Chavez-Iran Axis Revives Monroe Doctrine

Summer 2007 appears to have ushered in a new season of revivals; Liberal Democrats, not satisfied with control of all broadcast TV networks, CNN, MSNBC, and most major daily newspapers in America, attempted to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” in order to destroy conservative talk radio; In Britain, the specter of summertime Islamic terror attacks was revived over the weekend with attempted bombings of nightclubs in London and the Glasgow Airport in Scotland; Scooter Libby’s freedom was revived after President Bush provided him with clemency after an agenda-driven prosecutor and a biased DC jury convicted him for having a poor memory in a case in which no underlying crime actually occurred; The level of political activity and discussion in America was revived by fierce debate and Internet blogging about illegal immigration, proving that the voices of constituents really can make a difference to our elected officials; The threat of socialism and the extension of radical Islamic ideologies in the western hemisphere was revived through the formation of an alliance between Iran and Venezuela, creating direct threats to America’s national security and economic interests throughout South America.

This last revival deserves significant consideration as it relates to America’s foreign policy and national security. An anti-American “Axis” has been formally created between Venezuela and Iran, two members of the OPEC oil cartel. This alliance, dubbed the “Axis of Unity,” is a wedding of oil-rich nations who share only one stated purpose: "The two countries will united defeat the imperialism of North America." Those words by Venezuela’s socialist president Hugo Chavez, when placed in the context of recent actions by Iran and Venezuela, constitute a direct threat to the stability and security of the western hemisphere. Chavez has issued orders to Venezuela’s rapidly growing military to prepare for war against the U.S. He has entered into several arms purchase agreements with Russia, including Russian submarines to bolster Venezuela’s expanding naval capabilities, and although the Russian subs are not the most tactically advanced or newest models, they still pose grave potential security threats to U.S. shipping in South America as well as a completely unmonitored method for smuggling terrorists and weapons (possibly WMD) from Iran to Venezuela through the quiet deep. Chavez further seized the operations of two American oil companies in Venezuela (Exxon Mobil and Conoco-Phillips) and nationalized them, forcing the companies out and adding to Venezuela’s despotic control of its oil production.

Iran, as has been reported extensively by Capital Cloak, continues its rapid march toward nuclear weapons capability, and continues to train, fund, equip, and transport Islamic terrorists throughout the world, in particular Iraq. American generals have determined that Iran is actually attempting to organize an Iraqi version of terror group Hezbollah and is responsible for most of the IEDs and VBIEDs that have killed or wounded coalition forces in Iraq. Iran, like Venezuela, is a major oil producer, and that status gives concerned nations considerable pause when contemplating use of force to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and terror sponsorship. Nothing would please Iran and its radical president Ahmadinejad more than establishing a secure foothold in the Americas, sheltered by a sworn enemy of the U.S., where terror operations and smuggling could bring operatives and weapons into much closer proximity to the “Great Satan” than is currently possible on any large scale. The two nations have formed an economic, ideological, and potential military partnership in America’s backyard.

I would ask our government to consider a simple question: what has happened to the Monroe Doctrine? In this summer of revivals, the return of the Monroe Doctrine would be a revival worthy of swift implementation. President Bush frequently tells us that “we are fighting terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here.” If that is the logical basis for the administration’s War on Terror strategy, then it would seem critical to define what is meant by “fight them here.” Under the Monroe Doctrine, “here” would include anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. The Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe in 1823, declared to European powers that North and South America were no longer open for colonization and that any attempt by a foreign power to extend its influence into the “New World” would be viewed as dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States. Prior to the official pronouncement of the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. had recognized Argentina, Chile, Columbia, and Mexico as republics, and the doctrine was an affirmation that the sovereignty of free governments in the western hemisphere, as well as the prevention of foreign interference, were critical to America’s national security and would be enforced through American military force as needed.

Since that time, to briefly summarize a long history of development, the Monroe Doctrine has been invoked to justify anti-Soviet operations in Guatemala in the 1950s after the Soviet Union intervened in Guatemala’s internal politics, as well as President Kennedy’s Cuban missile crisis confrontation with the Soviets. While it is true that Venezuela sought its current alliance with Iran and is not technically being interfered with by a foreign power, Latin and South American security considerations in the age of Islamic terrorism would certainly be as justified under the Monroe Doctrine today as it was in Monroe’s, Grant’s, Teddy Roosevelt’s, or John F. Kennedy’s time. In 1962, Kennedy made the following statement about the Monroe Doctrine’s role in confronting the Soviet Union over Cuba:

The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the Organization of American States and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.

The Bush administration and future presidents should consider carefully Kennedy’s wording. He did not state that a foreign power must be interfering in the Western Hemisphere before America should act. He used the phrase “we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere.” In its new “Axis of Unity” based on hatred of America, Iran is certainly making overt efforts to extend its power into the America’s, or as Chavez bragged, "This is the unity of the Persian Gulf and the Caribbean Sea."

If President Bush is serious about “fighting terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here,” he should study and reassert the Monroe Doctrine as previous presidents have done to prevent dangerous ideologies and avowed enemies of America from establishing a beachhead in the Western Hemisphere from which to launch attacks on our interests or foment terror on our doorstep.

It is not in the interest of our national security, or the security of other Latin and South American nations, to allow an “Axis of Unity” to join hands with the “Axis of Evil.”

Technorati Tags:
Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Axis of Unity, Venezuela, Russian Arms Sales, Monroe Doctrine, War on Terror, National Security

Should National Security "Bow to Reality?"

The old adage “don’t shoot the messenger” is nowhere more applicable than in the debate over the Bush-Kennedy amnesty for illegal aliens bill currently before Congress. Those who oppose President Bush’s “path to citizenship” (amnesty) for an estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens are branded as racists by Latino groups, as nativists lacking compassion, or as fear mongers by the president himself. Latino groups assume that all opposition to illegal immigration reform is directed solely at Mexicans, but that is ethnic vanity. They would like to believe the issue is all about them, but it not. Illegal immigration is illegal, whether the violator is Mexican, Canadian, German, or Tibetan. Of course, due to geographic proximity, the vast majority of illegal aliens are Mexican, but violators should not be allowed to profit from their illegal action simply because they violate in bulk.

The most effective media messenger thus far in the illegal alien immigration debate has been Ann Coulter. Of course, because Coulter is blunt and opposes the proposed “reform” legislation, she is portrayed by the liberal media as a radical hate monger. It is unfortunate that few seem capable of looking beyond Coulter’s biting sarcasm of past columns to discover the gems of logic in her most recent and quite astute assessment of the Bush-Kennedy bill.

Coulter’s column, “Importing a Slave Class,” unintentionally became a forceful rebuttal to comments made later in the day by Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. Let’s examine Chertoff’s statements, and then apply Coulter’s arguments to determine who makes a better case.

Chertoff, in an extensive interview with USA Today’s editorial board on May 23, made some comments that were extraordinary coming from the man charged with protecting homeland security. The most telling remark may have been his criticism of Bush-Kennedy bill opponents for demanding deportations that are “not going to happen.” There it was, in black and white print; Homeland Security throwing up its arms in surrender to 12-20 million lawbreakers and admitting they will not be deported, apparently regardless of whether the Bush-Kennedy bill passes. The following excerpt from USA Today’s report provides a sample of Chertoff’s embrace of amnesty:

Chertoff acknowledged that there is "a fundamental unfairness" in a bill allowing illegal immigrants to stay. But trying to force them to leave would be impossible, Chertoff said, "We are bowing to reality."

He dismissed the argument of Republican conservatives, such as Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who argue that illegal immigrants will leave if strict enforcement of U.S. laws makes it impossible for them to find a job.

"You're not going to replace 12 million people who are doing the work they're currently doing," Chertoff said. "If they don't leave, then you are going to give them silent amnesty. You're either going to let them stay or you're going to be hypocritical."

Bilbray said his idea hasn't worked because "there's been a conscious strategy of not enforcing the law."

Chertoff, whose department has staged a number of recent raids that have resulted in mass roundups of illegal workers and sharp protests from religious groups, warned there will be more if the workers don't get a chance to become legal. "We're going to enforce the law," he said. "People all around the country will be seeing teary-eyed children whose parents are going to be deported."

There is a lot in that excerpt to turn one’s stomach, but I will begin with the white flag attitude that deportation is impossible. No one asked Chertoff to deport all 12-20 million illegal aliens overnight, but his response is very clear; if you can’t deport them all, why try to deport any? Remembering that Coulter wrote her column before Chertoff’s interview, here is Coulter’s rebuttal to the notion that deportation is impossible:

…The jejune fact that we "can't deport them all" is supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to illegal aliens – and fast!

I'm astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100 percent.

We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not "amnesty" – we'll ask them to pay a small fine.

If it's "impossible" to deport illegal aliens, how did we come to have so much specific information about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens and will take jobs other Americans won't. Someone must have talked to them to gather all this information. Let's find that guy – he must know where they are!

…If the 12-million figure is an extrapolation based on the number of illegal immigrants in public schools or emergency rooms and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood, then shouldn't we be looking for them at schools and hospitals and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood?

There are a lot of well-manicured lawns in the Metropolitan Washington DC area too, but I am SURE that has no bearing on the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill debate.

I keep hearing President Bush and others claim that this is our best chance for reform, or something similar, but Americans should not accept the “either/or” choice placed before them. Coulter’s point is valid; No one is demanding 100% deportation or overnight deportation. For that matter, everyone hopes for but few expect Homeland Security to identify and catch 100% of the terrorists in America. Americans do, however, expect a 100% effort to do so, and should demand the resignation of anyone who considers less than 100% effort to be acceptable. What Americans have wanted all along is an honest, adequately funded, and consistently applied effort to enforce the illegal immigration laws already in place. What Americans did not request was for someone in Washington to unilaterally decide that it was not in America’s best interest to actually enforce immigration laws. That decision is not Chertoff’s to make, nor is it the president’s responsibility to interfere with a law enforcement function. Does America want a Homeland Security Secretary who thinks his tasks are impossible? Should Homeland Security be in the business of “bowing to reality” or creating reality through determined application of the law?

The number has reached 12-20 million precisely because the government has not enforced existing laws. The goal of law enforcement is often as much to produce societal deterrence as it is to punish individual offenders. By granting previous amnesty (1986) and then not enforcing existing laws, no deterrent was ever applied and now officials like Chertoff are unwilling even to try enforcement. Instead of rolling up his shirtsleeves and going to work, Chertoff wants to roll up his shirtsleeves and wash his hands of that 12-20 million figure.

It has been claimed that there is not enough money to hire additional Customs, Border Patrol, or Immigration and Citizenship personnel to handle any large scale deportation effort. Yet Chertoff is convinced that he could secure additional funds and staff to handle performing 12-20 million background checks in a gradual process to legalize (amnesty) the illegals he claims it impossible to deport. Hugh Hewitt recently interviewed Chertoff and the Homeland Security Secretary made it quite clear that while he is willing to gradually legalize illegal aliens, he will not consider gradually deporting those same aliens:

HH: I know it’s a little more prosaic what I’m getting to, Mr. Secretary, which is you’ve got 12 million applications.

MC: Right.

HH: Who’s physically going to pick them up and handle them? Which department’s going to do that?

MC: We’re going to use…DHS will collect the applications, collect the fingerprints. The process of background checking then will occur in cooperation with the FBI and its databases, our databases, and all the databases that are currently kept in the terrorist screening center.

HH: And have you allocated staff time? I mean, an 11 million, if it’s on the low end, 12 million investigations, 12 million interviews, have you got an analysis of where that’s going to funnel to, and who’s actually going to do that work, because from my time in the government as deputy director of OPM running the securities investigation, it takes days to do a decent investigation, and this is all going to hit at once. I don’t know where the people are.

MC: Well, it’s not going to hit at once. It will hit over a period of time, because there will be an enrollment period. And as I know you know, Hugh, obviously, we’re not going to be doing background checks of the kind that you do for a top security clearance. What we’re going to be doing is running fingerprints and names against various databases, which is a process we currently use, for example, in screening people who get visas to come into the country for all kinds of purposes. So we already do millions of these through our existing processes. There’s no question we’re going to need money to increase the staff and the capability for these 12 million. But I want to put it in perspective by saying that we process 80 million air travelers every year coming through our airports, so we already deal with a very large volume of people that we are screening to let them come into the country legally.

It is incredible that the head of Homeland Security would ask for additional funding and staff to help streamline the legalization process but adopts a “bowing to reality” posture when it comes to enforcement of current laws. Chertoff attempted to cast the debate in compassionate terms, citing examples of federal raids that resulted in a press conference, some token arrests, and news coverage of crying children. Americans should reject this clouding of the issue. Raids and deportations are rare, not because of the negative press or crying children, but for reasons Ann Coulter captured most effectively:

The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people's lives.

Something tells me the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians or Hollywood agents. You lose your job, while I keep my job at the Endeavor agency, my Senate seat, my professorship, my editorial position or my presidency. (And I get a maid!)

The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants – unlike you lazy Americans – are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us chip in for the immigrants' schooling, food and health care.

These great lovers of the downtrodden – the downtrodden trimming their hedges – pretend to believe that their gardeners' children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but 1) they don't believe that; and 2) if it happened, they'd lose their gardeners.

The Bush administration is busy casting verbal stones at those who oppose the current immigration “reform” bill, but there should be no surprise that Americans are angered by the proposed legislation. The federal government has proven unwilling to enforce existing laws for decades, but now a new bill with new laws will magically be enforced and seal up our borders? Rather than granting amnesty, government should work to earn our trust by securing America’s borders, not just the one with Mexico, and then enforcing laws already in place. “Sanctuary cities” became sanctuaries because local law enforcement encountered illegal aliens, reported them to INS-CBP-ICE, and then waited eternally for a response or sign of interest in taking custody of the alien. When those agencies demonstrated no effort to take immigration status seriously, local governments adopted the same stance.

Illegal immigration, like Iraq, is a difficult national security situation. The president refuses to “cut and run” in Iraq, but amnesty would be to illegal immigration what surrender in defeat would be to Iraq. America can afford neither.

ABC Warns Iran of US Covert Actions

If Harry Reid had referred to the War on Terror rather than the Iraq War when he stated “this war is lost,” perhaps he would have been closer to the truth. America faces the world’s premier terror sponsor, Iran, rapidly advancing toward nuclear capability, but neither the American government nor the American media have the collective will or discipline to win any war, let alone a war against terrorism.

The New York Times previously revealed the existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program that monitors communication between persons residing in America and known terrorists in foreign nations. That revelation resulted in terrorist groups altering their communication protocols, making it more difficult for American intelligence agencies to identify terrorists living in the United States and thwart potential attacks on the homeland. Now ABC and “anonymous government sources” are placing the entire world at risk by exposing a covert American intelligence program designed to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons without the U.S. resorting to military action. Keeping nuclear weapons out of Ahmadinejad’s hands; that should be something all Americans want, right? Apparently the “A” in ABC does not stand for American, as its decision to publish this story was anything but patriotic.

The ABC Blotter report posted last night exceeded the New York Times piece on NSA Domestic Surveillance in its audacity, poor timing, and potential consequences for global security. It is quite clear from the Blotter report that ABC has no sense of self-preservation, and is far more concerned about breaking an exclusive story than it is about Iran’s mullahs holding the threat of nuclear bombs over Israel and America. It is impossible to overstate this fact: If we are hold Congressional hearings about firing U.S. Attorneys and leaking names of “covert” CIA employees who were never covert (Valerie Plame), then heads should roll and charges filed over the “sensitive” (i.e. Top Secret/SCI) information revealed to and reported by ABC. Here are the salient points from the Blotter article:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region...

The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community...

Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq...

Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran...

Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program...

"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders...

Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams...

What did Iran learn from this ABC report? First, the general existence of the covert program and its intended goals; second, the U.S. has temporarily chosen to avoid military confrontation with Iran, which will surely lead to Iran further expediting its uranium enrichment efforts without immediate fear of military strikes; and third, the CIA is targeting Iranian monetary accounts which funnel funds to Iran’s nuclear program, which will surely lead to Iran altering the funding process and better disguising these accounts, much like al Qaeda altered its communications after the New York Times revealed the Domestic Surveillance program.

Each of these pieces of information was classified and revealing any of them is a criminal act. The Blotter report also contains important information about who knew about the program and its approval by the White House. This should help prosecutors, if Congress is interested even minimally in protecting national security, to compile a short list of suspects. Bruce Riedel, although hiding behind the moniker “retired CIA senior official” is not immune. Although many reporters speculate about steps America could take to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment, Riedel’s disclosure of the CIA strategy to target specific secret accounts used by Iran to fund its nuclear program was based on his personal knowledge of classified discussions and documents, and under federal law he was not authorized to disclose that information until official declassification, typically 25 years later. He should not have spoken to ABC until the year 2032 and should be prosecuted and professionally shunned for his participation in making it easier for Iran to build nuclear bombs and keep the mullahs in power. If he ever writes a book about his years in the CIA, boycott it.

In Intelligence, military, and law enforcement, the key to victory is “operational security” (OPSEC). It is universally understood that once the public knows about an operation, its effectiveness is virtually neutralized. For an illustration of effective OPSEC, we need look no further than the 9/11 al Qaeda cells. There were no sources within Bin Laden’s “government” who spoke to the media on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the plot information. There were no revelations to the media about methods al Qaeda was training to implement in hijacking operations. There was no advance warning, and in fact their OPSEC kept the cells from even knowing each other’s identities, locations, or itineraries so that if one cell were identified by the FBI, it would have no capacity to reveal anything about the other cells. If they, being evil, can be so good at OPSEC, why is it that we, being good, are so bad at OPSEC? There can be no covert “black” operations when they are exposed to media light before they can develop.

“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say…” should be the opening argument in the Justice Department’s prosecution of the sources and ABC officials who received classified information and published it. These sources should not be "saying" anything, and they know it. It also clearly illustrates why we will lose the War on Terror. President Bush, who is constantly accused of warmongering by the liberal left, has obviously worked along with the intelligence community to do everything possible short of military action to prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs in defiance of international law. Yet even the non-military approach was leaked to willing accomplice ABC by leftover (or passed over) Clinton/Tenet liberals in the CIA and other agencies in an effort to undermine this administration even if doing so results in a nuclear Iran. America cannot win a War on Terror when half of the nation hates its president more than it hates terrorists. They would rather impeach or embarrass Bush than disarm Iran. They would rather see a liberal win the 2008 election than see the world’s democracies win the War on Terror.

Terrorists Motivated by Global Warming?

"It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism." So wrote Gen. Anthony Zinni, President Bush's former Middle East envoy in a 35 page report produced by CNA Corporation, a national security think tank. 6 retired admirals and 5 retired generals contributed to the report, which asserts that global warming poses a significant threat to national security. Zinni’s quote above may also illustrate why he is the President’s former Middle East envoy.

The existence and rise of terrorism has been blamed on a variety of factors, all of which inevitably lead to a central villain: America. U.S. support of Israel, America’s declining morals and corrupt culture, placement of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, “occupations” of Iraq and Afghanistan, all of these have been cited as reasons for why terrorists hate America. Now, eleven distinguished retired military leaders have come to the logic defying conclusion that terrorists, who willingly dwell in 130 degree Fahrenheit desert heat, want to kill Americans because of global warming.

According to CNN:

The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism. . . ."

Stanford scientist Terry Root, who co-authored a similar paper earlier this month on global warming’s impact on earth’s inhabitants, quoted by CNN/AP, warned:

"We're going to have a war over water," Root said. "There's just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment."

On a related note, the U.S. Northeast today awakened to flooding and continued torrential rain as a “nor’easter” hit the region over the weekend. Amazingly, the earth’s natural environment has distributed water for eons without the assistance or obstruction of feeble mankind. The earth never loses water, as the condensation, evaporation, precipitation cycle returns moisture into the atmosphere where clouds transport it elsewhere. Droughts and floods were common throughout recorded history in most parts of the world long before “greenhouse gasses” became a concern. Polar icecaps have thawed and refrozen to varying degrees during the earth’s existence, before CFCs and carbon footprints (or in Al Gore’s case, Bigfoot prints-get a smaller house Al!).

In fairness to the NCA report, migrating populations seeking better resources and opportunities throughout the world are indeed a threat to world stability, but not for the reasons their report claims. Hence the need for better border security and enforcement of our existing immigration statutes, to get ahead of this problem that is, in fact, a quest for freedom rather than an escape from melting ice caps. The migrations are already occurring and have been for decades. Global warming is not driving Mexicans to leave their families to seek employment and income in America.

The large influx of immigrants from Europe in the nineteenth century that made America a strong and inclusive nation were not fleeing Europe’s coal belching factories choking the air in the great industrial centers. They came to America seeking greater freedom and opportunity. In all respects, population migrations are a search for better opportunity, and the nations of the world should prepare to receive immigrants and heat up the melting pots.

NCA and other think tanks should focus on devising secure, organized, and humanitarian immigration systems to prepare for normal cyclical climate change and resulting migration rather than urging the government to spend billions on emissions protocols and mandating consumer behavior. President Bush deserves praise for rebuffing demands to place a restrictive carbon emissions stranglehold on American businesses competing with other nations not lifting a finger to curb “global warming,” such as China. It would be foolish to impose economy crushing standards on American companies and hope that other nations will eventually follow our example.

Global warming must be globally accepted and globally combated in an “all for one and one for all” program, or it should be ignored. In the Cold War, President Reagan did not disarm America because nuclear weapons posed a threat to the earth and then hope that the Soviets would follow that example out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead, negotiations over arms control required mutual effort and reductions. In the so-called global warming battle, the U.S. should not expose its economy to the ravages of the financial battlefield until China and all other emissions culprits are playing on the same level playing field.

General Zinni and his collaborators on the global warming report are strategists, and as such have experience developing tactical and logistical plans for virtually any contingency. While it is not unusual for such men to prepare for any eventuality, the recent rush by members of Congress, 2008 presidential candidates, and think tankers (perhaps with aspirations for public office) appears politically opportunistic in the embrace of the cause du jour. As I wrote last week, elevating global warming to a national security issue may satisfy a need for political attention, but it will significantly hamstring our military resources and dilute priorities as attention is diverted from al Qaeda to Al Gore.

Speaker Pelosi's Slight of Presidential Protocol Worse than "ic" Error by President: Wants to Strip President of War Powers

Comments made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi illustrated all too clearly that Democratic animosity toward President Bush trumps Democratic commitment to fighting terrorism and keeping the world safe from nuclear arms proliferation. Speaking to a gathering of Democratic members of the House of Representatives in Williamsburg, VA on Saturday, Pelosi menacingly stated to her colleagues, “if it appears likely that Bush wants to take the country to war against Iran, the House would take up a bill to deny him the authority to do so.”

From a national security perspective, this sentiment, coming as it did from someone third in the line of presidential succession, is significant. Note that Pelosi did not qualify her remarks with any caveats such as whether Congress should authorize war against Iran if Iran attacked another nation, such as Israel, or if an Iranian-produced nuclear device were detonated in an American or allied city, or even if Iran continues to refuse to halt its nuclear weapons program. Pelosi likewise did not make an exception for a scenario in which Iran, seeing Congress’s spineless debates over meaningless “resolutions” on the Iraq War, decided the time was right to invade Iraq and seize its considerable natural resources and slaughter Sunni’s without restraint or mercy.

Based on Pelosi’s statement, none of these provocations, any of which would pose clear and present dangers to global security, would be sufficient for this Democratic Congress to approve military action against Iran and support the Commander in Chief, entirely because he is George W. Bush. For Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues the fundamental threat to America is not Iran, or North Korea, or even Islamic terrorists. Rather than working to deny terrorists of their funding, weaponry, and safe shelter from sponsoring states, the current Congress is more interested in working to deny the President the authority to wage war with Iran regardless of Iran’s actions. Note her choice of words, “deny him the authority” (emphasis added). Congress is not interested in proposing a bill to deny ALL presidents the authority to wage war against Iran, only THIS president.

If a Democrat, Hillary Clinton perhaps, is elected president in 2008, and Iran successfully tests a nuclear weapon and then acts militarily against Israel or the U.S., would the Democratic president respond with war on Iran? Or would Speaker Pelosi’s Congress “deny him [or her] the authority to do so”? Democrats cannot have it both ways. Either Iran is a threat or it is not, and to rule out military action against Iran even before it becomes a necessity is irresponsible and demonstrates a poor grasp of national security policies.

Analyzing Pelosi’s comments further reveals much about the Speaker’s emotions and personal disdain for the President. Courtesy protocol within the U.S. Government, and indeed American culture as a whole, once required the proper name and/or title for the person elected to serve as President, regardless of party. Even in the rancorous Congressional debates immediately prior to the Civil War, Congressmen and Senators referred to the President as “Mr. President” or “President (fill in the blank).” Speaker Pelosi rarely uses the appropriate titles for a sitting president, instead choosing to express her anti-Bush sentiment by generally refusing to acknowledge he is the President, constantly leaving out the title altogether.

The Democratic Party recently threw quite a tantrum in the media when President Bush referred to it as the “Democrat” rather than the “Democratic” Party. The President explained that he simply forgot to include the “ic” suffix and apologized, but that hardly pacified the Democrats, who displayed a remarkable sensitivity to the expected protocol of appropriate titles. For Democrats to constantly refer to the President as simply “Bush” or “Mr. Bush” demonstrates an intentional and personal disrespect for the President, who has the historical expectation of being called “Mr. President,” “Sir,” or “President Bush.” News articles and broadcasts, conservative and liberal, have embraced the stripping of titles in the interest of brevity.

Respect for the office of President has declined in the U.S. and the world to the point that few are impressed anymore by the title “President of the United States,” when not long ago it was the most imposing and respected position in the world to friend and foe alike. The loss of respect for the office is not a product of President Bush’s perceived shortcomings, but rather arose prominently during the Vietnam War and unfortunately continues to this day.

Having witnessed the unseemly behaviors of a former president and the social circles he kept, I understand how loss of respect for the man serving as president occurs. Not all presidents are role models in their private lives. However, even when observing such behavior, to me he was still “Mr. President” or “Sir” and he represented the U.S. to the world. Our presidents must project to the world the image of collective support of the American people, particularly in times of war or crisis. There was nearly unanimous support for war against Saddam Hussein in 2003 based on the available intelligence, yet when the war became more difficult than expected blaming the President became a political opportunity for his personal opponents in both parties.

Despite the patently false accusation, anti-war activists eagerly spread the concept “Bush lied people died.” Where are the chants, “Clinton lied people died”? After all, while in office former President Clinton declared Saddam Hussein a grave threat to the world and pointed out that while others may possess WMD, Hussein had actually used them on Iranians and Kurds (read Clinton’s announcement of strikes in Iraq in 1998 and his justification for them here). Senator Clinton echoed similar assessments of Hussein when she voted to support the war in Iraq.

Democrats do not accuse the Clintons of lying, defending them instead as victims of faulty intelligence. They reserve the liar label for President Bush, who used the same intelligence to justify the removal of Saddam. Al Gore screamed, “He [Bush] betrayed out country. He played on our fears,” despite Gore’s support of the decision to strike Iraq in 1998 for the same reasons Bush cited for war. The effort to portray President Bush as a deceiver and warmonger has influenced international opinion and discredited the office of president itself, a weakening that Democrats will wish they had not encouraged if/when they hold that office and need to wield power to protect the nation.

When 2005 brought the Hurricane Katrina disaster, it was the President’s fault that neither the mayor of New Orleans or the Governor of Louisiana took any action to use local resources to relocate and care for their citizens who chose not to listen to FEMA and NWS warnings to evacuate. Democrats instead encouraged storm victims, particularly African-Americans who lost everything to Katrina, to blame the President and accuse him of not wanting to help black people. Was the African-American mayor accused of this when he failed to utilize hundreds of available local school buses to evacuate the city? No, it was still the President’s fault.

We are failing as a nation to project a strong image to the world during a period of war and crisis (terrorism) and our enemies, terror groups as well as nation states, are well aware of our divisions and personal animosities. Until the American electorate chooses otherwise, President Bush is the President of the United States and should be treated as such by Congress, particularly in public appearances and in front of the controversy-hungry media. The Speaker of the House and her party should not be cementing plans to deny the President of any authority that one day may prove essential to national security simply because they personally dislike the man and covet the office.

Technorati Search Tags: Al Gore Presidential Protocol Presidential Authority Islamic Terrorists Nancy Pelosi Bush Administration Civil War Iranian nuclear program National Security Hillary Clinton Bill Clinton Iraq War Global War On Terror

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