Watching the Gathering Storm-Is Bush letting terrorists set the tempo of his foreign policy?

TIADaily.com | Frontpagemagazine ^ | August 23, 2006 | Robert W. Tracinski

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. also

2006israelwar or WOT

..................

[Peach]

Off topic:

Let me start by saying that "The Path to 9/11" is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible.

This is the first Hollywood production I’ve seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000. The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility and incompetence.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688611/posts

[roses of sharon]

What??

It's the idiot majority of the American public who shrink from the fight, the President and the Congress can do nothing without them.

[RedCell]

Is Bush letting terrorists set the tempo of his foreign policy?

Uhhh... no. His detractors are.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"It's the idiot majority of the American public who shrink from the fight, the President and the Congress can do nothing without them."

I disagree. It's the idiot minority propped up by the MSM who portray the American people as too weak to be up for a fight.

Even leftist politicians voted for this. The MSM if they were neutral would out this out for discussion every chance they got. The fact that they don't shoiws their true colors.

[Obadiah]

This is a good summary analysis of why many conservatives are frustrated with the President and disappointed with Condi Rice. It seems that the CIA remains as feckless as ever, and that the jug heads at Foggy Bottom continue to drive US foreign policy. Many of us had hoped that the CIA, State and other agencies would have long since been fumigated following 6 years of the Bush administration.

However, it the blame cannot fairly be placed on President Bush. The moonbat brigade, led by Democrats and their MSM handmaidens, have done all they can to thwart Bush and America. Think of the NYTimes exposing surveillance secrets. Think of Diggs-Taylor issuing a screeching personal diatribe disguised as a judicial opinion.

It is time to say enough to these moonbats who will destroy us all. It is time to lead and decisively brush them aside and take care of world business.

[Valin]

Is Bush letting terrorists set the tempo of his foreign policy?

No. Next question.

[Valin]

This is a good summary analysis of why many conservatives are frustrated with the President and disappointed with Condi Rice.

That's because some people don't really read history and look at this war with a historical timeframe. They seem to think this is a movie/TV show and the good guys win in 2 1/2 hours.

[nicko]

We have a GOP Congress, GOP White House, and a nation whose majority voted Republican in the last two presidential elections...whom exactly are you referring to as the "idiot majority of the American public"? Minority, maybe...

[roses of sharon]

LOL, the idiots who tell pollsters they are voting for a Dem because the Iraq war was a mistake, Saddam was innocent, he had no plans to use his capabilities in the future, he was better for Iraq, Bush lied, misled, is dishonest, doesn't care about us, the Dems can fight WOT better, ect.............

THAT public, the majority anywhere from 51 to 61%.

[mdefranc]

Here's a historical timeframe:

It took America less than four years to defeat Germany and Japan.

How long have we been fighting against greatly less formidable enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Since immediately after the liberation of Bagdad, the Administration has failed to apply military force sufficient to win the conflict. That needs to change, and soon.

[Paul Ross]

Since immediately after the liberation of Bagdad, the Administration has failed to apply military force sufficient to win the conflict. That needs to change, and soon.

Agreed. A LOT needs to change. Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy at DOD, the last budget he did before leaving DOD for the World Bank...classified the Navy's Procurement Budget as a Peacetime Budget!

This was a perpetuation of a strange, but DOD-wide pattern...of sloughing procurement today...for the ephemeral promise of new goodies many years if not decades later....

Peacetime Budgets in Wartime: The Coming Decline of the U.S. Military

By William R. Hawkins, US Business and Industry Council
Friday, March 14, 2003

At the February 26 House Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY 2004 Defense budget, chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) questioned the wisdom of further reducing America's military strength as forces mass for war in Iraq.  He noted that the proposed integration of Navy and Marine tactical aircraft squadrons would mean a cut of 497 fighter aircraft, ten percent of the force, and the disbanding of five squadrons. The planes taken out of service will be the oldest, but production of  F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, the Navy's most advanced tactical fighter, will be cut by 88 instead of being increased to bring the force back up to strength.

By 2006 the Navy will decline to 290 warships, 20 less than the minimum fleet size set in the Bush Administration's 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review.  The aircraft carrier USS Constellation, which is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf for action against Iraq, is slated to be decommissioned this fall. There is a new carrier under construction, the USS Ronald Reagan, but it is not expected to be ready for deployment until 2005. The Navy believes that 15 carriers are needed to fulfill its missions around the world, but if the Constellation is taken out of service, the fleet will be down to only 11.

The Navy and Marines are the first responders in a crisis. The Navy had nearly 600 ships in the mid-1980s, including 15 carriers. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark has stated that 375 ships are the minimum needed to meet current threats. A 375-ship fleet would require a build-rate of 12-14 ships per year. Even simply maintaining a 300-ship fleet would require 10 new ships a year. The current plan outlined in the FY 2004 budget averages only 7.6 ships per year for the next five years (2004-2008), a clearly inadequate number.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) the ranking Democrat on the HASC recently asked the Navy for a list of "unfunded priorities" for the new budget. The reply totaled $6.5 billion. The list included keeping the Constellation and the nuclear attack submarine Jacksonville in service; upgrading Marine tactical fighters and buying six more Super Hornets for the Navy; and improving a number of amphibious warfare ships, fleet oilers and replenishment ships. But the administration is resisting any increases in the defense budge, even though the Pentagon accounts for less than 17 percent of the total FY 2004 budget of $2.2 trillion.

The Bush Administration claims that rather than expand, or even maintain, existing military force levels, funds are being allocated to develop a new generation of weapons that could enter production by the end of the decade. Even if true, the world is moving too fast to indulge in such a strategic pause. The 1990s were a relatively calm decade in the aftermath of the Cold War and could have been used for this kind of modernization and transformation. Instead, the decade was wasted in a "procurement holiday" that saw military force levels drop and the industrial base that sustains them shrink dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of skilled production workers, engineers and managers left the industry, and the opportunities to attract a new generation into the field were limited. In addition, hundreds of American defense subcontractors and high-tech companies were bought up by foreign firms, who moved their research and technology offshore. Another wasted decade would be hard for the industry to endure.

The 21st century has opened with a bang, as the reality of global geopolitics has reasserted itself, as it always does. But the trend in future procurement is also one of falling production rates. The Navy and Marines are planning to cut their purchase of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by 38 percent to a total of only 680, down from an original target of 1,089 aircraft.

Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim has called the 2004 proposal a "peacetime budget." Even though Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld plans to offer supplemental requests to fund combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism, the Pentagon budget does not redress the nearly 40 percent decline in conventional force levels that took place in the 1990s when the country relaxed in a false sense of peace and security. With U.S. forces stretched thin, adversaries are looking for weak points to exploit, tempted by the belief that at some point Washington will run out of ships, troops, or money with which to respond to aggression.

In his recent worldwide threat briefing, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet outlined the perilous evolution of a divided and dangerous world. Following his presentation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Director Tenet concluded, "We have entered a new world of proliferation....The desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge." Biological warfare (BW) and chemical warfare (CW) capabilities are spreading fast as well. "Countries are more and more tightly integrating both their BW and CW production capabilities into apparently legitimate commercial infrastructures, further concealing them from scrutiny," warned Tenet.

At the end of February, 30 Russian ministries met under the leadership of the Defense Minister to initiate a new rearmament program committed to rebuilding Russia's defense industry and supplying its troops with state-of-the-art equipment. New tanks and fighters are at the top of Moscow's wish list of weapons, with mass production planned to start by 2008. And the Chinese are continuing to expand their capabilities across the board, but with a strong effort in submarines and combat aircraft.

It is against these expanding threats that defense funding must be assessed. The Pentagon says the new budget "calls for a focus on the capabilities needed to counter 21st century threats such as terrorism -- rather than on specific regional dangers or requirements." The DoD press release listed "winning the global war on terrorism" as one of three prime objectives, but the list did not mention anything about waging wars against states with WMD or meeting the threat from rising major powers. Yet, the United States is facing several emerging states with ambitions at odds with American interests. And it is states, not terrorist groups, that have the real means to upset the balance of power in a region or the world. The United States must reconstitute and expand both its military forces and the industrial base that sustains them if it is to maintain its world leadership position.

If the political will does not exist in a Republican administration, with majority control of both houses of Congress, at a time when American military forces are engaged in combat operations on multiple fronts in nearly every part of the world, when will it exist?

---

William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.

---

[hinckley buzzard]

It's the idiot majority of the American public who shrink from the fight, the President and the Congress can do nothing without them.

No. This is wrong. Totally wrong. I voted for Bush not so he would do my bidding but so he would LEAD the nation in doing what it had to do, and hang the political consequences. He ain't running again, remember? He has NOTHING ELSE TO DO that's more important than to provide historic leadership.

I expect far less of the venal crud we routinely send to Congress, but is it too much to ask these turds that, for once in their decadent pusillanimous careers, they step up to the plate and put the nation's interests first? I don't think so.

[familyop]

He's letting them set the reputation of our Republican Party (procrastination).

'Clear evidence' Iran is arming, training Iraqi extremists: US general
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688792/posts

Iran stokes Iraq unrest, U.S. says
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1682208/posts

General: Iran Behind Anti-US Iraq Attacks
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654015/posts

US Commander Accuses Iran of Aiding Iraqi Shi'ite Insurgency
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654142/posts

[familyop]

"What??
It's the idiot majority of the American public who shrink from the fight, the President and the Congress can do nothing without them."

It's more like a few of our elite, who are obsessed with commodities stability today (but not tomorrow) and have much more money to contribute to politicians. Among Baby Boomers, our superiors do what feels good, now. Here are some examples of what our "majority of the American public" thinks.

Most Americans Support Right of Jews to Live and Build in Judea-Samaria
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927783/posts
June 10, 2003
"By a margin of nearly five to one, Americans oppose the Bush administration's demand to halt all further Jewish construction in Judea-Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza . . . The poll, carried out by John McLaughlin & Associates, surveyed a scientific sample of 1,000 American adults on May 21, 2003.

Free Republic Opinion Poll: Do you support Israel's expanding the ground war into Lebanon?

Composite Opinion
Yes	90.5%		6,098
No	7.6%		515
Undecided	1.1%		74
Pass	0.8%		54
	100.0%		6,741
Member Opinion
Yes	93.9%		2,661
No	3.9%		110
Undecided	1.4%		39
Pass	0.8%		23
	100.0%		2,833
Non-Member Opinion
Yes	87.9%		3,437
No	10.4%		405
Undecided	0.9%		35
Pass	0.8%		31
	100.0%		3,908

2004 Republican Party Platform
(see "Road Map")

[Eagle74]

The Alliance of Life vs. The Axis of Death

How mankind’s latest challenge is going to turn out we don't know yet, that it is going to be a long war is already clear. It reminds me of the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times". Which of us thought it would be us living those interesting times. It was only recently that some bozo was declaring the end of history, yea right! And let’s get rid of the patent office as well.

What follows is an idea that I have been posting everywhere. I believe this is the campaign the Allies of Life should chose to fight next, in what many are now calling World War IV.

It is said that Captains should study Tactics, and Generals should study Logistics.

Most of the Terrorists are being paid to fight, if this pay, training, and supply was interdicted, many Terrorists would have to go find work. At the present time, Iran is the largest funding source in the world for Terrorists, contributing as much as $1 billion in money, arms, and training every year.

I believe the following would significantly improve our strategic position in the War on Terror.

We should destroy the Iranian oil industry. By Bombing all oil transportation facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, rolling stock, refinery’s etc… we can cripple the funding of numerous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hama’s, Sadr’s militia, Syria, as well as make it more difficult for Iran to buy missiles and such from North Korea, China, and Russia.
It would remove Iran’s threat that if we attack they will shut off the oil. Making the threat ridiculous and demonstrating that they are a single product state and without oil, and no other product that the world wants, they are nothing. Additionally, by declaring that we will destroy any reconstituting oil industry as long as the Mullacracy remains in charge, we can focus the Iranian’s blame for the situation, on the Theocracy and their support of Terrorism.
This will also bring home to all the other oil producing countries like Venezuela, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc… that they are very vulnerable to the same tactic, and they better start to cooperate, or else.
In addition, this will gain us time for the Iraqi’s to stand on their own, and free up troops we would need if we have to go into Iran, North Korea or somewhere else. (At the moment I don't think we could, or should put boots on the ground in Iran)
Sure the price of gas will rise, but this will also demonstrate to the world that the USA is not in Iraq for the Oil, and the onus can be shifted on to the Democrats for not allowing more domestic production.
“It’s not the control of the spice but the power to destroy the spice that is the real power. [From Dune]”

It has recently been said that the nuclear production facilities in Iran are so deep underground that we can’t reach them with conventional weapons. Perhaps so, but maybe we can starve those facilities of funds. Nuclear weapons are terribly expensive to build, and if Iran now needs all its money to repair vital life supporting infrastructure, it may have to slow or stop its attempt to build an atomic bomb.
Finally, Iran is a state sponsor of Terrorists, it must be punished, and it must be seen to be punished. Iran’s continued sponsorship of terror is a slap in America’s and President Bush’s face, and it must be answered.

The following was written in response to an objection I received about having to pay more for fuel if this strategy was followed.

I think you are overly concerned about the economic considerations, and not concerned enough about the need to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost.
1. The US has a full Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 700 million Barrels, and we aren't the only nation with an SPR. What good is it if you never use it? The average price paid on that 700 million barrels was $27, so the nation would actually make a profit selling it now.
2. The only reason the US isn't energy independent now is because of political factors. We have 2 Trillion Barrels of oil trapped in oil shale (see www.oiltechinc.com). A technique now exists to turn any organic matter into fuel (see www.powerenergy.com). The US would and should be using much more nuclear power, (if it wasn't for the Ecofreaks we would be now). There are also many areas in the US that are now off limits to drilling. All it takes is the political will to develop all of these. Higher fuel prices will provide that political pressure.
3. Iran is using diplomatic processes, just like the Nazi's before them. So talking to them is a waste of our time, and just gives them time to develop nukes.
4. Iran subsidizes gas at $.10 a gallon, so by destroying the Iranian oil industry not only do we instantly remove 20% of their GDP. We put them all on foot, and in the dark.
5. The mullahs want to take their world back to the 7th century, we should assist them. By going medieval on Iran, we would serve notice on every Authoritarian regime whose only support is oil, that their days are numbered.
6. My recommended solution for American energy independence: a combination of tax breaks, loan guarantees (all energy development is capital intensive), and the government purchase of the patents held by Oil-Tech, and Power Energy, and making them open source.

The following further expands on the idea.

Iran exports 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, Iranian as well as the rest of the Persian Gulf oil producers, produce what is called heavy sour crude which typically sells for ~20% less than the benchmark sweet light crude quoted on the spot markets. So, with that understanding we can roughly calculate the gross income Iran’s economy generates from oil exports. At a price of $75 Barrel Iran will get 80% of that price for its low grade crude, or $60. $60 x $2.5 million barrels x 365 days = $54.75 billion. Now from the CIA world fact book we can see that Iran has a GNP of $564 billion. So by destroying Iran’s oil industry their GDP is cut by 10% just from the lost exports. But, the damage is much deeper than that, Iran subsidizes gasoline at $.10 a gallon and Iran consumes 1.425 million barrels of oil a day. With the oil industry destroyed the cars, trucks, trains, and power plants no longer run. That means no machinery, no electricity, and no modern economy. I can’t estimate what Iran’s GDP would decline to, but even the poorest nation on earth still has running cars and electricity. I think much of the population would either revolt or start walking for the boarders. They couldn’t import oil because we would destroy tankers, pipelines, and rolling stock. They couldn’t attack us in Iraq either, because with out gas they can’t logistically supply an attacking army. We on the other hand could perform a ground attack anywhere and they would be incapable of maneuvering in response. Not that I think we should do a ground attack, I don’t, but we would be well positioned if we needed to (airborne assaults on nuclear facilities).

"Will the U.S. be willing to take unilateral action of this magnitude? At this stage, I don’t believe that the EU will be supporting it. Nor will China or Russia."

You are right of course; the US will have to do this alone. We are the only ones with the Air Forces necessary to accomplish it. All it will take is the President ordering it done, the bombing will take less than 30 days and cost far less than the $50 billion it is going to cost the Iranians in direct loss of export dollars.

"The U.S. would need to ensure that there are contingency plans, prior to any action, in terms of the impact that such action would have on the price of oil and public opinion in the U.S., etc. Also, how long would it take to devise and implement such contingency plans?"

The US has a strategic petroleum reserve that is full (700 million barrels) and while we are using that we can do a crash program of developing oil shale, alcohol, and domestic drilling off shore and in Alaska where politics has prevented development before. As far as public opinion goes, much of Bush's loss of political support is due to his failure to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost. Americans believe that if you have to go to war you must fight with everything you've got and get it over as soon as possible. Bush has not been doing this, he knows Iran, and Syria are both supporting terrorists and has done nothing. So if Bush just went to war with Iran and Syria his support will most likely rebound back up above 50%.

"I think the U.S. is and will be very capable of destroying major oil fields, pipelines, tankers, etc. as required. But I also think the U.S. will need to have a next step(s) after air strikes. These next steps include, for example, ensuring damage control within Iran, law and order issues within Iran, minimizing potential terrorist attacks that these air strikes will potentially lead to, and ensuring that there will be an interim government to take over from the mullahs immediately after they are toppled and so on… IMO, these must be planned out in detail before any military action. Bearing in mind that what happens in Iran will most definitely have a significant impact on the region and the world."

I believe that the mullacracy will take awhile to collapse. So at the same time America starts the war it announces that a New Iranian Army will be trained, Paid, and equipped in Iraq to take over Iran as soon as it is ready and Iranians are encouraged to apply. If we did this US Army forces may never be needed in Iran, or if they are just for a few Thunder Runs to topple the Mullahs, with the New Iranian Army mopping up and taking over. Done this way we could write the Iranian constitution and have the new army swear to it before they are allowed to join, this would make starting a new government much quicker.

"Lastly, will the current U.S. Administration be willing to embark on such major initiative as per your proposal before November or even whilst the current administration is in office?"

This I don't know, but I think it is at least possible. Bush has stepped so far away from the Bush Doctrine, by that I mean he still talks the talk, but no longer walks the walk. Some have said that he is just giving the EU and Iran enough rope to hang themselves, if so Iran's announcement that economic incentives wouldn't stop them from enriching Uranium may have been the sound of the trap door dropping. We will see in the days ahead.

[Valin]

Ah yes. The ever popular WWII analogy, just one small problem with it, WWII was a conventional war against 3 very specific nation states. This war is a guerilla war on a world wide scale. You do not fight a guerilla war the same way you fight a conventional war. Until people grasp this they are destined to be frustrated.

[capitalist229]

We should destroy the Iranian oil industry. By Bombing all oil transportation facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, rolling stock, refinery’s etc… we can cripple the funding of numerous terrorist organizations,

Better idea. Let's mount a Manhattan project to make oil obsolete.

No bombs or recriminations needed.

BUMP

[Eagle74]

What do we do in the mean time about the Terrorists? While we are waiting for your Manhattan oil project to make oil obsolete. How expensive is this Manhattan project going to be, and will it even work? Kind of risky to place our lives, and the lives of our loved ones, on the line, for a project that may not even work. Better to have to spend treasure at the pump, than blood on the battlefield.