Politically Incorrect

On 4 May 1886, an unknown demonstrator threw a bomb at police during a confrontation with striking workers.  Ever since, the “bombthrower” has been a label applied to anarchists and extremists in the American political spectrum who have either engaged in rhetoric “over the line” or actually performed violence against their opponents.  On Tuesday, 6 March 2008 at 3:45 am an (as yet) unidentified person, likely on a bicycle, threw a bomb at the military recruiting office at Times Square, damaging the building but injuring no one; for the developing story, see here: cnn.story.

The bombing bears none of the hallmarks of an al Qaeda attack (which would certainly have targeted populated places at a busier time of day), but is a quintessential anarchist or far-far left (or far-far right, for that matter) tactic.  The recruiting office, the site of numerous protests, is located in the middle of Times Square and therefore viewed by many anti-military people in NYC as an affront to their fair city.  In fact, what this incident makes clear is that the radical and harsh anti-war rhetoric of the far left has finally caused the bombthrowers to take matters into their own hands.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for all his eccentricities,  stated quite correctly that this was an attack on the American military and all those serving in it.  What this event will (hopefully) lead to will be both a reduction in rhetoric and less reliance on meaningless slogans by critics of the war.  For instance, those who state they “support the troops” (but hate the war) will have to roundly condemn this event and the attitudes and ideas that motivated it.  It should also have the effect of forcing those anti-war pundits and politicians to back up their words with actions - they should dissuade opponents of the war from such terroristic acts and from exhibiting hatred at the US military - which after all must serve where and when the commander-in-chief directs them.

Whether or not this incident will lead to a change in attitudes or ideas among the anti-war left remains to be seen - I have my doubts.  The closet bombthrowers have been boiling for over 5 years and cannot wait for President Bush’s term to draw to a close.  One can only imagine what they may do if McCain is elected this November and they have to deal with a veteran in the White House.  Unless there is a major effort among the anti-war elites to denounce these tactics and remain a peaceful philosophy, and a corresponding effort by the pro-war right to civilly debate their opponents’ views, the situation will likely deteriorate.  A return to civility in politics is therefore likely the best method to marginalizing these extremists and preventing such radicals from engaging in violence.

During his speech following the Tuesday primaries, Barack Obama made the statement that the United States needed to talk to its enemies, and as precedent he cited the presidents during the Cold War who carried on dialogue with the Soviet Union.  In effect, through this speech and numerous statements he has previously made, Obama believes the President needs to talk to America’s enemies directly, including Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.

Though no one can deny that every American  president during the Cold War talked with the premiers of the Soviet Union and that this situation helped reduce tension and avoid hostilities, it is not relevant to the current state of international affairs.  The Cold War was a unique example of America talking to its enemies directly because the nations were not “at war,” and the best way to maintain that situation was through dialogue.  After all, when the United States was at war with other great powers, such as Germany and Japan, any communication took place through neutral third parties, never directly.

The difference between the current international situation and the Cold War is therefore that America does not have to talk to another great power for the purpose of preventing war.  By not working unilaterally with bellicose nations until certain preconditions are met, the US is denying their regimes the legitimacy they seek in the international arena.  Also, “talking” with nations with regimes such as those found in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran can provide no benefit to the United States, and only benefit those rogue states.  To paraphrase Sun Tzu, if something is not in the national interest, do not do it.

Obama’s corollary that the US should talk with all its adversaries because that is what was done during the Cold War does not  therefore stand up to historical scrutiny.  There is no reason to abandon multi-party talks and engage these nations directly, especially if it has the adverse effect of strengthening their regimes.  While there are instances when it is necessary to talk to one’s enemies, it is often when dealing with another great power or when the state is led by a rational leader or regime.  In the end, Obama needs to learn that if an action is not in the national interest of the US, he ought not to perform it.

Politically Incorrect is proud to announce the re-emergence of one of its writers, Adam Nowland, from his hiatus as a law school student to once again being a full-time contributor.  Starting immediately, Mr. Nowland assumes the role of Foreign Editor in addition to his duties as Editor-in-Chief.  Mr. Nowland’s duties will include continuing to provide leadership in the blog’s direction and will now include managing posts regarding foreign affairs, though he will continue to contribute to domestic issues as well.

In addition, Politically Incorrect is excited to announce the elevation of Sean Varner from Staff Writer to Domestic Editor, where his duties will include overseeing all domestic news posts, with special attention to Vote 2008, Politically Incorrect’s groundbreaking original analysis of this year’s national elections.  Mr. Varner will also help contribute to the blog’s foreign affairs department as well.  Both editors look forward to assuming their new duties with vigor, and hope that the blog’s regular readers continue to support the site.

On 12 February 2008, senior Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyah was killed by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria.  This came nearly 25 years after Mughniyah’s most deadly attack, the 1983 Marine barracks truck bombing, which he helped coordinate.  He was also found to be responsible for the Beirut embassy bombings and the kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon in the mid-1980s.  For more information on this notorious terrorist’s activities, see www.tkb.org or read Robert Baer’s excellent memoir, See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism.

What, then, are the implications of this development in the wider War on Islamist Jihadists? First of all, it brings forth the fact that this struggle is not confined to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but that it stretches across much of the Middle East (and to cells around the world - Mughniyah was linked to 1990s attacks in Argentina).  Secondly, it helps dispel the myth that a terrorist can commit devastating attacks against the West and not eventually be brought to justice (Mughniyah had disappeared nearly 15 years ago after living constantly on the run and reputedly undergoing plastic surgery).

This therefore counts as an indisputable victory for the worldwide effort to root out terrorists and bring them to justice.  Though he may not be as well known as bin Laden, those who have studied the issue of terrorism in depth remember that the Marine barracks and Embassy bombings in 1983, the kidnapping of Westerners in Lebanon, the hijacking of a TWA airliner in 1985, the Khobar Towers bombing, and the attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina in the 1990s, were all interrelated by the involvement of Mughniyah.

Though many Arab nations and groups like Hezbollah are attempting to charge Israel with conducting this assassination, it is of little consequence who authorized or carried it out.  The point is that a lifelong terrorist was finally brought to justice.  Though many forgot about his attacks and even his existence over the past 15 years, the FBI and CIA never stopped their pursuit, as attested by the fact he remained on the list of Most Wanted Terrorists.  His crimes against humanity made him just as notorious as Osama bin Laden, and the civilized world should experience relief that he will not be able to kill another innocent again.

One of the most important issues of the 2008 campaigns, as illustrated by the debates and speeches, will be how to address the issue of illegal immigration.  Those on the far right believe a deluge of illegal immigrants will flood across our borders and usurp American jobs, force people to learn Spanish, and generally destroy our culture.  Those on the far left want American immigration policy to be a “come one, come all” pass at the open borders.

The most sensible course to follow to address the issue is to implement a policy that is comprehensive and just.  Such a proposal, like the one advocated by Senator John McCain, would first secure the border with a fence/electronic surveillance system combination.  Those who reside in the country illegally but who have not committed any violent crimes would be given the opportunity to pay fines and back taxes and placed on the path to citizenship.

This policy, far from amnesty, is the most sensible and realistic solution to the status of approximately 11 million illegal residents.  Given the sheer logistical impossibility of deporting 11 million people, there is a need to find a legal and permanent status for those who are willing to learn English, work, and become members of American society.  Incorporating other cultures into American civil society can only strengthen the nation.  Providing a mechanism to bring 11 million people out from underground and help them become part of mainstream and legal society is the best course of action to solve this seemingly impossible problem.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez seems to be acting in a very antagonistic way in recent months not only to the United States but to his Latin American neighbors as well.  It seems obvious that Chavez is attempting to create Venezuela and himself into something Castro and Cuba never could be - an economic as well as ideological menace to the United States.  With oil at record prices, Chavez seems to think Venezuela’s chance to dominate the region is at hand.

He recently, in the fashion of Julius Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte, sought to change the state’s constitution so that he could be reelected indefinitely, basically becoming a president for life.  He even boasted to supporters that he “will be the head of the government until 2050,” again trying to become a Castro-like figure and rule for life.  Concerned about U.S. interference to the point of paranoia, he claimed that if the American government attempted to support his opponents, he would cut off all oil exports to the United States.  Becoming further antagonistic, he stated that “Anyone who votes ‘No’ [on the referendum] is voting for George W. Bush.”

His personal hatred towards the American president (also exemplified in his “Devil” comments at the UN General Assembly) has caused him to almost become a pariah in the respected international community.  Most nations’ leaders, however they feel about President Bush, do not talk about him with rhetoric that is often saved for wartime enemies.   However, with the narrow, 2% defeat of his referendum, he has not cut off oil exports and seems to be willing to let his term end in 2012.

Closer to his home, Chavez recently severed most diplomatic ties (though not relations - yet) with Colombia, which shares a 1300 mile border with Venezuela.  This was in response to the Colombian President Uribe removing Chavz from his role as a mediator between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels.  The cause - Chavez violated peace talks by meeting directly with the head of the Colombian Army and, according to Uribe, fostering an “expansionist project.”  Chavez responded to this by not only recalling his ambassador but also by calling Uribe a liar and refusing to deal with him or his government.

It thus becomes increasingly evident that Chavez believes he has more clout than he actually has and he believes he can thumb his nose at world leaders he is angry towards.  It also appears as though Chavez, whose government may be clandestinely supporting the training of terrorist groups in South America or supplying of FARC rebels, may be trying to instigate a crisis in Colombia to expand Venezuela’s power (a la a the Sudetenland seizure).  Whatever the case may be, Chavez has become a petty dictator attempting to drastically increase Venezuela’s power at the expense of his neighbors and, especially, the US.  While the recent vote was a setback for him, never underestimate the ability of a tyrant to break promises and reassert his authority, especially on top of a barrel of oil.

This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War between Israel and numerous Arab countries, principally Egypt and Syria.  Within those six days the Israeli Defense Forces managed to triple the size of their country by conquering the Sinai Peninsula, West Bank, and the Golan Heights.  The Pan-Arabist movement was dealt a severe blow, conventional war against Israel all but ceased (except for the 1973 Yom Kippur War), and those advocating the Palestinian cause began to turn to unconventional means to advance their agenda.  Forty years later, it is useful to see how the situation has developed.

As part of the “Land-for-Peace” movement, the Sinai was ceded back to Egypt in exchange for a peace accord between the two countries, broked by U.S. President Carter.  This action, however, resulted in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981 by a radical Islamist group.

The Palestinians have been granted autonomy of lands in Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for pledges of security and cooperation in combating terrorism (which have been largely unfulfilled).  And the Golan Heights, previously part of Syria, will likely never be ceded because they are simply too tactically important (hence, “Heights”) to the defense of Israel.

So 40 years after one of the quickest and most brilliant and technological campaigns of military history, what situation does Israel find itself in?  It still holds some of the territories it seized, principally those that are tactically or politically important.  Its neighbors are no longer overtly hostile to Israel to the point of maintaining massed troops along the borders (though normalized relations are still elusive).  Lastly, its unrivaled performance on the battlefield has discouraged its enemies from engaging in open conventional warfare, some of which have reverted to terrorist tactics, the history of which has been well documented.

The legacy of the Six Day War is therefore a difficult one to summarize (indeed, it may be decades or longer before the full history can be written).  It will be remembered in history as one of the greatest campaigns of modernity and a testament to the skilled use of superior technology.  Although it defeated its enemies on conventional battlefields, they would in the future (again, excepting 1973) resort almost exclusively to terrorism to battle the state.  And on this point Israel has had mixed, though overall positive, success in countering terrorism.

Had any nation won as spectacular a victory as in the Six Day War sometime before the mid-twentieth century, it would have been a war-winning campaign.  In the modern world post-1945, however, wars are “won” just as much by politics and diplomacy as they are on the battlefield.  It is a lesson that is especially pertinent in the Middle East.  Military victory must complement political/diplomatic victory in the Arab-Israeli conflict, in the Iraq conflict, and also in the Kashmiri conflict in India and Pakistan.

It appears that Iran has taken a deliberately belligerent tone concerning its abduction of 15 British sailors from Iraqi waters. Far from a simple misunderstanding concerning national boundaries, it has used the incident to once again flout the will of the international community. An act like this in the past would be seen as an act of aggression deserving of a military response if the sailors were not immediately released and returned to Britain. There has been some contention, however, that this is precisely what Iran seeks in an effort to unite its populace against the West.

Though this reason seems to have convinced governmental authorities to temper their responses to the act of aggression, they give the Iranian strategists more credit than is due to them. The society is deeply divided concerning the leadership of Ahmadinejad, and it is unlikely that a military response to this incident would cause moderates to flock to the ayatollah’s banner.

By allowing the Iranians to “get away” with this action while the government negotiates and dithers, the British are setting a precedent whereby the illegal abduction of their servicemen will not elicit a powerful response. If the Iranian regime is ever to be confronted, it will require strong demonstrations of force in response to incidents such as these. A limited conventional airstrike on Iranian military bases and surface-to-air capabilities would send a clear message of the West’s refusal to be intimidated. Every day that goes by however, the public acceptance of such a response seems to decline, unless of course Iran would do something further provocative, such as put the sailors on trial.

In the midst of the conflict in Iraq, it would seem to be a bad time to draw “conclusions” that the struggle has taught us. Looking from a historical perspective however, there are certain lessons that seem to have been ignored over the past couple decades. While they could be instructive for a future war (perhaps against Iran), it is most likely too late to implement the policy in Iraq, when the war has reached an all time low popularity.

The fact of the matter is that Americans as a whole have not been asked or have not made a significant sacrifice in the past several years to help the war effort (with the notable exception of soldiers and their families).  Politicians’ infatuation with an all-volunteer army has led them to believe that there needs to be no unpleasantries during war, such as a draft, rationing, or mobilization.  They couldn’t be more long.  War is more than just a serious matter, it often dictates whether a nation will strengthen or weaken.

Lyndon Johnson pursued a policy in Vietnam that sought to fight a full-scale war while limiting the impact felt by most Americans.  In fact, he attempted to pursue a great expansion of the welfare state in his Great Society program.  In effect, he chose guns and butter, with the unfortunate effect that the American economy was still consumer oriented and the war dragged on another half-decade.

The same can be said of President Bush’s policy towards Iraq and the War on Terror in general.  Rather than mobilize the American people and economy, the president has chosen to limit the impact to such an extent that people live just like it were peacetime, and in many cases better than it has been in recent decades of peacetime.  Leaders pursue this policy because they believe the people will become restless or opposed to the war if it has an everyday impact on their lives.  It has been demonstrated however, both in Vietnam and Iraq, that a war (even if it starts out popular), is never popular with the American people if it goes on for a long time and victory is not clear and tangible.

Had the United States been fully mobilized as the Iraq War began, it is likely victory would have been unquestionably achieved by now.  However, the time for that has passed, but a possible conflict with Iran, North Korea, China, or any other host of potential nations would require that the American people mobilize for war.  Such an effort, involving conversion of consumer industries to war material industries, rationing of gasoline/oil and other commodities, and voluntary expansion of the armed forces, could lead to victory in a tolerable amount of time.

So clearly the best course of action in the future is not to attempt to achieve the illusion of waging limited war while non-defense spending remains the same or grows (currently the defense budget of the GDP is 3.8%, compared to 38% at height of WWII).  The lesson is to choose guns before and during a time of war, followed by butter in a time of peace.

The current story out of Iraq is that the US government now has unequivocal proof that Iran has been supplying arms and logistical support to Shiite insurgent groups within Iraq.  Any competent intelligence analyst or Middle East scholar could have told you that months (if not years) ago.  Not only has Iran had a history of blatantly funding terrorist organizations (supplied Hezbollah in its recent war with Israel) but it has been attempting to exert its influence over its neighbor Iraq for its own aggrandizement in the region.

Why then, is such irrefutable evidence not being met with a united response by US policymakers and politicians to do something to end Iran’s role in supplying the insurgency?  The insurgency which, as the media reminds us daily, is responsible for continuous American deaths in Iraq.  Wait, intelligence reports… undeniable proof… clear involvement in terrorism… we’ve heard this before haven’t we?

Therein explains Tehran’s brilliant strategy in secretly arming terrorists and blatantly developing nuclear technology.  Do not think that Iran was living in a cave during the initial phase of the Iraq War from 2003-2004.  They watched the outcry over allegations of “faulty reports” and “sexed-up intelligence” and learned a valuable lesson.  As the radical Ahmadinejad took power, he knew that Iran could supply as many terrorists as it chose to, could almost blatantly work to destabilize Iraq, and could openly pursue nuclear weapons technology, all while saying that “intelligence reports are false” and that “Iran is a peaceful nation.”

And by inserting that iota of doubt, from the most dishonest of disreputable sources, a large minority of Americans (and probably a majority of Europeans) would be convinced that Iran would be the next Iraq-no-weapons-of-mass-destruction-fiasco .  They would believe that their governments were warmongering and seeking to invade another Middle Eastern country “under false pretexts.”  And that is the chief contribution the rabidly anti-war pacifists and appeasers have made to the War on Terror: they let our enemies know that all they have to do to prevent any threat or use of American force is to say that it is another Iraq-scenario, that our intelligence is wrong, and that they are not guilty of the accusations.

It is quite evident that the extremists in charge of Iran have learned from the best of the worst that America has to offer.  Let us hope that intelligence reports are indisputably vindicated before more American soldiers die due to inaction on the part of US politicians (many Democrats urge White House to “go slow” with Iran evidence) or Iraq is further destabilized.