Army News Service reported recently that Sergeant Keith “Matt” Maupin had been promoted to Staff Sergeant, his third promotion since being captured as a Private First Class after his convoy was attacked by insurgents near Baghdad, Iraq on April 9, 2004. News reports about Staff Sergeant Maupin get a lot of media attention because he is the only soldier listed as “Missing: Captured” in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Army press release announcing his promotion, though, is notable for another reason. It demonstrates in one simple phrase the steadfast commitment of the United States military to account for all of its service members, whether dead and not recovered or missing in action.

“This will keep Staff Sergeant Maupin in line with his peers so that when he returns….” When he returns? The faith and optimism of the message are clear. Make no mistake about it, the Army intends to find Staff Sergeant Maupin and bring him home. And failure is not an option.

This attitude is embodied in what the Army refers to as the “Warrior Ethos.” It is a series of four statements, embedded within the Soldier’s Creed, that affirm the principles of character the American people have come to respect in their soldiers. “I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade.” It is a frame of mind that dictates selfless service to the nation, the mission, the Army, and fellow soldiers. It does not allow for failure and it inspires our soldiers to accomplish the impossible under unimaginable circumstances.

American soldiers live and breathe this “Warrior Ethos” every day as they serve their country at home and abroad, in peace and in harm’s way. They are dedicated to their nation and to each other. And amid the chaos and confusion inherent in a global war on terror, they continue to search for their comrades, from this conflict and from conflicts past.

Under the direction of the Defense Prisoner of War / Missing Personnel Office, U.S. government civilians and uniformed military personnel actively pursue the cases of our soldiers missing from all of America’s wars. Diplomats confer with representatives from other nations and negotiate for access to battle sites. Search and recovery teams interview witnesses and conduct excavations in methodical searches for remains or personal effects. And soldiers in the middle of a ruthless insurgency in Iraq selflessly continue the hunt for any sign of Navy Captain Michael Scott Speicher or Staff Sergeant Matt Maupin, despite the fact that a war rages around them and death could come in an instant.

Of the 2,583 service members originally listed as missing from the Vietnam Conflict, 775 have been repatriated and identified. Efforts continue there and in Laos and Cambodia to account for the remaining 1,808. From actions associated with the Cold War, 21 sets of remains have been repatriated and the quest for accountability continues for the 77 still missing. Teams of Americans relentlessly work in Korea, Burma, Japan, China, Russia, and numerous other countries to ensure that our nation’s defenders eventually make their way home.

The search for our missing never ends because their comrades and their country will not allow it. The “Warrior Ethos” embedded in the character of our uniformed men and women demands that we never forget the sacrifices of those who have served this nation.

September 15 has been designated as National POW / MIA Recognition Day. Across the country and in far away lands members of our Armed Forces will gather to remember those among them who remain unaccounted for. Memorials will be held, veteran’s organizations will hold rallies, and government officials will make speeches. In Bartonville, Illinois friends and family will come together to remember Staff Sergeant Maupin and to pray for his safe return.

Every American should take the opportunity that day to pause and reflect on what it means to be an American soldier. Every one of us should put our hate for the war or our hate for the protestors on hold for just a little while. Then maybe we can come together as Americans to thank our soldiers, and to honor their service.

As Rhode Island communities prepared to celebrate Victory Day on August 14 in recognition of the allied triumph over the Japanese Empire during World War II, “concerned” citizens opposed to the holiday began lobbing criticisms at event organizers around the state. Rhode Island, which is the only state that still celebrates Victory Day, or V-J Day as it is sometimes called, suddenly found itself at the center of the politically incorrect universe.

Critics of the holiday charge that it is discriminatory and want to remove all references to Japan and the Japanese people. The Associated Press quoted former Rhode Island State Representative George Lima as saying, “This is a stigma against the Japanese whom we do business with and are allies.” Mr. Lima, who was responsible for a failed attempt to get rid of the holiday while serving in the state legislature during the 1980s, is a perfect example of the many out-of-touch-with-reality individuals who are so concerned they might offend someone else that they often miss the real motivation behind whatever it is they are opposing.

Responding to critics clamoring for political correctness and sensitivity, Rhode Island lawmakers made several attempts to either get rid of the holiday or, in the absence of its elimination, at least change its name. Each time the tremendous opposition of the state’s citizens caused them to abandon their efforts. Three separate legislative bills introduced during the 1990s by State Senator Rhoda Perry attempted to change the title of the holiday to Rhode Island Veterans Day. “It was absolutely a no-winner,” Perry was quoted as saying. “I did not have support, period.”

In the true spirit of political correctness, though, the Rhode Island General Assembly did pass a resolution designed to ease some of the concerns of those critical of the holiday. The resolution, which was approved in 1990, declared that Victory Day was not a celebration of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or of the death and destruction caused by President Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons. Bowing to the demands of the touchy-feely, can’t-we-all-get-along crowd, the members of the General Assembly managed to change the focus of the debate on the holiday.

Proponents of the celebrations argue that Victory Day is necessary so that Rhode Islanders, and all Americans, can remember the sacrifices made during the Second World War. Not surprisingly, veterans groups are among the most ardent supporters of the holiday. They, unlike the main stream politically correct crowd, understand why Rhode Islanders are steadfast in their commitment to celebrate V-J Day.

Critics like George Lima and Rhoda Perry, who want to abolish the holiday or even change its name, have lost focus on why the holiday even exists. Here’s a reminder. In a surprise attack on December 7, 1941, over 300 airplanes from the Japanese Navy bombed the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, resulting in over 3,500 dead and wounded sailors, soldiers, and marines and over 100 dead and wounded civilians.

That attack propelled the United States into a brutal war against Japan in the Pacific, a war in which our military was forced to conduct an island-hopping campaign against entrenched Japanese soldiers determined to fight to the death. Fighting in the Pacific theater resulted in some of the bloodiest battles of a war that cost us over 300,000 killed and almost 700,000 more wounded.

The celebration of Victory Day in Rhode Island is not about the Japanese people. It is about the generation of Americans who sacrificed so much in a terrible global war that threatened the very existence of our country. It is about honoring them for what they did, and not about offending our Japanese business partners and allies.

In a country where handicapped is often replaced with handi-capable, and where Happy Holidays gets substituted for Merry Christmas, it is imperative that we not let the idea of being politically correct cause us to lose focus on what is important to us as Americans. For now, at least, the people of Rhode Island are standing their ground and serving as a shining example of political incorrectness to the rest of the nation. 

August 25, 2006

As the Israeli offensive into southern Lebanon unfolded in painstakingly slow fashion, reports of discontent from the troops on the ground made their way into news stories on several of the major cable news networks. The grumblings of the soldiers were reminiscent of the sentiments of U.S. Marines after the Hezbollah bombing of their Beirut barracks in 1983, when one Marine was quoted as saying, “Either turn us loose or send us home.”

Whether it was due to stiff Hezbollah resistance, an aversion to IDF casualties, or uncertainty in a war plan that placed too much emphasis on air power, the Israelis fought a minimalist war that failed to achieve any of the conditions set by Prime Minister Olmert for a cessation of hostilities.

At the beginning of the conflict, Olmert characterized the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers as “an act of war” that would result in a “very painful” response from the IDF. Immediately the Israelis began preparations for what appeared to be a massive, sustained assault into Lebanon with the objective of eliminating Hezbollah’s ability to conduct attacks.

The Israeli Air Force began the systematic targeting of Hezbollah fighting positions, key infrastructure, and re-supply routes, including the Beirut airport and roads connecting Lebanon to Syria. The coast was blockaded by the Israeli Navy and IDF soldiers began to mass on the border, in obvious preparation for the ground assault that would be necessary if Hezbollah was to be destroyed as a military force.

As the air campaign prepared the battlefield, the Israeli government began calling up reserve forces, a move that always causes serious disruptions to Israeli economic activity. Private intelligence organizations debated the exact timing of the assault, but all agreed the full-scale invasion of Lebanon was inevitable if Israel truly wanted to settle the Hezbollah question once and for all.

All indications were that this time the Israelis were serious. Reserves were mobilized, troops were massed at the border, a relentless air campaign was underway, public support for the government was at an all-time high, and Olmert promised to destroy the terrorist organization that called for the destruction of Israel in its charter.

But Olmert’s government did not deliver. The IDF conducted limited raids and border skirmishes while political waffling in Jerusalem relied on the IAF to win the battle with minimal loss of Israeli life. Statements from Israeli officials revealed a divided government that could not decide on the appropriate course of action. Faced with limited time to accomplish its objectives, the Israeli government wasted the precious diplomatic cover provided by the United States.

To destroy Hezbollah, Israel needed to address threats north of the Litani River and in the Bekaa Valley, the base of the group’s power and home to its terrorist training facilities. Confining offensive operations to the south of Lebanon was insufficient to address the threat posed by Nasrallah and his minions.

Not until time ran out, in the form of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 calling for an immediate cease-fire, did Israel launch the long-awaited ground invasion. By waiting until diplomacy forced an end to the fighting, the Israelis failed to accomplish the objectives laid out when the conflict began in mid-July.

The only way the Israelis could have achieved their objective of destroying Hezbollah as a fighting force was to adhere to the concept of total war. Total war means using all of a country’s resources in order to secure victory. Total war means subordinating politics and mobilizing the entire country for the effort. Total war means total victory or total defeat; there are no other options.

Israel has practiced this concept before, with overwhelming victories against Arab forces in 1948, 1967, and 1973. These successful campaigns led to the perception among Israel’s Arab neighbors of an IDF that was unbeatable on the battlefield. This perception influenced Arab-Israeli relations for decades and forced moderate countries in the region to at least tolerate the Jewish State, even if they disapproved of its existence.

After this most recent conflict, though, the reality on the ground has changed. Syria and Iran are boasting of a Hezbollah victory and all of Israel’s neighbors have taken note of the terrorist group’s ability to fight the IDF to a draw.

Air power is okay to shape a battlefield to influence a ground force’s chances of success. But when it comes to fighting an entrenched enemy that is prepared to die where he stands, there is no substitute for putting boots on the ground. And any time a nation is willing to put its soldiers in harm’s way, it must be willing to do so wholeheartedly, without reservation and without limitation.

By fighting a minimalist war, the Israeli government failed for the first time in a battle with an Arab force, resulting in a shift in perception in the region. The myth of invincibility is gone and Israel’s neighbors are emboldened. The question now is whether or not Israel has the will to finish the job if the cease fire fails.  

As I watched the various cable news channels cover the latest terrorist plot to blow up commercial aircraft, I immediately began thinking about a question that has been on the minds of many Americans since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: why do we waste our time and efforts at airport security searching little old ladies and American businessmen instead of purposefully targeting those demographic variables most likely to be associated with the individuals who commit acts of terrorism: military-aged Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent?

As the identities of those arrested in the “liquid explosives” plot began to emerge, it became instantly clear to anyone watching that we were facing an all too familiar enemy. The men involved in the alleged scheme were reported by the Associated Press to be of Pakistani nationality, between the ages of 17 and 35, and to have names of Muslim origin. At the same time, Pakistan arrested 17 more suspects, including one known to have had contact with Al-Qaeda.

Yet, because we are forced to live under the banner of political correctness, and because we don’t want to single anyone out lest we offend them, we refuse to face the reality of the threat against us. We refuse to recognize that not everyone trying to board a plane is a potential terrorist. So, we continue in our ignorant bliss, treating everyone equally instead of focusing our efforts where they will be the most effective in stopping terrorist attacks.

Profiling is generally defined in terms of race, but when searching for potential terrorist suspects it is possible to be more specific and to add additional identifiers. All of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks were military-aged, Middle Eastern, Muslim males. Since September 11, arrests in Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, as well as apprehensions by our allies outside the United States, including the latest round in Britain and Pakistan, have all involved the same demographic characteristics. And over three-fourths of those on the FBI’s most wanted terrorists list fall into this same category.

It is an irrational and irresponsible waste of limited security resources to discount these demographic facts during the passenger screening process. That is not to say that race, gender, religion, and age should be focused on to the point where other factors are excluded, but conclusions about the demographic make-up of the vast majority of terrorists trying to strike the United States are inescapable.

I fully understand the dangers involved in this type of profiling. When law enforcement officials single out African Americans and Hispanics for traffic stops, these groups are unfairly targeted based on inaccurate assumptions about their likelihood to be involved in criminal activity based solely on their race. But the profiling of terrorists is not the same as the “Driving While Black (or Hispanic)” practices rightly condemned by civil rights groups. The profiling of military-aged Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent is supported by overwhelming evidence of the demographic characteristics likely to be involved in terrorist plots and attacks.

Of course there are risks to civil liberties associated with what I am proposing. And I do understand that not all Muslims are terrorists. But there is no disputing the fact that nearly all terrorist acts directed against the United States are planned, resourced, and executed by individuals who fit the demographic profile described here (except, of course, for attacks such as the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols).

After five years of fighting the war on terror, it’s time to take the gloves off at home. It’s time to pull our heads out of the sand and confront head-on the enemy that is trying to destroy us. The targeting of specific demographic variables consistently found in the terrorists who attack us makes sense, even if some Muslims are inconvenienced or offended. To continue the current passenger screening charade in the interest of political correctness is absurdity in its purest form. As long as we avoid profiling potential terrorists so that we can treat everyone equally, we are giving terrorists the opportunities they seek to kill us and to destroy our way of life.

After weeks of intense fighting between Hezbollah and Israel, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution designed to end the current conflict in the Middle East. The cease-fire deal represents a clear victory for Hezbollah and a defeat for Israel on both the tactical and strategic levels.

The resolution, passed by a unanimous vote, calls for the cessation of hostilities by Hezbollah and the IDF, followed by the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon as a beefed-up UN contingent and the Lebanese Army establish a security buffer between the warring parties.

Before the vote on the resolution was even held, representatives from Lebanon and Hezbollah were signaling their eager acceptance of the deal. For Lebanon, there really was no other choice, as a weak national government was forced to watch the country’s infrastructure be systematically destroyed by the Israeli military, unable to take any action to defend its sovereign territory.

For Hezbollah, the cease-fire means the terrorist group has survived the IDF’s onslaught with its command structure and military capability intact and functional. Further fighting would only degrade its resources and serves no strategic or tactical purpose. For Hezbollah, the best time for a cease-fire is now.

For Israel, agreement to the cease-fire represents defeat, in the form of a stalemate on the battlefield, and in a weakening of the government in Jerusalem. Despite weeks of sustained offensive operations by the IDF, the three conditions issued by Prime Minister Olmert at the beginning of the conflict have not been met.

The release of the two captured Israeli soldiers has not been secured. Although the UN resolution does call for their return, the exact timing and circumstances will still have to be worked out under a cease-fire agreement that is fragile at best. In a society where virtually everyone under middle age is part of the military establishment, the failure to free the captured soldiers will undermine confidence in the government and lower morale in the armed forces.

Hezbollah, which was estimated to have approximately 10,000 rockets of varying ranges, still retains the ability to launch attacks into Israel. As a military force, Hezbollah engaged the Israeli military and endured overwhelming firepower without crumbling. This alone is a significant victory for the terrorist group, making Hezbollah the only Arab force to ever battle the IDF and not be completely annihilated. The Arab myth concerning the invincibility of the Israeli military has been debunked, a fact which will most certainly be noted by Israel’s neighbors.

Finally, the disarmament of Hezbollah has not been accomplished. Again, the Security Council has called for the enforcement of previous resolutions demanding the disarmament of all militias operating within Lebanon. However, while the UN has authorized the use of force for the newly approved 15,000 peacekeepers, it has not given them the job of disarming Hezbollah. That task will presumably be left for sometime in the future.

While the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which was first deployed to the region in 1978, is supposed to keep Hezbollah at bay, history has shown it to be largely ineffective in this role. For the past 28 years, UNIFIL has been charged with assisting the Lebanese government in establishing its authority in the southern part of the country.

During that time, Israel has been subjected to repeated attacks that have required military strikes and the invasion and re-occupation of Southern Lebanon. Since the IDF last withdrew its forces in 2000, Hezbollah has established a state-within-a-state in the south and constructed platforms from which to attack Israel and bunker-type fortifications from which to mount a defense designed to inflict maximum casualties on advancing IDF troops. The addition of 13,000 troops to the current UNIFIL strength of approximately 2,000 is a start. But what are really necessary are the mandate, and the will, to disarm Hezbollah if, or more likely when, Hassan Nasrallah decides to renew his attacks against Israel.

The 15,000 soldiers from the Lebanese Army, who are supposed to work alongside UNIFIL, will create more problems than they will solve. Representing about one-fourth of the Lebanese Army’s 60,000 soldiers, this force lacks the organic resources and equipment needed to engage in effective military operations. Deficient in competent leadership and thoroughly infiltrated by Hezbollah sympathizers, the Lebanese Army was notably absent from the current crisis.

The biggest tragedy for Israel, though, is that it will emerge from this conflict as a weakened state. The massive call-up of reserve forces resulted in a significant drain on the Israeli economy, and the Arab perception of Israeli military might has been dramatically altered.

Prime Minister Olmert’s government failed miserably during its first real test since a stroke incapacitated Ariel Sharon. Israeli officials were publicly divided and pursued a flawed strategy of relying too heavily on air power. There have already been reports of “Olmert has to go” rallies.

Despite overwhelming public support for an all-out assault on Hezbollah, the Israeli government was weak and indecisive, even changing military leadership in mid-battle. Public confidence in the government has suffered and the military is in disarray. The possibility of a new government in Israel cannot be ruled out.

Demographically outnumbered and strategically limited by space, Israel cannot afford the perception of military weakness that results from an end to the fighting at this juncture. By fighting the IDF to a standstill, Hezbollah has forced a cease-fire that alters the geopolitical reality in the region. And for Israel, that is a major defeat.

August 10, 2006

In a September 2002 speech to the UN General Assembly, President Bush asked a pointed and crucially important question to the national representatives who had gathered to hear him talk about the looming war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq: Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? The current impasse over Iran’s nuclear ambitions may soon provide the answer to the President’s question.

Almost immediately after the passing of a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities by the end of August, state radio services began reporting that the Council’s demands would be rejected. On August 1, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad officially denounced the resolution, insisting that Tehran was committed to its pursuit of nuclear technology and would not be bullied by threats from the UN. Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ari Larijani, went a step further, calling the UN resolution “illegal” and boasting that Iran would not only defy the Council’s wishes, but would increase its uranium enrichment activities as well.

There are two problems with Iran’s “right” to pursue nuclear technology: the lack of transparency provided by the hard-line government and the threat posed by the Iranian regime itself. Both require the global community to confront Iran over its nuclear program.

Lack of transparency has been a decades-long dilemma. Iran has consistently shrouded its nuclear plans in secrecy, and UN inspectors have repeatedly been blocked from access to sites and personnel involved in nuclear work. While Iran’s ambassador to the UN claims his country’s nuclear advances are no threat to peace and security in the world, the actions of his government make it impossible to determine the intent and scope of nuclear progress. Without access to key atomic facilities and players, there can be no credible assurances that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful energy production and not for the development of nuclear weapons.

But none of this is at all surprising. The very nature of the regime is itself a threat to other nations. The government is headed by a radical former member of the Revolutionary Guard who never misses an opportunity to call for the destruction of Israel, or to spew hateful rhetoric about the United States and the West. Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism with ties to Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The regime continually exerts its influence among Shiites in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories, decreasing stability in the Middle East while Iran tries to better its geopolitical position. The Iranian government deals harshly with dissent at home and uses international terror to increase its power relative to other Arab nations and the West.

Iran is a nation that must be dealt with, and soon. There can be no mistake about Ahmadinejad’s quest for nuclear power and regional influence. He does not take the United Nations seriously because he has repeatedly been witness to the futility of the Security Council when confronted with matters of grave importance. He has rejected the UN’s call to halt his country’s enrichment of uranium because he believes the five permanent members of the Council will never come to an agreement on either meaningful sanctions or the use of military force.

By setting a deadline, the Security Council has drawn its line in the sand. If Iran fails to stop uranium enrichment activities by the end of August, the Council will convene once more to discuss options for dealing with Ahmadinejad’s regime. But don’t count on anything significant coming out of the Security Council’s meetings. Two of the permanent five are already wavering, with both the Chinese and Russian envoys downplaying the threat of sanctions immediately after the passing of the resolution. According to the Washington Post, the Russian and Chinese representatives say the main goal of the resolution was to encourage Iran to resume negotiations and to support the efforts by UN nuclear experts to obtain greater cooperation from Tehran.

Sadly, this type of political backtracking is typical of Security Council deliberations and a major reason why the United Nations is largely ineffective on global security issues. Countries initially stand together behind generic statements that foster the perception of cooperation, but coalitions quickly fracture when the strategic and economic interests of individual nations outweigh the importance of consensus for the greater global good. Inevitably, the UN will bog down yet again in the face of Iranian nuclear development.

Ahmadinejad sees what President Bush sees: that the weakness of the United Nations ultimately means UN resolutions can be defied without consequence. If the UN fails to come together now, when global peace and security are threatened by a potentially nuclear-armed terrorist regime dedicated to the destruction of the West, it will once again demonstrate to the world that its member nations cannot fulfill its founding purpose. It will become, as President Bush warned, irrelevant.  

August 7, 2006

Amid the never-ending stream of news stories about the Israeli offensive in Lebanon, the Hezbollah rocket attacks on Jewish civilians, and the frantic UN efforts to forge a cease-fire agreement to end the latest violence in the Middle East, CNN’s Late Edition aired a brief interview this past weekend that offered a powerful reminder of just what is at stake in the current conflict.

The program, hosted by Wolf Blitzer, featured the normal Sunday political line-up of guests, including Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres, U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, and former Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger, all providing their expert opinion on the present situation in Israel and Lebanon. But two other guests, whose segment was neatly placed near the end of the show, offered in the simplest of terms what was perhaps the most poignant analysis of the day.

When asked by Mr. Blitzer if he would be willing for the government of Israel to release Lebanese prisoners in order to win the return of his son, Shlomo Goldwasser, father of captured Israeli soldier Ehud Goldwasser, gave a stunning reply: “Prime Minister Olmert promised us that he will do everything to bring back our sons. He went more than this. And he mentioned that he realized (ph) to our sons, like as they were his sons. I think that I can’t criticize or give advice to a prime minister who is talking to me like this.”

Who would have blamed a broken-hearted father for advocating any position that might gain the release of his son? Who would have faulted him for putting his family first? Here was a perfect opportunity for this man to beg his government to simply release a few Lebanese prisoners so that he could just have his child back. What could be more human? Instead, Mr. Goldwasser placed his trust in his Prime Minister, his government, and most certainly his God.

Obviously surprised by the unexpected response, Mr. Blitzer quickly shifted focus to the captured soldier’s wife, Karnit Goldwasser, and posed to her the same question. Amazingly, she answered “You know, as Shlomo said, the most important thing I heard from the prime minister, and he told us a lot of things, but the most important that he’s dealing with is this situation like they were his sons. So what can we ask him more?” Again, anyone watching would have understood if this grieving wife were to beg for the return of her husband, to ask her government to grant Hezbollah’s wishes for a prisoner exchange so her family could be whole again.

But Shlomo and Karnit Goldwasser know that there is so much more at stake in this current conflict than the loss of a son or a husband, although that would certainly be a tragedy. The Goldwasser family realizes what the majority of the world either misses or chooses to ignore: that the conflict with Hezbollah is about Israel’s very existence. It is about the constant Arab struggle to remove the Jewish State from the face of the earth.

As the world clamors for a cease-fire and bemoans the supposed disproportionate Israeli response, it is important not to lose sight of the ultimate Arab goal. Israel is viewed as an illegitimate nation occupying land stolen from its rightful inhabitants. It is this view which leads to the constant flare-ups of violence in Gaza and the West Bank. It is this view which leads to incessant suicide attacks on innocent civilians enjoying a movie in a theater or traveling on a bus to their place of work or residence. It is this view which caused Yasser Arafat to reject a two-state solution that granted Palestinians ninety percent of their demands at the Camp David talks. And it is this view which leads Hezbollah and other Arab militant groups to openly call for the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of the Zionists from their holy land.

Neighboring Arab states do not want to co-exist with Israel, but they lack the ability to destroy her. Make no mistake, the will is there. All that is missing is the means to bring about the desired result, and the Iranians are working feverishly to eliminate that obstacle.

President Bush understands what is happening between Hezbollah and Israel. That is why he readily accepts the political heat associated with vacationing during the current crisis, knowing all the while that he is providing Israel with precious diplomatic cover to eliminate a military threat and exercise its right to self defense.

And Shlomo and Karnit Goldwasser understand what is happening as well. They know that Israel is locked in a continuing life-or-death struggle for national survival and that sometimes, no matter how painful it is, you have to sacrifice your family’s well-being for the well-being of your country.  

A flurry of activity has erupted in the wake of Cuban leader Fidel’s Castro’s recent, though most likely temporary, surrender of power for the first time in nearly half a century of dictatorial rule. The Cuban-American population in Miami is celebrating in the streets, the White House has developed contingency plans in case the Cuban regime collapses, and Congress is readying legislation to assist with a transition to a democratic form of government. Even the U.S. Coast Guard is prepared to interdict any potential flood of refugees fleeing the island. But the idealistic hope that Cuba will soon be liberated from its Communist stranglehold is based more on fantasy than grounded in reality.

While it is normal to long for an orderly transition from a brutal autocracy to a free society in the event of the Cuban President’s demise, it is both sensible and practical to realize that the more likely scenario involves increased repression as the government cracks down on any political dissension, real or potential, while the country adjusts to life after Fidel.

As he prepared to undergo surgery for “sustained” intestinal bleeding, a condition the Cuban government says was brought on by stress resulting from a heavy work schedule, Fidel transferred the Presidency and the leadership of Cuba’s Communist Party to his brother, Raul, the 75-year old Cuban Defense Minister who also serves as first vice president of the Council of State, Cuba’s main governing establishment.

While Fidel is known the world over for his ironclad rule of Cuba, Raul Castro is reported to be even more radical and less tolerant of political opposition. Raul, who has taken a more public role recently, though not since the transfer of power, is a known political hardliner who joined a Communist youth group before the 1959 revolution that placed his brother at the helm of the island nation.

According to a 2001 Newsmax.com article by Miguel A. Faria, Raul personally supervised the execution of over one hundred police and military personnel of the deposed Batista government. He is known for his intense hatred of the United States and has been instrumental in suppressing the regime’s political opponents during the past forty-seven years.

As Fidel’s designated No. 2 man and a leading member of the Cuban government, Raul has experimented with some market-style reforms of the Cuban economy and has expressed an interest in free-enterprise socialism, similar to the system in China. However, as private intelligence company Strategic Forecasting (STRATFOR) reports, he is likely to be even more authoritarian and repressive than his brother as he relies on his control of the military to make up for his lack of personal charisma and political ability.

In fact, reports are already surfacing that the Cuban military is repositioning its units throughout the country in what is probably a clear signal that dissension will not be tolerated and that action will be taken swiftly. Further reports indicate that the Cuban military has also started the process of mobilizing registered military-age males for compulsory service in support of the Communist government. According to STRATFOR, registration is mandatory for all men and remains in effect until age forty-five.

While many opponents of the Castro regime have been quoted in the media as saying the transfer of power has given them hope for a democratic Cuban society, the reality is that Raul Castro represents a continuation of the repressive dictatorship the Cuban people have suffered under since the 1959 revolution that ousted Fulgencio Batista. It is almost certain that Raul will take whatever repressive measures are necessary to maintain his grip on power. Those hoping for Cuba’s freedom in the near-term should look beyond the government of Raul Castro.  

July 31, 2006

Prior to departing Washington for a 5-week recess, the House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing an increase in the minimum wage for the first time since 1996. The bill, which was supported by 230 Representatives, is typical of election year politics that do more to benefit our lawmakers than the American people.

Raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour, the current rate, to $7.25 over the next three years will do little, if anything, to help low-income workers. An increase in labor costs that is unrelated to market forces will encourage small businesses to let go of unnecessary workers, cut back on shift lengths, and delay any plans for new hires. Many of the larger corporations, such as Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, already pay starting wages that exceed the federal minimum.

Increasing the minimum wage is often hyped as necessary to help those at the bottom of the economic ladder climb above the poverty line. In reality, though, a national standard is not necessary for wage rates to grow. According to Heritage Foundation research, average earnings in America have risen steadily since 1996, without a corresponding increase in the federal minimum wage amount.

In addition, if there is to be a minimum wage, and I don’t think there should, it should be raised and lowered at the state level in accordance with labor market conditions. In fact, an increasing number of states have raised minimum wage rates to levels that exceed the federal amount. And, as the Heritage Foundation points out, nearly a majority of Americans now live in areas with a minimum wage that is higher than the federally imposed rate.

Members of both parties continually take up the issues they believe will garner them the most votes at the polling booths. Rather than pursue those matters that are truly in the public interest, our Senators and Representatives consistently chart courses that serve their own interests. Americans have little faith in their elected representatives because the public at large knows that the primary concern of any member of Congress is his or her own reelection.

It is this quest for continued power and prestige in Washington that causes the members of Congress to engage in the reckless waste of scarce federal tax revenues by sending home billions of dollars annually in the form of special pork-barrel projects. In Fiscal Year 2006 alone, these ventures cost American taxpayers $29 billion.

It is this quest for continued power and prestige in Washington that causes the members of Congress to resist ethics regulations and to seek ways to prevent the FBI from conducting lawful searches of Congressional offices during investigations of criminal activity, as if our elected officials are not subject to the same laws as the ordinary citizens they supposedly serve.

It is this quest for continued power and prestige in Washington that causes the American people to diligently work for Congressional term limits by taking action at the local and state levels, even as they are vehemently opposed by the men and women they elected to represent them.

And it is this quest for continued power and prestige in Washington that causes the members of the House of Representatives to vote for a bill authorizing an increase in the federal minimum wage, even as they suspect it will meet its demise in the Senate. The objective, though, was not really to raise the minimum wage. The objective was to make the American people believe that their representatives in the House were on their side. And that is why Representative Mike Castle of Delaware was quoted as saying “we need to move forward with it just for political reasons.”  

July 29, 2006

Almost two months ago, when European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana presented an incentives package to Iran to encourage the Islamic Republic to curb its nuclear activities, I wrote a column questioning what, if anything, the world community would do in the event that Iran rejected the proposal. In that column, I argued that Iran, in responding that the package of incentives required further study, was probably stalling for time while it continued its program without international oversight.

Responding to the August 22^nd date put forth by the Iranian government for a formal reply to the package, many countries, including the United States and Great Britain, declared the date unacceptable, citing a maximum period of weeks, rather than months, for Iran to agree to suspend the enrichment of uranium and join in multilateral talks about its nuclear future.

However, the international community, in the form of the United Nations, has been unable to reach an agreement on the course of action to be pursued in order to press Iran on its nuclear ambitions. We are now at the end of July and the only thing that has been accomplished to date is a draft resolution requiring Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities by the end of August or face possible sanctions. Iranian state radio is already reporting that such a resolution will be rejected and Iran will not be subject to international demands.

In setting a deadline, the members of the Security Council are seeking to send the message that they are united and they are serious. But as history has repeatedly shown us, rarely are the five permanent members of the Council anything close to resembling united, or serious.

Time and again, the United States, Great Britain, China, France and Russia find themselves at odds over competing economic and security interests. Just the threat of a veto can stall action and prevent a matter from ever coming to a vote before the Council. Consensus on serious matters is seldom achieved, and I expect more of the same with regard to the Iranian nuclear program.

There is little reason to expect the Iranian regime to accept the proposal to stop their nuclear agenda. The leadership in Tehran knows what everyone else knows, that there is little likelihood of any meaningful sanctions coming out of the Security Council, and there is absolutely no possibility of a resolution authorizing military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Which brings us back to the original question. What if Iran rejects the package of incentives and continues its uranium enrichment program, effectively telling the rest of the world to mind its own business and stop infringing on Iran’s national rights?

The United Nations will inevitably bog down in its own incompetence and no significant agreement among the permanent members will be reached. A nuclear-armed Iranian regime is a threat to the entire region, a threat that Israel cannot ignore. Will Prime Minister Olmert authorize a strike similar to the Israeli attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981? Even if he wanted to, he would probably be restrained by the United States government in the interest of preventing further destabilization in the area.

Will the United States and Great Britain take matters into their own hands, either through sanctions or military action? Independently enforced sanctions are probably a safe bet, but direct military action is not likely. The Anglo-American alliance is working diligently with the Iranians in an attempt to quell the violence in Iraq by putting pressure on the Shiite militias that are engaging in the recent surge in sectarian fighting.

While the United States and England are certainly capable of executing a military strike against Iranian targets, despite concerns about their commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, such a use of force would do more to increase tensions in the Middle East than it would to alleviate those tensions. A military strike would only add to the anti-American and anti-British sentiment in a region already torn apart by hatred and violence.

The end result is likely to be some form of accommodation on the nuclear program, with a promise of additional influence on Iraqi Shiites from the Iranian regime, along with some form of international monitoring of Iranian nuclear progress. In exchange, western nations will fulfill their pledges in the incentives package, including easing current sanctions, assisting with WTO membership, and upgrading the Iranian air fleet.

That will set the stage for more negotiations and more concessions from both sides. But in the end, I fear that we will see a radical regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel and a sworn enemy of the United States in possession of nuclear weapons. As long as the international community lacks the will to come together in the face of real threats, we should all be concerned about what happens if Iran says no.  

Recently, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) pulled an internet video ad from its web site after receiving bipartisan criticism over images of flag-draped coffins returning to the United States from overseas.

Using pictures of our war dead to achieve political objectives is inexcusable by either party, but the video ad is important for another reason. The ad revealed more about the Democratic Party than just the consequences of the war in Iraq. The video, which was filled with images attacking the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress, reinforced what many have long argued: that the Democratic Party has no direction of its own and draws its entire agenda from a deep hatred of the President and the Republican Party.

A quick review of the Democratic Party’s web site exposes a party so consumed by its loathing of President Bush and the GOP that it fails to offer voters any substantive information on where it stands on the issues of the day. There is the obligatory link to the so-called “Republican Culture of Corruption,” which curiously leaves out Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s acceptance of money from the section dealing with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was deeply involved with members of both parties.

Then there are the links to the 10 issue areas on the Democratic Party’s agenda, including economic growth, education, health care, and retirement. But if you actually navigate to an issue area, you find generic statements like, “If you want job creation, a strong economy, and a fiscally responsible federal government, there’s only one choice: vote for democrats.”

Or you might find the section on retirement, which has such phrases as, “We are open to any and all ideas that ensure that the current and future generations of retirees receive the benefits they were promised….” Why would they solicit ideas unless they don’t have a clear position themselves?

Every issue area on the Democrat’s web site begins with such nonspecific statements followed by attacks on the President and the Republicans in Congress. In fact, more web space is devoted to attacking Republicans than to advancing Democratic positions. True to form, the Democratic Party released on June 16 its “New Direction for America,” a two-page document that devotes fully half of its space to attacks on Republicans.

Phrases like “raise the minimum wage,” “expand Pell grants,” and “invest in stem cell research” fill the first page, which is devoted to advancing Democratic Party ideas. Similarly, the party’s web site uses the phrases “…expand the pace and scope of programs…,” “expanding health care benefits,” “providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition,” and “provide every child with a world-class education.” These phrases imply bigger government and more spending, but the Democrats wisely do not say this outright. Instead, they omit details of their plans and focus on incessant attacks on the Bush administration and the Republicans in the Senate and House.

Out of curiosity, I also navigated my web browser to the Republican Party’s web site in search of the GOP’s agenda for America. Remarkably, I found a party that laid out clear positions on every political issue imaginable, while devoting almost no space at all to attacking the Democratic Party, its positions, or its members.

The entire web site was focused on the party’s past successes and its future objectives. A 92-page document is available for those who want to learn more about Republican positions on tax cuts, the privatization of Social Security, immigration, welfare reform, health care, education, and a host of other important topics. There are virtually no attacks and no hateful rhetoric, just clear, detailed positions on where Republicans stand.

The Democratic Party is advancing two themes: that Republicans are corrupt and evil, and that government in the form of the Democratic Party is the answer to the problems faced by Americans today and in the future. While claiming to be the best choice for America, the Democratic Party offers no solutions to the issues it raises. Instead, from Howard Dean’s inflammatory speeches to internet video ads, it practices the politics of hate that obscure the inevitable truth: the “New Direction for America” has no direction at all.  

July 24, 2006

Watching broadcast reports about the efforts to evacuate American citizens from Lebanon reinforced my belief that we, as a society, are rapidly becoming consumed by an entitlement mentality that threatens to seriously undermine every principle that this country was built upon.

Evening news stories were dominated by people complaining about their treatment at the hands of embassy personnel, the less-than-speedy pace of the evacuations, and generally sloppy work by government representatives attempting to coordinate the mass exodus of noncombatants from what quickly became a war zone. Even Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack criticized the U.S. effort, alleging that the Bush administration was “asleep at the switch.”

What amazed me most as I watched the various news anchors sympathize with the plight of these apparently helpless American citizens was the fact that most, if not all, expected their government to come to their rescue.

Never mind that as early as May 2 the U.S. Department of State issued a travel warning to American citizens about the possible dangers of going to Lebanon. Never mind the subsequent recommendations to evacuate as the situation continued to deteriorate. And never mind that the U.S. government urged all Americans in Lebanon to register with the Embassy in case there was a need for assistance, a recommendation ignored by most of the people now demanding that their government do something, anything to help them.

Individuals made conscious decisions to travel to Lebanon, whether for school, vacation, business, or family gatherings. The United States government did not send them there. Those same individuals made conscious decisions to ignore the State Department’s travel warnings, to ignore the evacuation recommendations, and to ignore the request to register in advance with the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.

These same individuals now expect the U.S. government to rush to their rescue, to save them from their own conscious decisions. The State Department and the Department of Defense are expected to put other people’s lives in danger because a few individuals chose not to heed their government’s warnings. The American taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for this rescue operation because a few individuals chose not to evacuate Lebanon when they were advised to.

Americans have come to expect that no matter what they do, no matter what decisions they make, their government will be there in their time of need. Our society is rapidly moving from one of independence to one of dependence, a trend that has continued to gain momentum since New Deal programs designed to help us overcome the Great Depression were first introduced by President Roosevelt.

Today, our elected representatives in the House and the Senate feed this entitlement mentality by continually funneling federal tax revenues to their home states and districts in order to secure their political futures. Politicians contribute to the “something for nothing” mentality so that they can maintain their grip on power by demonstrating to their constituents their ability to produce entitlements and benefits from Washington.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? When did we as Americans choose to stop making things happen for ourselves and begin to count on our government to provide for us? This country was built by men and women who stood up on their own and created opportunities for themselves. It was not built by people waiting for the U.S. government to save them from their own decisions or provide for them at every turn.

The entitlement mentality is gripping America and destroying the fabric of our society. Too many citizens expect their elected officials to solve all their problems and provide for their every need. Until we as a country begin to hold people accountable for their decisions and their actions, the entitlement mentality will continue to dominate our thinking and our society will continue to expect our government to give them something for nothing.  

In an article published July 13, MosNews.com quoted former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as saying the United States was arrogant and wanted to impose the American way of life on other nations. Other media outlets quickly picked up the story and painted the ex-Communist chief as the man responsible for the destruction of the Iron Curtain and the peaceful conclusion of the Cold War with the West. Headlines read, “Gorbachev Criticizes America” and “Gorbachev Thawed Cold War—Scolds Americans.”

But what struck me most about the article was Gorbachev’s claim that he had not given up on democracy in Russia, and one day hoped his grandchildren would “…live in a democratic country….” If his statements are sincere, then Gorbachev must have experienced a serious change of heart in recent years.

The article, and the follow-on stories, completely disregarded the fact that Gorbachev was a model member of the Communist Party for his entire political career. He firmly believed in the principles of Marxism – Leninism and remained a convinced Communist even as the Soviet Union was breaking apart around him.

As a third-generation Communist, Gorbachev joined the Komsomol (Youth League) at the age of fourteen. He applied to join the Communist Party as a full member at nineteen, and was accepted at age twenty-one. He quickly rose through the ranks and became a full member of the Politburo in 1980, at age forty-five.

When he was elected General Secretary in 1985, Gorbachev inherited a severely depressed Soviet economy that had been completely stagnant for the past twenty years. He implemented extremely limited reforms in the hope of stimulating economic growth in order to strengthen the Communist system.

When these reforms failed to produce a fiscal recovery, Gorbachev launched a more extensive restructuring of the Soviet economy, known as perestroika, coupled with a new “openness” campaign, or glasnost, designed to encourage support for his policies by making the public aware of corruption and his efforts to solve the country’s economic woes.

The restructuring and openness campaigns were meant to save the Communist structure by changing it for the better, and by promoting the leading role of the Communist Party in society. In instituting his reform efforts, Gorbachev never contemplated weakening his party or giving up absolute power.

As the reform efforts continued to falter and the Soviet financial system continued to slide out of control, the failing economies of the satellite states in Eastern Europe could no longer be afforded. Gorbachev had no choice but to let go of the drag of the Soviet periphery. He surrendered territory for time, doing nothing to stop the breakup of his buffer with the West, even as he suspended reforms at home in an attempt to maintain his grip on power.

Gorbachev tried to save the Communist Party’s standing by personally appointing allies to the Politburo, the Central Committee, and to local party leadership positions, circumventing the electoral process he had instituted. He clamped down on Soviet society and touted the primacy of the Communist Party in a return to dictatorial control. But it was too late.

Ultimately Gorbachev had to accept the reality of his situation. Glasnost and Perestroika had set in motion forces that he could not contain, resulting in the surrender of Eastern Europe, the demise of the Communist Party, and the complete dismantling of the Soviet Union.

It is true that Mikhail Gorbachev ended the Cold War by allowing the breakup of the Soviet Union. But it wasn’t because he wanted it that way. It wasn’t because he had dreams of a democratic Russia where his grandchildren would live in freedom and prosperity. It was because he was powerless to stop the forces he had created when he attempted to save his beloved Communism by changing it for the better.  

July 17, 2006

In a July 17 piece on Townhall.com, columnist Robert Novak wrote about a press release issued by Senator Joe Lieberman that outlined $2.5 billion in future transportation projects for Connecticut, the state he has represented in Washington since 1988. According to Novak, Senator Lieberman, who is facing an unexpected challenge from Senatorial candidate Ned Lamont, is trying to stress to voters just how successful he has been in directing federal tax dollars, in the form of pork-barrel spending projects, to his constituents back home.

Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman is more the rule than the exception when it comes to wasting federal funds. Each year, the 535 men and women who make up the United States Congress send billions of tax dollars to their home states in order to further their own political careers and enhance their prospects for remaining in office. Pork barrel spending continues to grow with each appropriations bill and most Americans have no idea what their hard-earned tax dollars are being used for.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that tracks government spending, publishes an annual Congressional Pig Book detailing the various pork-barrel projects that members of Congress slip into federal spending bills. The 2006 edition, available at cagw.org, outlines 375 special projects worth over $3 billion as “…the most egregious and blatant examples of pork.” The book covers only a fraction of the almost 10,000 special ventures that our Senators and Representatives included in 11 different Fiscal Year 2006 pieces of legislation, at a cost to tax payers of $29 billion.

CAGW labels a project as pork if it “…designates funds for a specific purpose in circumvention of the normal procedures for budget review.” As CAGW points out, these projects are usually added to large spending bills mere hours before a congressional vote is scheduled, preventing thorough review because of limited available time.

Spending included in the latest edition of the Pig book includes $13.5 million for the International Fund for Ireland, which, believe it or not, includes funding for the World Toilet Summit. There’s $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games in Alaska, conveniently slipped into a defense spending bill by Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens. According to the 2006 Arctic Winter Games web site, the games provide “…our youth an International opportunity to participate and showcase their talent.” How that relates to our national defense I haven’t quite figured out yet.

There’s also $500,000 for the Sparta Teapot Museum in North Carolina, $100,000 for the Richard Steele Boxing Club in Nevada, $500,000 for the Museum of Glass in Washington, $1 million for the Water free Urinal Conservation Initiative, and $5.6 million for the Gallo Center, which studies the effects of alcohol and drug abuse on the brain (also included in a defense spending bill).

Pork-barrel projects, which average $30.55 per capita nationally, are disproportionately funneled to those states with high-ranking members of congress on appropriations committees. Alaska, home state of former Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, received $489.87 per capita during FY 2006, while West Virginia’s Robert Byrd, Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, directed $131.58 per capita to his home state.

Pork barrel spending has spun rapidly out of control, with members of both major parties guilty of wanton waste and shameless self-promotion. Every citizen should be offended by the actions of our elected representatives and every citizen should read CAGW’s report on pork barrel spending. Special projects designed to do nothing more than increase the political capital of members of congress must be brought under control, and the tremendous waste of federal tax revenues must stop now. Despite the fact that this nation is at war, and precious federal tax dollars are critically needed to support that effort, our Senators and Representatives disregard what is best for this country, waste limited revenue, and concern themselves only with maintaining their power and prestige so that they can “Bring Home the Bacon.”  

July 14, 2006

As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to spiral out of control, the best the United Nations Security Council has been able to come up with so far is a failed resolution that demonstrates once again the impotence of that body when it comes to matters of global peace and security.

An Arab-backed resolution, sponsored by Qatar and accusing Israel of using disproportionate force, demanded an immediate halt to Israeli military operations, called for the cessation of rocket attacks against the Jewish state, and demanded prisoner releases from all parties to the current conflict. But after much debate and multiple drafts that were repeatedly reworded to try and accommodate all parties, the United States felt compelled to use its veto power to block the draft from being adopted.

It is this veto power that is at the heart of the Security Council’s inability to ever accomplish anything of real substance when confronted with global crises that pit the interests of the five permanent members against one another.

Realist theory argues that states are ultimately concerned with the balance of power in the world, and that nations behave in ways that will enhance their relative power at any given point in time. One would be hard pressed to find a greater example of this theory in action than in the meetings of the United Nations Security Council. Time and again the Security Council has adopted watered down resolutions that are meaningless, except for providing the Secretary-General an opportunity to stand at the podium and claim that the countries of the world are working together to further peace and security for all nations.

Saddam Hussein ignored or violated multiple Security Council resolutions over the twelve years between Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. He did so because he always believed that France and Russia, both with economic ties to Iraq, would block any attempt by the United States and Britain to enforce those resolutions militarily. He did not believe that the Anglo-American alliance would act without the consent of the United Nations, and he knew that consent would never materialize.

North Korea and Iran are currently posturing on the world stage, in part because they know the United States is heavily engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in part because they know that anything that comes out of the United Nations will be meaningless and unenforceable. The odds of getting China and Russia to authorize real punitive measures against North Korea and Iran are virtually nonexistent, and those countries know it. China’s watered down version of the resolution offered by Japan for action against North Korea, and the failed resolution concerning the ongoing Arab-Israeli fight are just the latest in the sad history of the United Nations Security Council.

What is urgently needed is a fundamental overhaul of the Security Council. By allowing any of the five permanent members to individually veto any resolution presented before them, the United Nations is relegating the remaining two-thirds of the Council to irrelevance, except for procedural matters and resolutions that have the concurrence of the permanent five members. The Security Council itself should be abolished, with every member state in the United Nations allowed to vote on security matters in the General Assembly, with a two-thirds affirmative vote required for an action to be adopted.

Each of the UNSC’s five permanent members acts according to what is in their own best interests, despite the hopes of those who believe that the United Nations can be a vehicle for world peace and security. The power to veto any resolution that does not enhance a permanent member’s standing on the world stage guarantees that the Security Council will remain impotent when confronted with global security matters, unless the United Nations undertakes fundamental reforms that will foster cooperation between nations and reduce the likelihood of obstruction. Until that happens, the deliberations of the Security Council will continue to be an exercise in futility.