By Greg C. Reeson

Writing on RealClearPolitics.com today, Steven Stark offers his assessment, based on historical trends and individual appeal, of each major presidential candidate's chances at winning the White House next November. Of course, the assessment is hypothetical, based on the assumption that each candidate would secure his or her party's nomination.

First on his list is Senator John McCain, GOP candidate from Arizona. Stark says McCain is well known and trusted (by whom, I'm not sure), and that he has appeal to some Democrats and independents. How that's good for conservatives I can't quite figure out. McCain may not be doing so well in GOP circles, Stark says, but in a general election he's the guy with the best of chance of winning--unless Iraq falls apart.

The next one on the list I really don't understand. According to Stark's list, former Senator John Edwards comes in second in electability next Fall and his winning of the Democratic nomination would put some Republican states, like Virginia, into the questionable column for the GOP nominee. I still see Edwards as the shady trial lawyer that he is, and his extremely liberal views are not embraced by a majority of American voters.

Another GOP candidate comes in third--former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, because America's mayor pulls an Edwards for Republicans by putting New Jersey and Pennsylvania into question for Democrats. The danger, Stark warns, is that a Rudy nomination by Republicans might cause a third party social conservative candidate to enter the race, a move that could hand the White House to Democrats.

Stark has Senator Clinton and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee tied for fourth on his list, with Senator Barack Obama coming in sixth for electability to the presidency. Bringing up the tail end, Stark places Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson seventh and eighth, respectively.

I take his assessment for what it is--his opinion on the likelihood of any one candidate winning the White House next November. But what concerns me is the attitude toward "electability." My hope is that Republicans are more concerned about a candidate that best represents conservative values, and not about redefining conservativism to fit a candidate that has the best chance of winning. I can understand wanting to keep the White House after the poor showing by Republican candidates in November 2006. But I am convinced that the backlash against the GOP had as much to do with the Republican controlled Congress straying from conservative principles as it did with public dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq.

In the end, Republicans will likely support whichever candidate has the "R" after his name on the ballot. But it is important that whoever ultimately wins the GOP nomination best represents the majority of conservative voters and not the best odds of beating the Democratic candidate.

By Greg C. Reeson 

Russia’s recent shipment of uranium fuel rods to Iran has moved the Islamic Republic one step closer to having an operational nuclear power facility in the southern city of Bushehr, and one step closer to shifting the long-standing balance of power in the Middle East. Iran’s continuing nuclear development efforts represent just one part of a three-pronged strategy designed to achieve Iran’s ultimate goal: to be the dominant power in the Middle East.

When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Iran seized the opportunity to increase its power and influence in a region largely governed by Sunni regimes. The removal of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship allowed the Iraqi Shiite majority to take governmental control of their country, and Iran immediately began meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs by arming and training Shiite militias, funneling deadly explosives to insurgent groups, and using as much influence as it could muster with the new Shiite leadership. Fomenting unrest in Iraq allowed Iran to tie down U.S. forces while the Iranians worked to ensure a Shiite-friendly government in Baghdad that would not continue Iraq’s traditional role as a threat to Tehran.

At the same time, Iran began pushing the terrorist group Hezbollah, which Tehran has long armed and financed, to increase attacks on Israel and to strengthen its position in Lebanese society and within the Lebanese government. In the summer of 2006, when the United States seemed hopelessly bogged down in Iraq, Iran prompted Hezbollah to instigate a brutal war with Israel that decimated Lebanese infrastructure and seriously weakened the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Throughout this period, Iran stepped up its nuclear development efforts and continually defied the wishes of the international community as expressed in several United Nations Security Council resolutions. The long-standing demand of the UN, led by the United States and an increasingly assertive Europe, has been that Iran put a halt to its uranium enrichment program. Given the shipment of Russian fuel rods to Bushehr, this should, in theory, be an easy demand to satisfy. After all, if Russia is supplying Iran with nuclear fuel, then there is no need for Iran to enrich uranium on its own. But officials in Tehran quickly and predictably dismissed the idea, asserting that Iran would never give up its right to develop nuclear technology.

The reason for continued Iranian defiance is simple to understand when Iranian actions are viewed from a strategic perspective. The Iranian nuclear program is not a grand strategy designed to produce a nuclear weapons capability, although the procurement of a nuclear arsenal could easily be a by-product of Iran’s nuclear development efforts. The Iranian nuclear program is instead part of the overall strategic vision for the Middle East that Tehran is feverishly attempting to turn into reality. That vision involves a Middle East in which Iran is the major national power, leading a Shiite movement that spreads from Beirut to Tehran. It is a vision that makes Sunni governments throughout the region nervous, and for good reason.

Iran has been a reckless, yet calculating, player in the Middle East for years. Having lost their Sunni buffer in Iraq, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, each wary of strong Shiite minorities within their borders, are increasingly concerned about rising Iranian power and influence in the region. Bahrain must be concerned as well, with a minority Sunni government running a country that is seventy percent Shiite. The very real concerns of these states have been well publicized in the news media, with reports about possible Saudi intervention in Iraq on behalf of the Sunni population, and with hints about a potential Middle East nuclear arms race if Sunni governments embark on their own atomic energy quests as a counter to Iran’s nuclear program.

An increasingly powerful and influential Iran is a concern for all nations, including Russia, although the actions taken by the UN Security Council would never support that notion. Moscow isn’t really thrilled about a nuclear armed Iran, and has been dangling the prospect of an operational Bushehr facility in front of the Iranians for some time now. The recent shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran is based on agreements that provide for IAEA control of the fuel rods and for the return of spent fuel rods to Russia, agreements that make it more difficult for Iran to produce nuclear weapons on its own. It is a move designed to encourage Iran to abandon efforts to enrich uranium, and even though Iran has dismissed that possibility thus far, it is possible that some aspects of Iran’s nuclear program could be bargained away in exchange for concessions on Iraq and a strengthened Iranian position in the region. It is possible because the nuclear program cannot be separated from Iran’s long-term goal of regional dominance.

As long as Iran is enriching uranium, and as long as Iran is meddling in Lebanon through Hezbollah, and as long as Iran is stoking sectarian violence in Iraq, Iran is a danger to the region and to the national security interests of the United States and its allies, both in Europe and in the Middle East. So what can we do to stop Iran from becoming the dominant nation in the region and forcing a fundamental shift in the long-standing balance of power?

Previous negotiations yielded nothing, with Iran rejecting several incentives packages from the west, and the sanctions approved thus far by the UN Security Council have been marginally effective at best. A military strike is likely off the table, given the difficulties inherent in such an operation and the findings of the recently released U.S. National Intelligence Estimate.

The truth is that there are really no good options available. New negotiations are not likely to produce anything of substance because Iran is negotiating from a position of strength, able to stir up trouble in Lebanon, able to use Hezbollah to attack Israel, able to continue its defiance of the international community based on the NIE, and able to turn the stunning success of the U.S. surge strategy in Iraq into a bloody nightmare of murder and mayhem by increasing support to Shiite militias and groups sympathetic to Iran. Additional sanctions from the UN are not likely to be passed given the significant financial interests of key member states doing business with Iran, and unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States or the European Union will be limited in their effectiveness due to a lack of enforcement by other nations.

The United States and Europe are quickly coming to the realization that little can be done to stop Iran. International weakness in confronting Iran over its support of Hezbollah and its interference in Iraq’s internal affairs, along with a failure to force Iran’s hand on the nuclear issue, has guaranteed that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have the luxury of extracting concessions from the west that will allow the realization of Iranian regional dominance. With or without nuclear weapons, Iran will probably be able to force a shift in power in the Middle East that the United States and its allies will have to deal with for decades to come.

By Greg C. Reeson

Over the weekend, I read a report that the U.S. military had lost 10 troops in Iraq during December, a pace that, if sustained, would make this month the least deadly in four years. Troop deaths this month are less than half of what the monthly total was in November after the mid-month point.

Of course, this is great news, but it is also a little bit surprising. After the last of the surge troops arrived in Iraq in June, American and Iraqi forces began a series of major offensive operations designed to protect the population and bring both insurgent attacks and sectarian fighting under control. Normally, when military forces are conducting offensive strikes, taking the fight to the enemy, casualty rates go up because the troops are actively looking to engage opposing forces. But both U.S. and Iraqi casualty levels continue to drop, a clear indicator of just how amazingly successful the surge strategy has been.

Everyone is speculating about how long the gains will last, given that the U.S. military is stretched pretty thin right now and that surge troops will have to start coming home before too long. I suspect we will continue to see improving conditions throughout 2008, for a couple of reasons. First, surge troops arrived in increments, from February 2007 through June 2007. If these units remain deployed for the standard 15-month tour, redeployments will be spread out from May 2008 through September 2008, accounting for three quarters of the year with increased troop levels and gradually drawing down the U.S. presence while continuing to train and implement Iraqi forces.

Second, there is a significant amount of behind-the-scenes negotiation going on between the United States and Iran. When things were looking bad for U.S. forces at the end of 2006, the Iranians expected us to start looking for a way out of Iraq. Instead, the President caught them off guard by increasing our troop presence, making the mullahs in Tehran more than a little bit nervous about the prospect of a long-term U.S. presence on their border. Now, uncertain about what the United States will do, Iran is making its way to the bargaining table to discuss its nuclear program and the future of Iraq.

Diplomatic negotiations are complicated and take time. Bargaining with Iran will likely take the better part of next year, and although there will be spikes in violence and no shortage of casualties, the quest for a long-term solution will keep the fighting at a level that can be managed by the U.S., Iran, and the Iraqi government. That means that U.S. casualties, already at historic lows for a prolonged conflict, should continue to be less than they have been for the past three years.

It appears increasingly likely that a unilateral declaration of independence will soon be made by Kosovo, perhaps as early as December 10. By that date, negotiators from the European Union, the United States, and Russia will have submitted a report to the United Nations on efforts to reach a consensus on Kosovo’s future status. 

Given Serb and Russian opposition to an independent Kosovo, it is unlikely that an agreement has been reached, leaving the international community in a bind if tensions flare up in the wake of a Kosovar declaration. Historically part of Serbia, Kosovo is largely inhabited by Albanians that make up more than 90 percent of the population. Serbs account for only 5 percent of the populace, but the Serbian government, with backing from Moscow, has indicated that it has no intention of letting Kosovo go.

A unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo is a real problem. Does NATO, which currently has around 16,000 troops deployed to Kosovo as peacekeepers, defend the Kosovo declaration with force and risk war with Serbia and confrontation with Russia? Or does NATO suppress the Kosovar Albanians that Europe and the west have supported since taking action against Serbia nearly a decade ago? If Kosovo declares independence based on an ethnic majority trapped within artificial borders, does it create a precedent for declarations of independence by other ethnic majorities in other regions, like maybe the Basque separatists in Spain or a multitude of places in the states of the former Soviet Union?

Despite the potential for another Balkan crisis, which could include a new war with Serbia, resulting from Kosovo’s expected declaration of independence, Senator and presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a statement on her Senate web site last week, “If the government in Pristina decides for independence, I would strongly support prompt U.S. recognition, and I would urge the European Union to do the same.”

Senator Clinton’s statement is, sadly, a reflection of the 2008 presidential field as a whole when it comes to the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs. Not one of the current front runners, from either party, has the level of foreign policy experience that this nation needs during one of its most dangerous periods. A peaceful, stable Iraq is still a long way off, Afghanistan is increasingly in danger of being lost to the Taliban, Iran is developing nuclear technology that could at some point be converted into a weapons program, Syria continues to meddle in Lebanese affairs, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on, China is making significant investments in its military establishment, Pakistan is in crisis, Ethiopian troops still occupy Somalia, Taiwan continues to push for independence, the Balkans are once again in danger of exploding, and the list goes on. As The Economist noted last week, “…the next president will have no time to learn on the job.”

This is an issue that should be of real concern for American voters as they head to the polls next year. We are a country at war, and threats loom around every corner. Our enemies are real, and they are many. It bodes well for us that France and Germany appear to have escaped the days of Chirac and Schroeder, and that the United States is increasingly able to count on European allies when dealing with common security concerns. But the United Nations remains ineffective, and there may well be times when America, perhaps with the help of a few friends, will have to act quickly and decisively to protect U.S. citizens and U.S. interests around the world.

In such cases, the nation will require a strong president, knowledgeable and able to make tough decisions that may not be popular within the confines of the U.N. Security Council. In the years to come, America will need a president that is able to put U.S. interests ahead of global interests, realizing that there will be occasions when unilateral action may have to trump multilateralism. So far, the four candidates most likely to win the White House have demonstrated strong knowledge of foreign affairs, but practical experience is sorely lacking. And that should give concerned voters legitimate reason for pause, and to think carefully about who will serve as our next Commander-in-Chief.

Those familiar with my writings know that I expend a considerable amount of time and energy analyzing the Iraq War and our nation’s fight against Islamic extremism. As a soldier who has served in Iraq twice, and who has witnessed the wounding and deaths of friends and fellow soldiers, the war is a subject of deeply personal importance to me and to my family. But this time, instead of discussing the merits of the war or the consequences that our failure would have on U.S. national security, I’d like to talk about the men and women who volunteer to serve their country during one of its most difficult and dangerous moments.

A few days ago I traveled to Fort Polk, Louisiana to say goodbye to one of my closest friends as he prepared to leave for his fourth Global War on Terror deployment since 2001. We initially got to know each other during the first year of the Iraq War, working together during the day and sleeping ten feet from each other during the night. He had already deployed to Afghanistan once following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and I was adjusting to my first expeditionary mission since I deployed to Haiti in 1994. We shared many experiences that first year, some filled with laughter, and some filled with tears. While we were growing closer to each other in Iraq, our families were doing the same back home. It is a relationship that has matured to the point where we, our wives, and our children, now consider each of us part of one big family.

After that first year, I deployed for a second time to Iraq while my friend left once again for Afghanistan, marking his third separation from family and friends in the course of just four short years. While there, he earned his third Bronze Star, which was added to his Purple Heart and the award for valor under fire that he earned for his heroic actions following a roadside bombing in Iraq that severely wounded a close friend of ours. One of the most difficult moments of my life was watching him scrub our friend’s blood out of his body armor, not knowing what to say to ease his pain, and ultimately realizing that just being there with him was what mattered most.

Just before he left for his second Iraq tour and fourth deployment in six years, my friend and I talked briefly about his thoughts on the war, repeated deployments, and what it means to be a soldier. Some of the discussion was personal and will remain between us. But I can tell you that he understands why we are in Iraq, and why it is important for us to complete our mission there. He and the vast majority of men and women in our military are perfect examples of what it means to put service to the nation ahead of service to self.

Still, despite their continued willingness to return to the fight, I often find myself questioning what we are doing to those who volunteer to serve our country in uniform. And when I say “we,” I am not merely referring to the defense establishment, the Bush Administration, or the Congress. I am referring to the country as a whole. Yes, we all willingly signed up for military service, knowing full well that we could be called on a moment’s notice to put ourselves in harm’s way, and that our time away from home and loved ones could be considerable. But from the very beginning our military has been fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan while our nation has been conducting business as usual, largely unaffected and ignorant of the sacrifices being made on its behalf. It is our soldiers and their loved ones who are bearing the burden in this war, with thousands killed and wounded on two of the most critical battlefields of our time.

The health of the all volunteer force is in jeopardy because America is not acting like a country at war. As a nation, we need to stop the partisan bickering and recognize that we are facing a volatile and dangerous future confronting extremists who use terrorism to lash out at America’s values and ideals. As a nation, we need to stop saying the war in Iraq is lost and figure out the best way to give our troops what they need, when they need it, to ensure America’s strategic interests in the Middle East and around the world. And as a nation, we need American citizens to understand what is at stake and to stand up in defense of our country.

The American military is not some fringe organization disassociated from normal society. Our military IS America, and we should all be grateful that we have such outstanding men and women of character who are willing to devote their lives to guaranteeing that we are able to live in a free and prosperous nation. We are blessed that so many of our sons and daughters choose to serve in the defense of this country, and we should all be inspired by their example. That’s one of the reasons I continue to serve as a soldier. I feel honored to be in the company of such amazing individuals, and I am humbled by the sacrifices that so many of them have made.

The Iraq War has bitterly divided this country, and America will feel its effects for decades to come. But I know that as a nation we will be okay because of the men and women who make up our armed forces. They represent all that is good and right about America, and they will see us through this difficult time. In reflecting on those individuals I have been fortunate enough to serve with, I am reminded of the words of a former Army Chief of Staff who spent nearly four decades as a soldier for this nation. General Creighton Abrams once said, “What this country needs, it cannot buy. It needs dedicated soldiers who see service to their country as an affair of the heart.” I think General Abrams would be proud of my friend, and of all those serving this nation in uniform today.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s April proclamation that the Iraq war was “lost” and the surge ordered by President Bush last January was not accomplishing anything generated a significant amount of debate about the conflict and America’s prospects for a successful outcome. In fairness to Senator Reid, the war was not going well for the United States at the time, with sectarian violence spinning out of control, U.S. and Iraqi casualties mounting daily, and the political process in Baghdad hopelessly stalled. Just seven months earlier, a Marine Corps intelligence officer had declared that prospects for improving security in the troubled al-Anbar Province were dim, and that the U.S. would probably not be able to salvage the region.

Senator Reid’s statement was a reaction to the steady stream of bad news coming out of Iraq, much of which had been based on false perceptions about what was really happening on the ground. Now, with surge operations in full swing, news about Iraq has virtually disappeared from evening newscasts and print media publications and the Congress has focused its attention on other hot issues that will likely prove important in next year’s elections. You see, the problem is that good news coming out of Iraq means that previous declarations about the war being lost might have been premature, and long-held perceptions about Iraq might be proven false.

After the last of the surge troops arrived in June, coalition forces began offensive operations designed to secure the population, and the peace, first in Baghdad and al-Anbar, and then in other key areas of the country. The results thus far have been nothing short of astonishing. Of course, several headlines over the past few days reported that 2007 was the deadliest year yet for U.S. forces in Iraq, but those reports wrongly glossed over the dramatic turn of events that has occurred since the surge began in earnest in July.

Over the past few months, U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties have declined significantly and reports indicate that attacks involving indirect fire weapons such as mortars and rockets are at their lowest levels in nearly two years. Additionally, attacks using roadside bombs have dropped sharply and sectarian violence is down throughout the country, with fewer and fewer bodies turning up on the streets of Baghdad and other key cities. Finally, Sunni insurgents in Anbar have been working with coalition forces to rid the province of al-Qaeda fighters, marking a significant shift in an area where all seemed hopeless not that long ago. All indications are that the situation in Iraq has gotten better, giving those of us here at home a great opportunity to clear our heads and reexamine those perceptions about Iraq that may have been misplaced.

One of the most popular misperceptions about Iraq is that the war is really about controlling Iraq’s oil reserves. The truth is that the Iraq war, no matter why it began, is critical to the long-term strategic interests of the United States. The war is not about oil, freedom, or even imposing a Jeffersonian democracy in the heart of the Middle East. While the Iraqis are enjoying freedoms they have not known for decades, what’s at stake in this war is nothing less than the stability of a region that has known nothing but violent conflict for much of its history. Providing that stability involves defeating foreign fighters in Iraq, ensuring Sunni participation in the Iraqi government, preventing genocide, and containing Iran’s growing ambitions to dominate not just Iraq, but most of the Middle East. An American loss in Iraq would pave the way for a failed state that would result in a humanitarian crisis, extended Iranian influence in the region, and a victory for extremists who rightly see Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.

Another popular myth is that the United States is fighting this war alone. More than 20 other nations have forces in Iraq, and scores of countries are contributing contract and service-type personnel critical to everyday life. Each of these nations is contributing within its own resource capabilities, and each is standing firm with the United States during this war. Of course, none of these states are able to participate on a level commensurate with that of the United States, but none are as wealthy or productive as we are. The point is that they are there, when they certainly don’t have to be. And what about the Iraqis themselves? Despite incessant attacks on individuals volunteering for service in the security forces, Iraqis keep showing up by the thousands at recruiting drives. Some are doing it for money, and some are doing it for love of country. But what’s important is that they are still reporting for duty. And while the United States has suffered nearly 4,000 casualties in Iraq, the death rate among those serving in the Iraqi security forces is exponentially higher. Iraqis are paying a much higher price in blood than the United States is. To withdraw from Iraq now would mean abandoning allies that have stood by our side through the carnage of the past four years, and deserting those Iraqis who have chosen to trust in the United States and stand up for the future of their country.

Perhaps the most important misperception about Iraq is that the war is already lost. Quite the contrary, significant progress is being made, partially due to the surge of American troops during the second half of this year, and partially due to decisions by Iraqis to turn against foreign fighters, and more importantly, to stop the sectarian fighting that was ripping the country apart. Iraq is not in a full-scale civil war, and never was. Instead, multiple parties including al-Qaeda, Sunnis, Shiites, criminal elements, and Iranians have been conducting several small wars against coalition forces and against each other. Shifting alliances and military successes have reduced the level of violence to a point where Iraq could be turning the proverbial corner.

Of course, the positive trends in Iraq are still very new, and very fragile. But Iraqis are now free from the grip of a mass murdering dictator and in a position to determine their own future. Economic development is progressing steadily and decades of infrastructure neglect are being reversed. The quality of life for Iraqis is improving, and while the central government in Baghdad is still highly dysfunctional and mostly ineffective, governmental processes are beginning to work from the bottom up, with local leaders setting the tone for the nation as a whole. Morale is high among coalition forces who are now beginning to see the results of their hard fighting, and among Iraqis who truly want a peaceful future for their country and now realize that it is within their grasp.

The Iraq war is not lost, but it is also not yet won. We are at a critical point in what I believe will ultimately be viewed as the defining battle of our time. There are significant strategic interests at stake, not only for the United States, but for Iraq, the Middle East, and the entire international community. The question now is whether or not we can look at the Iraq war for what it really is, and then muster the intestinal fortitude to see it through to a successful conclusion.

There’s been a noticeable decrease in the anti-war rhetoric coming out of Washington lately, no doubt because there has been a noticeable lack of bad news coming out of Iraq. Each day, more critics of President Bush’s Iraq policy are being forced to recognize that things on the ground do in fact seem to be getting better.

Even Reuters, which can almost always be counted on to give us nothing but the bad and the ugly, has now reported the good: that Iraq seems to be experiencing some positive trends and that the violence is showing signs of being under control. In a story this past week, Reuters correspondent Aseel Kami wrote that levels of violence in Iraq have decreased significantly since the last of President Bush’s surge troops arrived in late June, citing statistics provided by the Iraqi Interior Ministry that show a drop of 70 percent for violent incidents.

So what’s going on? It would appear that the President’s strategy is working. With levels of violence decreasing, and with Sunnis in al-Anbar and elsewhere turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq elements, a level of security conducive to political compromise is being provided in Baghdad and other key areas. According to the report, the number of car bombings in Baghdad is down 67 percent, the number of roadside bombings is down 40 percent, and the number of bodies found on the streets of Baghdad is down 28 percent. In al-Anbar Province, which was once written off as a lost cause by a U.S. Marine Colonel serving there, Reuters reports that violent deaths are down by more than 80 percent.

Now, it’s important to note that violence increased elsewhere as insurgents and al-Qaeda elements abandoned the sites targeted by the surge, with Reuters noting that Nineveh Province has experienced a 129 percent increase in car bombings and a 114 percent increase in violent deaths. But the difference between now and last year is that the new tactics developed and implemented by General Petraeus call for maintaining troop levels in areas cleared of insurgents and terrorists. American forces are on the offensive and pressure is being maintained on the individuals and groups perpetrating the violence. Simply put, insurgents and terrorists are running out of places to hide because General Petraeus is taking away the game of “chase the bad guy” that American troops played for far too long.

It is true that American forces cannot sustain surge troop levels indefinitely, and that over the near term the number of brigades in Iraq will have to be reduced. But the surge strategy is succeeding in buying time, not only for Iraqi political leaders to work out a compromise, but for Iraqi security forces to continue to train, draw equipment, increase proficiency, gain experience, and weed out infiltrators within their ranks who are more interested in tribal and sectarian loyalties than in a prosperous and stable Iraq.

This is a slow, often painful process. Insurgencies are messy affairs and there are no quick solutions. What we are doing now is working militarily, with American casualties for October at the lowest level in nearly two years. That’s quite a drop from what we’ve experienced before, and a casualty rate of less than one per day in the middle of a violent war is historically low for American conflicts. Of course, each death is a tragedy. But the dead have not died in vain. Their efforts are reaping tangible benefits and the people of Iraq are more secure now than they have been in the past three years.

In order to sustain the gains we have made in the past four months, though, one of two things has to happen. Either Iraqi politicians need to put sectarian differences and personal power aspirations aside and work out a substantive compromise that will allow for national reconciliation, or Iraqi Army and police forces need to achieve a level of proficiency that will allow them to take over security operations from American troops.

So far there has been little to no progress on the political front, but the more stable security environment is still in its infancy. Opposing factions will be understandably cautious and it will likely take some time to get everyone to the bargaining table. We can provide that time for a little while longer, but we cannot do it indefinitely. At some point Iraqi security forces will have to take responsibility for their country, even in the absence of political accommodation.

There has been much criticism of the ability of Iraqi forces to take over security operations, and truthfully, their performance record has been mixed. But they are becoming more proficient each day, weeding out the bad actors and standing up for their country. Force training takes time, and it is important to note that the training effort did not begin once the invasion of Iraq was complete. The training effort as it exists today is barely over two years old. The enormity of the task should not be underestimated, either. Training military forces to fight an insurgency is complex under the best of conditions, let alone in the middle of a vicious fight.

It is clear that progress is being made on the security front, and the training of Iraqi security forces continues in earnest while we push hard for the political reconciliation that will ultimately be necessary for a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. This war is not yet lost, and we owe it to the Iraqi people to provide them with as much time as we can, so that they are in the best position possible to save their nation.

By: Greg C. Reeson

After watching the news today, I thought I'd take a moment to talk about the recent jury award of nearly $11 million to the parents of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. Corporal Snyder was killed in Iraq last year, and his parents sued Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church after members of the congregation showed up at the funeral protesting with signs that read "God Hates You" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." The church's message is simply that God is killing soldiers to punish America for tolerating homosexual behavior.

Corporal Snyder's father, Albert Snyder, sued in U.S. District Court for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress and was awarded punitive and compensatory damages for his claim. As morally repugnant and disgraceful as I find the actions of Phelps and his congregation to be, it is critical that we are able to put emotions aside and look at this issue for what it really is.

The case, which is now being appealed by the Westboro Baptist Church, could seriously test the limits of free speech in this country. In response to repeated protests by Phelps' crew, several states have imposed restrictions on funeral protests and the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which prohibits demonstrations within a certain distance of national cemeteries, was signed into law by President Bush.

In some cases free speech has been limited by law, particularly when the speech was vulgar, offensive, or contained especially shocking words or statements. But it is important that we are careful about setting dangerous precedents, particularly when fundamental Constitutional guarantees are involved. Free speech is a hallmark of our society, and we are navigating dangerous waters when we start imposing restrictions based upon what certain persons or groups find objectionable. Doing so allows personal opinions and personal preferences to enter the equation, putting First Amendment rights in jeopardy. Today it's disparaging statments about dead soldiers. What will it be tomorrow that we find objectionable? What happens when another group finds something we believe objectionable?

I believe that groups like the Westboro Baptist Church are best dealt with by concerned citizens who use such opportunities to come to the aid of others and to express their own views, peacefully. The Patriot Guard Riders have done this by attending the same military funerals as the Westboro protestors and positioning themselves between the church's members and the families of our fallen soldiers, shielding them from the hate speech of Phelps and his congregation. The Patriot Guard Riders are just as entitled to assemble at cemeteries as are the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. And it is the fundamental rights of free speech and assembly that our soldiers dedicate their lives to protecting, even when they find the speech or the actions of a particular group objectionable.

For years, now, the international community has been wrestling with the issue of Iran’s continued development of nuclear technology. Despite a history of deception and obstruction by the government in Tehran, the United Nations has made precious little progress toward its stated goal of halting Iranian uranium enrichment. The only thing the Security Council has been able to achieve thus far is a weak sanctions regime that has had minimal impact on Iran’s energy sector and no impact on its nuclear development efforts.

Continued efforts at dialogue with Iran are not likely to change the status quo in the foreseeable future, a fact that makes it necessary for the United States and its European allies to consider trying a new approach. Instead of focusing attention and energy on Iran, concerned parties should instead consider a significant expansion of dialogue with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Why Russia? Simply put, Russia holds the key to Iran’s nuclear future, and to Iran’s vulnerability to international pressure.

Russian-Iranian cooperation has been both significant and blatantly overt. The Russian-Iranian connection includes nuclear development, various business interests, supply of military equipment, and an Iranian reliance on Russian veto power in the UN Security Council. If the United States and the European Union are to be successful at pushing through a meaningful sanctions resolution in order to increase Iran’s isolation and tighten the financial noose on Tehran’s nuclear aspirations, Russian cooperation will be critical.

So far, Russia has been unwilling to provide such cooperation, instead choosing to warn against the use of force and press the need for more of the negotiations that have thus far proven futile. Despite voting for two rounds of sanctions, which, as noted, were relatively insignificant with regard to their impact on Iran, Russia has blocked efforts for a third, more stringent package. If Russia truly hopes to avoid the possibility of a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, whether such a strike would be American, Israeli, European, or coalition in nature, then Mr. Putin should be open to direct discussions about tougher measures against Ahmadinejad and the clerics who run the Iranian government.

Sanctions, which historically have a mixed record of successes and failures, are reported to be impacting Iran’s energy industry. Meaningful restrictions on foreign investment, that are strictly enforced by the international community, would limit Tehran’s ability to improve its energy infrastructure, would increase domestic pressure on the Iranian government, and would force the Iranians to engage the United Nations in a sincere effort to find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear impasse. For Russia to join the American-European sanctions push that is likely to occur after the International Atomic Energy Agency reports back to the UN next month, though, the price will be steep.

Since Putin was elected president in 2000, he has made every effort to regain for Russia the power and influence that was lost when the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed. Knowing that Russia is never again likely to extend its influence as far as it once did in Europe, Putin has concentrated his efforts on countries of the former Soviet Union that are on Russia’s immediate periphery. And since he is trying to once again extend Russian influence, particularly in the Caucasus, he is extremely resentful of American-led efforts to push into Russia’s former sphere of influence. Several issues in particular have been forced to the forefront of Russian-American dialogue, including NATO expansion, ballistic missile defense in Eastern Europe, and two treaties, START I and CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe). Western encroachment and regional power balances will have to be addressed if the United States and Europe want Russia to cooperate on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.

The problem, though, is that concessions to Russia on influence in former Soviet countries would mean abandoning allies that have aligned with the United States and Europe since the early 1990s. So President Bush and European leaders have some tough decisions to make, knowing that we cannot abandon those nations that have stood by us since the end of the Cold War, and at the same time realizing that Russia will be instrumental in any solution to the Iranian nuclear problem.

While Russia publicly states that there is no clear evidence that Iran’s nuclear development is for anything other than peaceful purposes, and that the United States is exaggerating the threat, Russia is just as wary as the United States and Europe when it comes to the prospect of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Since Russia’s long-term interests are in the areas that once belonged to the Soviet Union, and not in the Middle East, there is some room for dialogue and compromise.

Iran’s standing with the international community has been significantly degraded of late, and Putin’s visit this week threw Tehran a lifeline in the midst of strengthening European and American resolve to confront the nuclear impasse. But Iran is of secondary importance to Russia, and the possibility exists that the West, led by the United States and Europe, could come to a mutually beneficial agreement with Russia that would return Iran to isolation and increase the pressure on Tehran to come clean about its nuclear activities. The question is whether or not the West is prepared to cede sufficient power and influence to Russia in order to find a diplomatic solution.

By Greg C. Reeson 

In yesterday's "Rush in a Hurry" email, which provides me with a quick recap of The Rush Limbaugh Show's highlights when I don't have a chance to listen in, there was an item that quoted ABC's Charlie Gibson as saying, "The news is (pause) that there is no news. The police told us that, to their knowledge, there were no major acts of violence. Attacks are down in Baghdad and today no bombings or roadside explosions were reported. " As Rush notes, to the drive-by media, good news is not news at all.

Perhaps instead of claiming that there was no news from Iraq, Mr. Gibson could have reported some of the following press releases from the Multi-National Force-Iraq web site for October 18 and 19:

**Spartans find EFP Cache--Soldiers from Company A, 2nd Battalion, 69th Armored Regiment, attached to the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division, discovered a large explosively formed projective cache in North Babil. They also discovered homemade explosives and blocks of C4. For the record, EFPs have been particularly lethal to our soldiers in Iraq.

**Iraqi Army, Coalition Forces Discover Weapons Cache--The 5th Iraqi Army Division and Coalition Forces captured a large weapons cache with assorted weapons and ammunition and two small caches with home-made explosives in southeast Baqouba.

**72-year old Iraqi Takes Down Suicide Bomber--A 72-year old Iraqi man stopped a suspected suicide bomber from detonating himself at a checkpoint in Arab Jabour. As the suspect ran toward the checkpoint with a suicide vest exposed, the man, a tribal commissioner and member of the Concerned Citizens Program, opened fire causing the vest to detonate and killing the bomber. "I did it for the honor of my family and the honor of my country," the man is quoted as saying.

**Hostages Released, Illegal Prisons Found--Soldiers from Company D, 1-12 Combined Arms Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, acting on a tip, discovered two makeshift prisons and freed five local citizens being held for ransom in Baqouba. A leader from a local Concerned Local Citizens Group provided the tip.

**Concerned Local Citizen's Tip Leads to Mortar Cache--A tip from a Concerned Local Citizen enabled soldiers to find a large mortar round cache northwest of Mushada. The cache included 474 mortar rounds that could be used to make roadside bombs.

**Concerned Citizens Lead Troops to Cache--Acting on information provided by local citizens, soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division found a weapons cache in Muqdadiyah. "Having local citizens point out...terrorists and their support bases shows the desire the people in Diyala have to live in peace," Colonel David Sutherland is quoted as saying.

So it seems there was some news from Iraq after all. The problem for ABC was that the news that was available could lead Americans to believe that we are making progress and that Iraqis are helping us with securing the peace, one weapons cache or suicide bomber at a time. Good things are indeed happening in Iraq, and the news is there for those who want to find it. But at ABC it seems, the old mantra of "If it bleeds, it leads" still rules the day.

Some of the most interesting experiences I have had during my travels to and from the war in Iraq involved the necessary fuel stops in other nations along the route that would take me to Kuwait, the jumping off point for military forces and equipment rotating into the Iraq Theater of Operations. Both political climate and public sentiment played crucial roles in determining the type of reception that American soldiers received upon landing, and I was struck by the differences among nations that were considered American “allies.”

To illustrate, allow me to provide a few examples. In Rome, Italy, we were not allowed to leave the plane during our stop. We remained parked on the tarmac and airport personnel brought out portable stairs so that smokers could descend to the bottom for a cigarette break. I stepped outside just so that I could enjoy a breath of fresh air, having been trapped inside our plane for the past 15 hours. We were told by some airline workers that we were restricted to the plane because of the Italian public’s opposition to the war, a notion I found somewhat strange considering the Italians had a respectable number of troops serving in Iraq and then-Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was a staunch supporter of President Bush and the war.

Prestwick, Scotland offered a situation that was a little better, but not much. Upon our arrival in Prestwick, we were informed that we could in fact disembark from the airplane, but would be restricted to an outlying hanger area away from the main terminal. So we walked down the steps and across the aircraft parking ramp to a building far removed from the places normal air travelers frequent. To make up for the lack of food and beverage establishments that I and my soldiers would most certainly have patronized, airport officials set up a makeshift snack bar with crackers, cookies, sodas and coffee that we could purchase, with American dollars of course.

Shannon, Ireland provided by far the warmest reception I received outside the United States. Not only were we allowed off the plane and into the terminal, but our soldiers were free to go where they wanted, when they wanted. We ate at the restaurants, shopped in the duty free store, and even enjoyed a few spirits at the airport pub. The people were warm and friendly, and I almost felt like I was at home. The same was true for my stop in Gander, Newfoundland, where ordinary travelers would come up and greet us and wish upon us God’s blessings. And my only two stops in the United States, at JFK in New York and in Bangor, Maine, were exactly what you would expect them to be: warm, loving, supportive layovers where complete strangers treated you like their closest family members.

So when the Washington Times ran a story last week about American troops returning from Iraq being barred entry to the airport terminal at Oakland International, I was a bit taken aback. According to the Times, an unnamed Marine reported that the airplane carrying the troops parked some 400 yards away from the terminal, without access to food or bathroom facilities. The Marine wrote in an email to a couple of Republican congressmen that “Every Marine and soldier felt the message loud and clear. ‘You are not welcome in Oakland!’”

I can understand restrictions in places like Rome and Prestwick. Geopolitics is a complicated affair, and relations among nations involve lots of give and take between countries trying to achieve foreign policy objectives while satisfying fickle publics. But if the allegations are true, how does this happen here at home?

The Times article stated that the 200-plus Marines and soldiers aboard North American Airlines Flight 1777 had been through the customs screening process at JFK and had been allowed into the terminal in New York. The Marine who made the allegations said the troops were told they could not enter the terminal in Oakland because they had not been cleared by the TSA. The Port of Oakland issued a response, quoted by the Times, saying “The airport received information that the passengers were not screened by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at their originating airport and that weapons were on-board the aircraft.” The TSA then responded that since the troops had been through Customs, no TSA screening was required.

It sounds like it was all a big misunderstanding, but the question remains, how does this happen in the United States? So the airport received information that the passengers had not been screened by the TSA and that there were weapons on board. Did anyone bother to ask what type of passengers might have weapons aboard a commercial flight within the continental United States? Common sense should have dictated that this was probably not your run-of-the-mill charter and that someone at Oakland International should have asked a few more questions before directing the airplane into the airport’s sterile area.

Part of the problem is that we are a military at war, but we are not a nation at war. A large segment of the American population has returned to pre-9/11 routines, seemingly unaffected by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and by the very real threats posed to our nation by Islamic extremism. Security precautions have become inconveniences that make it much easier to push out-of-the-ordinary situations to a sterile area to be dealt with by someone else, rather than asking a few more questions that could result in our soldiers and Marines being treated like the heroes they are.

Our troops returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and anywhere else that puts them in harm’s way, deserve the very best that we can give them. Something as simple as security screening should never result in quarantine for American soldiers returning home after serving their country overseas. To prevent incidents like the one in Oakland from happening again, Americans must wake up out of their slumber and acknowledge that we are not fighting President Bush’s war, or the Republicans’ war, or the military’s war, but America’s war. The sooner we do that as a nation, the sooner we will be able to defeat our enemies and honor those who live their lives as servants of our country.

Strategic Forecasting (STRATFOR), a private geopolitical intelligence company based in Austin, recently published an analysis stating that the United States was attempting “…to make Iran feel isolated, make Iran fear that its foes are on the verge of using military force, make Iran feel like talks with the United States are the least-bad option.” And, STRATFOR notes, dialogue between Washington and Tehran is exactly what’s needed right now to improve the security situation in Iraq, thereby providing American military forces the opportunity to draw down and refocus their mission to one of training Iraqi security forces instead of actively engaging in combat operations.

The bottom line, and I agree with STRATFOR on this, is that the conflict in Iraq is primarily a struggle for influence between the United States and Iran. We want an Iraq that can serve as a buffer to rising Iranian influence and power in the Middle East and Iran wants a Shiite-friendly government in Baghdad that is unwilling and incapable of threatening its Persian neighbor. That is primarily why Iran is meddling in Iraqi affairs, including training and arming insurgent elements that are attacking, wounding and killing American soldiers. The goal from Tehran’s point of view is that Iran must prevent the United States from achieving its objectives in Iraq because the accomplishment of Washington’s goals would directly threaten Iranian interests in the region. And that is why President Bush refuses to give up the fight, a move that would allow Iran to fill the power vacuum that will inevitably result from an abrupt American departure from Iraq.

With the continued lack of political progress by the Iraqi government and the surge of American forces in Iraq necessarily coming to an end in the not-too-distant future, President Bush is ratcheting up the pressure on Tehran by enlisting once-again friendly European nations in the effort to isolate Iran on the international stage. These efforts are having an effect, and tougher sanctions currently being considered by the European Union, coupled with the threat of possible war by France over the nuclear impasse, could cause Tehran to take another look at its strategic position vis-à-vis the United States.

But here is where we have to be careful in any dealings with the clerics in Tehran or the lunatic they call a president. Any diplomatic engagement must be from a position of strength, and not from a position of concession. We cannot bow to Iranian demands for the lifting of sanctions, and we cannot allow Iran to seize control in the center or south of Iraq. One of the reasons behind President Bush’s surge of troops into Iraq was to put the Iranians on notice that the United States would be staying for the long haul, and that the presence of American troops on Iran’s border was a reality that Tehran would have to deal with for the foreseeable future. It is true that we cannot sustain the surge indefinitely, but it is also true now that instead of a massive reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq, significant numbers of troops will remain actively engaged for quite some time.

That fact not only makes Iran nervous, it provides some level of reassurance and comfort to Middle East allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, all of whom are fearful of rising Iranian influence in the region. The French, Dutch and German governments are getting on board with the United States, and we should use that leverage to press Iran even harder, with meaningful sanctions and with the possible use of force, to stop interfering in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, to restrain its operatives in Iraq, and to work with the United Nations to resolve the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.

Any sign of weakness on the part of the United States, or our European allies, will be seized upon by Tehran as an opportunity to continue pushing for Iranian dominance in the Middle East, backed by the eventual possession of a nuclear arsenal.

By Greg C. Reeson

Over the past two years, there has been a noticeable shift in European politics toward the center and right of the political spectrum. It began with conservative electoral victories in Germany and Poland in 2005, and was followed by similar electoral results in Sweden in 2006 and in Finland and France in 2007. This shift has led to a European political environment that is much more amenable to partnering with the United States to address mutual foreign policy challenges.

Prior to 2005, European foreign policy efforts were led by France under President Jacques Chirac, a Gaullist who worked tirelessly to make a French-led Europe a sort of multi-national superpower that could rival the United States. European – American relations became increasingly strained as French-led Europe was perceived in the United States as being anti-anything American, to the point of obstructionism in international forums like the United Nations.

In 2005, American credibility was suffering and domestic and international criticism of President Bush’s foreign policy was at an all time high with the security situations in Afghanistan and Iraq rapidly deteriorating. The United Nations seemed hopelessly lost in its search for a united front concerning Iran’s nuclear development program, and the Security Council couldn’t manage to agree on anything more than meaningless statements that lacked any real substance.

When Angela Merkel was elected to replace German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a man who made no secret of his distaste for American leadership concerning international relations and foreign policy, Germany took a sharp turn, quickly warming up to the United States and pushing hard for a European landscape that featured Germany, and not France, as the leading power. Other countries in Europe soon began to fall in line with the move toward better relations with the United States, with the most recent being France after the election of conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy, who defeated socialist Segolene Royal and essentially ended leftist domination of French politics.

Since Sarkozy came to power, France has followed Germany’s diplomatic lead, slowly improving relations with the United States. But Sarkozy, not willing to defer to German leadership for all European concerns, has asserted his willingness to work with the United States on important foreign policy matters. In an August 27 foreign policy speech, Sarkozy broke sharply from his predecessor and spoke harshly of groups and nations responsible for much of the insecurity and unrest in the world today. But his most severe criticism was reserved for Iran, whose continued development of nuclear technology he called the “most pressing” issue for the international community. Then, just this week, on September 17, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner raised the possibility of war with Iran over the nuclear issue when he said, “We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war.”

Additionally, France has recently called for tougher European sanctions on Iran if Ahmadinejad and the clerics who pull his puppet strings refuse to work with other nations to resolve the impasse over the nuclear program. And Strategic Forecasting, a private geopolitical intelligence company based in Austin, Texas, reported that the Netherlands support the push for strong European sanctions, saying that if the United Nations is not able to take meaningful action, the European Union is “morally obligated” to do so.

Thus far Germany, while still working to strengthen ties with the United States, has been reluctant to put additional pressure on Tehran. This is probably because Germany has invested itself significantly in Iran, and German leaders don’t want to see that investment squandered or destroyed. But as European countries continue to ally themselves with the United States, and as France once again pushes French leadership on the Continent, Germany may feel compelled to join the U.S.-led effort to hold Iran accountable for its development of nuclear technology.

One other point should be made. Retired U.S. General John Abizaid, the former Commanding General of Central Command, the U.S. combatant command that has responsibility for the Middle East, recently said that the United States could live with a nuclear-armed Iran. And while he said that every effort should be made to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he stated his belief that the United States’ overwhelming nuclear capability would serve as a deterrent that would prevent Iran from ever using nuclear weapons against America.

In a sense, he is correct. Iran is not ruled by a bunch of crazy people, although that is the image generally portrayed by President Ahmadinejad. The clerics who hold the real power in Tehran are rational individuals who make calculated decisions designed to advance Iranian interests. The real problem is Iran’s ongoing power play to become the dominant nation in the region. A significant strategic shift is underway, and Iran is working feverishly in Syria and Iraq, and in dealings with the United Nations, to position itself as THE country in the Middle East to be reckoned with. Other countries in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are increasingly nervous about Tehran’s ambitions, and nuclear weapons would only serve to increase the fear and suspicion that already contribute to regional tensions and instability.

The current crop of major European leaders recognizes the power shift that is occurring in the Middle East, and they recognize the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. Tehran’s quest for regional preeminence is slowly but surely being met by an increasingly pro-American Europe that could be much more effective than the United Nations in containing Iran’s ambitions.

France’s Golden Opportunity

When conservative Nicolas Sarkozy defeated socialist Segolene Royal for the French presidency earlier this year, media pundits and political analysts alike speculated that we were witnessing the dawn of a new era in U.S. – French relations that had been severely strained when Jacques Chirac was at the helm in Paris. An August 27 speech by Sarkozy, in which he laid out his foreign policy priorities, may indeed indicate that the speculation is becoming reality, and that the Chirac era of antagonizing and obstructing the United States at every opportunity is finally coming to an end.

In the August 27 speech, Sarkozy’s tone, and choice of words, were markedly different from those of his predecessor. When Sarkozy spoke of the need for a strong European Union, he did so with a vision for a European entity that would complement and cooperate with the United States to advance common interests, and not with an eye toward creating a super alliance that could counter American power on the world stage. When addressing some of the key security concerns currently occupying the attention of global powers, Sarkozy chose harsh words for Iran, China, Hamas and Russia instead of friendly overtures designed to appease and engage. It was a different approach, one that met with a warm reception in the United States, especially with regard to Iran’s continued defiance of the world community over its ongoing nuclear program.

Perhaps this is the dawn of a new era in relations between the United States and France, but there is a significant divide between the countries that will take time, and more than pro-American words in foreign policy speeches, to overcome. Sarkozy has a chance to change France’s approach to the United States from one of obstruction to one of engagement, but it will take substantive action, both in France and abroad, to begin the process of healing French-American wounds. Internationally, instead of actively lobbying against America in the United Nations, France can look at our common concerns and objectives and work with the United States to address the world’s pressing security issues. Sarkozy could also lead France back to NATO, and re-establish France as a global player by actively participating in ongoing and future peacekeeping missions in a manner worthy of a global power.

At home, Sarkozy could address France’s ever growing, and increasingly discontented, Muslim population, which if left unattended could result in a French 9/11-scale attack that would send Paris reeling backward. A strong relationship with the United States could help potential counter-terrorist operations in France by increasing an already solid intelligence sharing and law enforcement agreement. Also at home, Sarkozy could benefit from a strong relationship with the United States by making France more investment friendly and less of a social welfare state. Economic reforms in France could reap huge benefits in terms of trade and investment for both France and the United States.

The election of Nicolas Sarkozy holds great promise for France, Europe, and the United States. A strong, mutually beneficial partnership between France and America, based on engagement and cooperation instead of obstruction and competition, could go a long way toward changing U.S. public opinion about France, and perhaps French public opinion regarding the United States. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany wasted no time warming up to America after her election, and Sarkozy should do likewise. In the end, France, Europe, and the United States will benefit and France will emerge a stronger power, perhaps once again worthy of a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

As the U.S. Congress and Iraqi parliament enjoy their summer recesses, reports from military officials and independent analysts in Iraq indicate that President Bush’s so-called “surge” strategy for Baghdad and al-Anbar Province is beginning to have its desired effect. A serious reading of events since the final surge troops arrived in Iraq in June reveals that U.S. forces are making steady, if incremental, progress.

The new emphasis on counterinsurgency operations and securing the Iraqi population has resulted in a nearly 50 percent decrease in major attacks (the spectacular bombings generally attributed to foreign terrorist elements), Sunni tribes turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq elements, some progress toward reducing sectarian violence, something resembling normalcy in several Baghdad neighborhoods, and improved morale among U.S. military troops who now feel they have a solid strategy and a commander they can trust. Yes, there are still mass casualty bombings and unacceptable levels of violence, but the trend is clearly toward an improved security situation in Iraq.

Of course, this should come as no surprise to anyone who has been more than a casual observer of the performance of U.S. troops in the field. American military forces are the most capable and professional in the world and, given the right resources, can bring order and stability to just about any environment into which they are placed. But the improving situation in Iraq cannot be maintained indefinitely. The successes we are seeing are at the tactical level and are being paid for with the blood and sweat of American military men and women. What is required now is progress at the national level among the elected Iraqi leadership.

If there is to be any hope of maintaining a unified Iraq, the warring factions must come together as Iraqis to move the country forward while fighting together against state and non-state actors interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs. So far there have been no positive signs on this front as Shi’a, Sunnis and Kurds continue to place ethnic and sectarian loyalties above any commitment to the national government.

President Bush, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, is giving Iraqis a chance to move forward. The surge is beginning to establish the breathing space the President has said is essential to political progress. The real question is what the Congress will do when General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker return to Washington to present their next Iraq report. Petraeus, who is serving as the commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq and chief architect of the current counterinsurgency strategy, has promised a candid assessment of the situation on the ground no later than September 15.

The report will not say that Iraq is on the road to recovery. Nor will it say that U.S. forces are beginning to see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. Instead, the September assessment is likely to be a mixed bag, showing progress in some areas while expressing worry in others. The key will be to look for indicators that provide hope for a positive outcome somewhere down the road. There is no magic solution and Iraq will not become peaceful anytime soon. But if the security situation is improving and there are signs that Iraqis want to move toward a peaceful future, the President and the Congress may have to make the hard decision to continue, or even expand, the surge, regardless of any potential political consequences.

The strategic ramifications of failure are too great, and too frightening, to just walk away because Iraq did not completely turn around by September. If there are visible signs of political accommodation, as there are in the improving security situation, governmental leaders and the American public must be prepared to continue the surge, with increased force levels if necessary. But the onus still rests with the Iraqis themselves. Despite the parliament’s recess, key leaders continue to work on important issues like oil revenue sharing, de-Baathification, regional engagement and provincial elections. The Iraqis must realize by now that time is running out for them to step up to the plate and take concrete actions to move Iraq forward. American troops are doing their part; now the Iraqis must do theirs.

The outcome in Iraq is still very much in doubt, and the citizens of the United States must be prepared for a long struggle if the President decides that progress is indeed being made. To truly make Iraq a safe and secure country, America will need to maintain a significant commitment in terms of both manpower and money. That means hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iraq’s borders, expand our human intelligence capability, find and eliminate the perpetrators of violence, and continue the mission of training members of the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police forces so that Iraqis, and not Americans, can take responsibility for what happens inside Iraq’s borders.

It also means that civilian employees of the federal government must be prepared to deploy to Iraq to assist in the endeavor. Representatives of federal agencies must stay in place for at least one year to ensure continuity and stability of effort. Likewise, military deployments must be determined by whatever makes sense in the context of our strategic objectives. That may mean longer tours in Iraq and shorter stays at home. No one wants to hear such talk, but that is the reality we are facing if we hope to win this war. Finally, everyone in America and abroad must understand that this is a fight that will go on for a very long time. To make Iraq work, the United States will need to be prepared to stay engaged for at least the next decade. Counterinsurgencies are long, tough affairs. There is simply no easy solution.

So while we wait for General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to provide their assessment next month, we must start thinking about what we will do if there is cause for optimism in Iraq. Does America have the stomach for continuing or increasing the surge? If there is visible progress, then I think the answer is a resounding yes. The public will support the war effort if they see that our sacrifices are resulting in positive gains. However, if America is unwilling to do what it will take to win in Iraq, the problem immediately shifts from one of war fighting to one of managing the inevitable implosion and all of its associated consequences. If you think things are bad now, brace yourself. You haven’t seen anything yet.