No Time to Coast
Wise counsel, as usual, comes today from NRO's Michael Ledeen.
Read the whole piece, but pay particular attention to these grafs:
[W]e are still not actively waging this war against the terror masters in Damascus and Tehran. Calling for withdrawal from Lebanon, and for freedom throughout the region, is a good start, but it is not good enough. With very rare exceptions, democratic revolutions — including our own — needed external support in order to win. Solidarity in Poland, Socialists in Portugal, followers of Corazon Aquino in the Philippines and Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia, the Orange revolutionaries in Ukraine, and others around the world, got real help from us, from communications gear, money, and informative broadcasting to tactical advice. So far as I know, we have not yet given anything like that to the Iranians and Syrians who suffer under the dark towers of the Islamic republic and the Baathist state....
[W]e have finessed the issue of defining and applying a broad war strategy against Syria and Iran, because democratic revolution is spreading. We would love to think that its success is now inevitable, saving us the hard work of providing the revolutionaries with the support that they in fact badly need. Machiavelli warned that the most dangerous moment for any leader comes at a time of glorious victory, for he will be tempted to rest, and bask in his glory, thus increasing his vulnerability. That is why the Marines teach their officers that the best moment for a counterattack comes immediately following a defeat, for the enemy will be least prepared for it.
This is not a moment to bask in glory, or to believe that history is irrevocably on our side. We must press ahead, buoyed by the spectacle of the rising revolutionary tide....
Calling for the quick departure of Syrian troops and intelligence officials from Lebanon is all to the good, but it is only a small step in the necessary campaign to remove the terror masters in Damascus and Tehran. As the distinguished Israeli military analyst Ze'ev Schiff noted a few days ago, Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers work hand-in-mailed-glove with Hezbollah in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley — long the preeminent site of terrorist training in the Middle East. They must go, both because they are part and parcel of the terror network with which we are at war, and also because their expulsion will mark a public defeat of the two regimes we wish to bring down....
The President has committed himself and his Administration to the liberation of Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. This cannot remain a merely rhetorical commitment. If his fine words are not followed by effective action, we may yet again be branded "paper tigers." The revolutionary changes in the Middle East are the ripple effects of the serious action we took in Afghanistan and Iraq, and people are now risking their lives for freedom in the believe that the United States will stand beside them. We must show them we are serious. It isn't very hard, and there are plenty of people in the government and in the armed forces who know how to do it. They are awaiting their orders.
I still think this commitment will require military campaigns against both Iran and Syria. But Ledeen's recommendations certainly qualify as the least we should be doing.
If history teaches us anything, it is that dictators never learn from the demises of their predecessors and fellows. Regardless of what victories the Good Guys have won in the past, no matter how recent, the next tinpot will still think he can defeat Uncle Sam, and for the very same reasons - "The Americans are soft, decadent, divided, not true warriors," etc.
Saddam never believed he'd be pulled out of that basement until he was. Junior Assad and the mullahgarchy don't believe they will be either. It's still up to us, the Good Guys - whether directly or by empowering the respective captive peoples - to make it happen.
And talk alone, no matter how eloquent or inspiring, ain't gonna cut it.
UPDATE: Um, this wasn't quite what I had in mind.
President Bush has decided to offer modest economic incentives to Iran in exchange for Tehran's abandoning its nuclear enrichment program, two senior administration officials said Thursday.
As recommended by the European leaders who have been negotiating with Iran, the incentives include possible membership for Iran in the World Trade Organization and the sale of commercial aircraft parts to Tehran.
In exchange for offering incentives, the United States obtained a firm agreement from Britain, France and Germany to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions if Iran does not permanently drop its nuclear program, said the two officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity.
I really hope this pair of "anonymous senior administration officials" are the usual Foggy Bottom policy irredentists trying to undermine the President's Middle East policy. Otherwise this retreat amounts to Kerry Lite.
(via B4B)
UPDATE II: Here's the mullahs' answer:
Iran dismissed the U.S. offer as insignificant. Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi told IRNA it was "funny and disrespectful."
"The U.S. should apologize to Iran for making this proposal," he said, going on to describe Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a "queen of war and violence."
The Reuters report also included this little tidbit:
Iran's President Mohammad Khatami and his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez sign[ed] bilateral agreements at Maiquetia's Airport near Caracas, March 12, 2005. Chavez, whose country is a major U.S. oil supplier, on Friday expressed his support for Iran's nuclear program, which is opposed by the United States and Europe.
Well does Scott "Big Trunk" Johnson ask, "Is anyone [in the Bush Administration] paying attention?" Because to me, Chavez linking up with the mullahgarchy, in the wake of establishing similar ties to both the Russians and ChiComms, is what used to be called "an ominous development."
Read the whole piece, but pay particular attention to these grafs:
[W]e are still not actively waging this war against the terror masters in Damascus and Tehran. Calling for withdrawal from Lebanon, and for freedom throughout the region, is a good start, but it is not good enough. With very rare exceptions, democratic revolutions — including our own — needed external support in order to win. Solidarity in Poland, Socialists in Portugal, followers of Corazon Aquino in the Philippines and Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia, the Orange revolutionaries in Ukraine, and others around the world, got real help from us, from communications gear, money, and informative broadcasting to tactical advice. So far as I know, we have not yet given anything like that to the Iranians and Syrians who suffer under the dark towers of the Islamic republic and the Baathist state....
[W]e have finessed the issue of defining and applying a broad war strategy against Syria and Iran, because democratic revolution is spreading. We would love to think that its success is now inevitable, saving us the hard work of providing the revolutionaries with the support that they in fact badly need. Machiavelli warned that the most dangerous moment for any leader comes at a time of glorious victory, for he will be tempted to rest, and bask in his glory, thus increasing his vulnerability. That is why the Marines teach their officers that the best moment for a counterattack comes immediately following a defeat, for the enemy will be least prepared for it.
This is not a moment to bask in glory, or to believe that history is irrevocably on our side. We must press ahead, buoyed by the spectacle of the rising revolutionary tide....
Calling for the quick departure of Syrian troops and intelligence officials from Lebanon is all to the good, but it is only a small step in the necessary campaign to remove the terror masters in Damascus and Tehran. As the distinguished Israeli military analyst Ze'ev Schiff noted a few days ago, Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers work hand-in-mailed-glove with Hezbollah in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley — long the preeminent site of terrorist training in the Middle East. They must go, both because they are part and parcel of the terror network with which we are at war, and also because their expulsion will mark a public defeat of the two regimes we wish to bring down....
The President has committed himself and his Administration to the liberation of Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. This cannot remain a merely rhetorical commitment. If his fine words are not followed by effective action, we may yet again be branded "paper tigers." The revolutionary changes in the Middle East are the ripple effects of the serious action we took in Afghanistan and Iraq, and people are now risking their lives for freedom in the believe that the United States will stand beside them. We must show them we are serious. It isn't very hard, and there are plenty of people in the government and in the armed forces who know how to do it. They are awaiting their orders.
I still think this commitment will require military campaigns against both Iran and Syria. But Ledeen's recommendations certainly qualify as the least we should be doing.
If history teaches us anything, it is that dictators never learn from the demises of their predecessors and fellows. Regardless of what victories the Good Guys have won in the past, no matter how recent, the next tinpot will still think he can defeat Uncle Sam, and for the very same reasons - "The Americans are soft, decadent, divided, not true warriors," etc.
Saddam never believed he'd be pulled out of that basement until he was. Junior Assad and the mullahgarchy don't believe they will be either. It's still up to us, the Good Guys - whether directly or by empowering the respective captive peoples - to make it happen.
And talk alone, no matter how eloquent or inspiring, ain't gonna cut it.
UPDATE: Um, this wasn't quite what I had in mind.
President Bush has decided to offer modest economic incentives to Iran in exchange for Tehran's abandoning its nuclear enrichment program, two senior administration officials said Thursday.
As recommended by the European leaders who have been negotiating with Iran, the incentives include possible membership for Iran in the World Trade Organization and the sale of commercial aircraft parts to Tehran.
In exchange for offering incentives, the United States obtained a firm agreement from Britain, France and Germany to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions if Iran does not permanently drop its nuclear program, said the two officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity.
I really hope this pair of "anonymous senior administration officials" are the usual Foggy Bottom policy irredentists trying to undermine the President's Middle East policy. Otherwise this retreat amounts to Kerry Lite.
(via B4B)
UPDATE II: Here's the mullahs' answer:
Iran dismissed the U.S. offer as insignificant. Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi told IRNA it was "funny and disrespectful."
"The U.S. should apologize to Iran for making this proposal," he said, going on to describe Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a "queen of war and violence."
The Reuters report also included this little tidbit:
Iran's President Mohammad Khatami and his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez sign[ed] bilateral agreements at Maiquetia's Airport near Caracas, March 12, 2005. Chavez, whose country is a major U.S. oil supplier, on Friday expressed his support for Iran's nuclear program, which is opposed by the United States and Europe.
Well does Scott "Big Trunk" Johnson ask, "Is anyone [in the Bush Administration] paying attention?" Because to me, Chavez linking up with the mullahgarchy, in the wake of establishing similar ties to both the Russians and ChiComms, is what used to be called "an ominous development."
posted by JASmius at 4:48 PM
<<< Home