belief in Western intelligence circles is that a large portion of these machines are likely to break if Iran attempts to operate them at high speeds necessary for enrichment."

Counting on machinery to malfunction is not a strategy that will keep nuclear arms out of the mullahs’ hands. Analysts are uncertain how well the centrifuges were constructed. They are uncertain whether the machinery will withstand the rigors of high enrichment. They are uncertain how many centrifuges have been or are currently being constructed in facilities other than Natanz. They are uncertain what technological and material assistance has been provided by nations with valuable investments in Iran, such as China and Russia. They are uncertain how many years (or is it months?) it will take for Iran to enrich weaponized uranium.

The only factor of which analysts are certain is that the mullahs will do and say anything to buy time for their ultimate goal: Annihilating Israel and wielding nuclear weapons over cowering Middle East and Europe populations. Perhaps our policies toward Iran should operate on that premise rather than on psychics, palm readers, or nuclear intelligence “experts”, all of whom seem to be equally reliable sources when making important strategic decisions.

Will Iran Have Bomb in Months?

My, how things change in a week! One week ago, I wrote about reports that U.S. intelligence analysts had revised their estimates for the earliest date by which Iran could develop a nuclear bomb from the year 2015 to 2009. Now, a scant 7 days later, World Net Daily is reporting that after yesterday’s “nuclear day” announcement by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, intelligence analysts have again revised their estimates of Iran’s capabilities and warn that Iran could potentially produce sufficient weapons-grade Uranium in a matter of months. This would change the estimated target date from sometime in 2009 to late 2007-mid 2008. Maybe moving up the dates of all those big state primaries was a good idea after all, as the candidates may be forced to directly state what they would do about Iran even as Iran’s WMD program reaches critical mass.

According to WND, analysts were taken by surprise by yesterday’s announcement that Iran had successfully constructed and placed in operation 3,000 centrifuges, ten times the number of centrifuges previously known, at the underground Natanz facility. The Chief of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization stated after yesterday’s announcement that within the next 20 days, Iran will announce the number of centrifuges injected with uranium at Natanz.

Because Iran has prevented IAEA inspectors access to the Natanz facility and other less publicized sites, it is currently unknown how many centrifuges are operational throughout Iran or what improvements have been made on the original centrifuge technology Iran acquired from Pakistani scientist Abdul Kahn.

In one week, intelligence analysts shaved 7-8 years off of their estimates of Iran’s nuclear weapons program capabilities. The only surprise involved in Iran’s announcement yesterday is that analysts were taken by surprise. On January 24, I wrote the following paragraphs in a post here at Spy The News!, which in light of yesterday’s announcement and analysts’ reactions, seems prescient:

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.

Revising a WMD estimate from years to months is a significant act in the intelligence community. At least we know one thing for certain: Ahmadinejad does not yet have a nuclear bomb. We know this because no mushroom clouds have appeared over Israel yet. Hopefully our intelligence on Iran will improve so that that will not be our first official notification of Iran’s capabilities. While it is true that leaders such as Ahamdinejad often employ bluster as a propaganda tool, it has become clear that there is significant technology and determination operating behind the bombast. Iran is perilously close to bringing online sufficient enrichment capabilities to produce weapons grade uranium and is daring the UN and particularly the U.S. to intervene.

Top 5 National Security Threats for 2007

On this first day of 2007, while most of the nation revels in the arrival of a New Year, it seems the perfect moment to examine the most pressing question facing Americans in 2007: Beyond the obvious constant threat from Islamic-fascist terrorism, what are the gravest risks to national security we face in this New Year?

1. Internal Strife – It may seem incongruous for someone in my profession to rate internal conflict a greater risk than WMD-wielding terrorists or aggressive nation-states with publicly avowed hatred for America. Of course these are significant threats to our safety, and they will be addressed below, yet they pose less danger to America’s safety than our own disagreements over what is right and what is wrong, what is normal and what is not. Internal strife is our greatest threat because it prevents us from dealing effectively with the tangible physical threats we face. If we could unite in purpose we could defeat any nation or ideology bent on our destruction. We cannot agree on whether to wage a War on Terror, let alone how such a war should be waged. We cannot agree on whether it is a good thing to spread democracy or remove dictators who openly refuse to comply with UN WMD inspections. We cannot agree on whether illegal immigration is a security risk or a boon to businesses. We cannot agree on whether it is a good idea to monitor communications between American citizens and known terrorist operatives in other countries.

The chasm between the two major parties grows wider and public trust in government sinks lower. House members and Senators spend far more time raising money and making campaign appearances than they spend on the duties they were elected to perform. Not surprisingly, young Americans are taught to be ashamed of American history and cynical of its government. This is noticeable most vividly in the plots of most Hollywood action thrillers (a topic for a future post). Hollywood’s favorite villain is nearly always a law enforcement officer (local or federal), our own military, a rogue government official, or most commonly a secret cabal within the U.S. Government. It is no wonder that Americans fear their own government more than they fear terrorists. We seem to have lost the American collective agreement that this country, despite its flaws, is worth preserving, defending, and sharing. Anti-Americanism among Americans is the illegitimate offspring of a mistaken belief that America should be more like the rest of the world.

I am reminded of the scene in It's a Wonderful Life, in which George Bailey (played brilliantly by Jimmy Stewart), attends a board meeting where the fate of his father’s building and loan business is to be decided. Mr. Potter, the wealthy, ruthless financier and member of the board moves to dissolve the Bailey Building and Loan. Having already taken over most of the town’s financial institutions and important industries, Potter complains that the Bailey business is “frittering away” money on customers unworthy in Potter’s opinion of the opportunities provided by small loans. As George Bailey witnesses Potter’s greed and low opinion of the common people, George stops and makes a profound statement to the other board members prior to their vote to dissolve the Bailey business. George warns the board, “The people of this town need the Building and Loan if only so they have somewhere to go without having to crawl to Potter.” The remark sobers the board and stuns Potter into silence. The board later votes against Potters motion and preserves the Building and Loan. The world is full of Mr. Potters, leaders who hoard wealth and snatch for more power while those around them starve or suffer. The world needs America if only so people will have somewhere to go to avoid having to live under tyranny, oppression, and ideological captivity.

2. Russia - There is a Mr. Potter in Russia, where private companies formed in the initial glow of an expected capitalist democracy are rapidly being centralized and profits redirected under the thumb of an increasingly authoritarian leader. The bread lines of Cold War Russia have returned as the distinctions between organized crime rings and the Russian government blur ominously. Political opponents or those possessing sensitive knowledge of Putin’s actions have been assassinated, or have fled to other nations for asylum only to later be assassinated. In word and deed, Putin, like Hitler in the 1930s, is working to restore national pride after a humiliating defeat (Cold War), reunite lands once part of an empire (Georgia is on Putin’s mind), find someone to blame for national woes (Anti-Americanism is on the rise under Putin), and silence enemies of the state. Like Hitler, Putin sees other heads of state as weak and easily intimidated. While making speeches about Russia’s cooperation in the War on Terror, President Bush is simultaneously developing ulcers over Russian arms sales to Iran and North Korea and lacks the tenacity of a Churchill to confront the man on his duplicity. It must be particularly galling for Putin, given his KGB background, to constantly read in every international publication that the U.S. won the Cold War. We should not make the mistake of believing our own boasting, even from leaders we admire.

The Cold War can never be concluded until one side or the other abandons its ideology, its weaponry, or both. Putin has abandoned neither. Instead, he embraces authoritarianism and is wrapping himself in the old Soviet flag while fanning the flames of Russian nationalism. Soaring oil and arms revenues are not being directed toward building infrastructure or expanding capitalist ventures, or even to increasing food production for the Russian people. Those revenues are fueling a restoration of Russia’s military prowess, and Putin’s job approval rating is 3 times that of Bush because he is appealing to “a resurgence of the Russian national culture.” In the Cold War, we did not defeat communism, we merely outspent it. Russia now holds enormous leverage in the world’s oil markets and has plenty of excess revenue to equip its military. Whether as direct culprit or willing facilitator through arms sales or intelligence sharing, Russia is in my estimation the nation to fear most in 2007.

3. Iran – Why not fear Iran more than our alleged ally, Russia? Quite simply, there is still an opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Israel will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and will act unilaterally if necessary to prevent it. Iran’s president has openly called for the annihilation of Israel, has threatened Israel with a glowing fiery destruction, and denies the Holocaust ever occurred. He refuses to allow Iran’s nuclear program to be monitored by the IAEA as required by the UN. While the status of Iraq’s WMD program was clouded by questionable intelligence, the locations and progress of Iran’s nuclear development facilities are boasted of openly by Iran itself. The people of Iran, particularly college students and others with more pro-western views need the United States if only to have somewhere to turn without having to crawl to Ahmadinejad for national pride. In this category too, Russia has consistently stated its opposition to any interference by the United States in Iran, making eventual confrontation with both of these nations inevitable.

4. North Korea - There is a Mr. Potter in North Korea, building additional nuclear arms and equipping his burgeoning army while millions starve in drought and famine conditions. UN sanctions will not alter Kim Jon Il’s course or bring his family dynasty to its demise. North Korea has already demonstrated its relationships with state sponsors of terrorism through rocket purchases from Iran and nuclear technology from Pakistan. Russia also continues to provide updated military technology to North Korea, which promises to “mercilessly punish” any nation that interferes with its nuclear program. Kim Jong Il covets his family’s wealth and prestige above all else and will sell any weapon or WMD technology in his possession with no concern over who is purchasing it or what it will be used for. The North Korean people need the United States if only to offer somewhere to turn to end the humanitarian nightmare and the political madness that is Kim Jong Il.

5. Pakistan – President Musharraf is a frequent target of criticism from Americans who feel he could do more to rid Pakistan’s mountainous regions near the Afghanistan border of terrorists in hiding. Many are convinced Bin Laden is located there but Musharraf lacks the courage or desire to oust him. We should not forget that Pakistan, a technologically advanced nuclear power, is one assassination away from falling into political chaos, with a potential for it to emerge from the leadership vacuum under the control of Islamic-fascists. Musharraf has survived double digit assassination attempts, from within his own security forces as well as known Al Qaeda operatives. Pressing him for gradual reform is appropriate, but we should fear what may rise in his place if his enemies eventually succeed in his murder. President Bush is right to maintain close ties with and a close eye of scrutiny on Musharraf and the internal politics of Pakistan.

These five risks to our security, if not dealt with decisively and with unity in 2007, pose grave threats to our very existence. Internal strife, however, should be our most pressing concern, because if we continue on the path of increasing public dispute over what constitutes a terrorist and how terrorists should be dealt with, we will be rendered impotent to defend ourselves or anyone else from tyranny.

Technorati Tags:
War On Terror Al Qaeda national security terrorism Russia Putin Iran Ahmadinejad Pakistan Musharraf North Korea Kim Jong Il Jimmy Stewart IAEA WMD