The Associated Press reported over the weekend that the United Nations Security Council had expressed its “grave concern” over reports alleging that weapons were being smuggled into Lebanon. Of course, the AP article captures in a nutshell the very essence of what is wrong with the U.N. It seems that the best the Security Council can do when faced with a real security issue is to express its “grave concern.”

Now, it’s no secret that weapons have been smuggled into Lebanon for decades. Nor is it a secret that Iran and Syria have been, and continue to be, the primary culprits. And despite the fact that these latest reports merely reinforce once again what has long been known to be a significant contributing factor to Lebanon’s troubles, the Security Council couldn’t manage to come together to issue a demand to Syria and Iran to stop their repeated violations of U.N. resolutions designed to prevent the smuggling of arms into Lebanon.

In keeping with the long-held U.N. tradition of avoiding confrontation on serious issues, the Security Council merely reminded both regional and international nations that they had an obligation to honor the U.N. arms embargo and issued a statement saying that recent claims by Hezbollah about the terrorist group’s ability to attack Israel were cause for “deep concern.”

According to the AP article, it was necessary for the Security Council to “water down” its response to the reports in order to win support from Qatar. Once again we are reminded that consensus takes priority over substance at Turtle Bay. And, while I’ve asked this question before, I feel compelled to ask it again: why are we still participating in this charade? Why do we still feel the need to work through the United Nations when it comes to important security issues?

The U.N. is a bloated, inefficient, disorganized bureaucracy that consistently fails to seriously address the important security issues facing the world today. At the U.N., getting along is more important than getting a point across. That is why Iran continues to defy the international community with its pursuit of nuclear technology, North Korea continues to play diplomatic games in exchange for regime-supporting concessions from the West, and Lebanon continues to be used as a proxy battleground by its Syrian and Iranian masters.

The United Nations can do some good in the world, particularly with regard to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. But time and again the U.N. fails when it comes to the really important security issues of the day. Each time a statement of “grave concern” or “deep concern” prevails over meaningful action, the U.N. moves farther along the road to realizing President Bush’s warning of impending irrelevance.

By Greg C. Reeson

The House of Representatives passed by a near-unanimous margin yesterday a bill that would bar the United States from establishing permanent military installations in Iraq. While the measure is unlikely to ever become law, it is still worth examining if for no other reason than to point out its stupidity.

In one way, I guess, it is understandable that the measure received great support (it passed 399 to 24) because lawmakers in Congress are desperately searching for an answer to our continued presence in Iraq. Disregarding any talk about the consequences of withdrawal, Congress continues to seek political cover instead of engaging in serious thought about why we need to be in Iraq, and why we need to stay engaged in the region.

Why would we want or need permanent military bases in Iraq? A quick look at the strategic picture gives us a few clues. First, the Iraqi government will require our assistance for many, many more years. That assistance will include military forces which will require fixed facilities for their support. The Iraqi government is too weak, and the Iraqi infrastructure too degraded to provide the necessary level of support for our soldiers. Besides, is "permanent" really permanent? At any time we could sell, loan or transfer any such facilities to the government of Iraq. Remember Germany? Many of the bases we are currently transferring to the German government have been "permanent" U.S. military bases since the end of World War II.

Second, the Middle East is a region vital to the national security of the United States, and our presence in the region helps ensure the steady flow of much of the world's oil supply. What better place to have U.S. military bases in locations approved and requested by the Iraqi government? If we know that we will be engaged in the region for the foreseeable future, doesn't it make sense to take steps to facilitate that engagement? Wouldn't it be wise to expand the number of sites available to us for responding to crises in the Middle East?

Third, Iran's increasing aggressiveness in the region and on the world stage require close attention from the United States. Permanent bases in Iraq put U.S. military forces in a strategically critical location from which to contain Iran and the spread of Iranian influence in an already troubled region. If Iran knows we are not going to go away, they will be forced to deal with our presence.

The problem with the Congress right now is that its members are too focused on the 2008 elections. Instead of worrying about their political careers, they should be realistically assessing the strategic situation in Iraq and the Middle East, and they should be planning for U.S. engagement in the region for decades to come.

By Greg C. Reeson

The recent release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) asserting that al-Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan has resulted in a significant amount of debate about the Global War on Terror and the efforts the United States is undertaking in its prosecution of that war. While congressmen, media pundits, military analysts and others weigh-in with their respective opinions, it is important to accurately define al-Qaeda and remind Americans of the goals sought by the group’s members.

The al-Qaeda that most people think of is the al-Qaeda of Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the group that hijacked four American airliners and crashed three of them into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon. But this is not the al-Qaeda that is most dangerous to the United States today. Bin Laden, if he is even alive at this point, is incapable of posing a direct threat to the American homeland because the offensive nature of the war on terror has kept him and Zawahiri on the run and looking over their shoulders, while many of al-Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been either killed or captured. The original al-Qaeda that declared war on the United States, many years before Americans even acknowledged the threat posed by the group, is in disarray and unable at the moment to execute an attack equal in scale or grandeur to the attacks of September 11, 2001. While it would indeed be gratifying to see bin Laden brought to justice for his crimes, his death or capture would do little to help the United States in its fight against terrorism.

The real threat is instead posed by the al-Qaeda that has taken shape since the attacks that prompted our incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq. The new al-Qaeda consists of a multitude of terrorist organizations, some new and some old, which have either been inspired by bin Laden and Zawahiri or have publicly declared their allegiance to the original terrorist group. It is through these groups, which are operating in all corners of the globe, that the ideology of the old al-Qaeda continues to live. To focus on any one organization, whether it be bin Laden’s original “Base,” Abu Musab al-Zarqawis’s al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Pakistani elements mentioned in the NIE, or al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is to miss the fundamental reality that we are fighting a radical ideology hell bent on destroying our way of life in its pursuit of Islamic domination of the world.

In a February 1998 “Jihad against Jews and Crusaders” statement, bin Laden, Zawahiri, and other leaders of the original al-Qaeda called on Muslims “…to kill the Americans and their allies-civilian and military…” to force an American withdrawal from the Middle East. In 2002, bin Laden wrote a letter to the American people in which he instructed them to embrace Islam and get out of the Middle East’s holy lands. Then in 2005, coalition forces in Iraq captured a letter purported to be from Zawahiri to al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi that explained al-Qaeda’s four stages of jihad: 1) expel the Americans from Iraq; 2) establish an Islamic emirate in Iraq and develop it into a caliphate; 3) extend the jihad to Iraq’s secular neighbors; and 4) the inevitable battle with Israel. With the domination of the Middle East complete, radical elements would be in a much stronger position from which to spread their virulent form of Islam.

It is this fanatical ideology, promulgated by the original al-Qaeda, that has been embraced by violent groups the world over. Across the globe, elements inspired by bin Laden’s al-Qaeda have taken up his cause. It is against these elements, and their strict adherence to a radical form of Islam, that we are now fighting, and it is the ideology that binds the al-Qaedas, new and old, together. Our enemies believe that they are executing God’s will, and that those who oppose them also oppose God. Negotiations and dialogue are meaningless because any sort of compromise or understanding would be in conflict with what they believe to be the wishes of God. They cannot be reasoned with; they can only be killed.

Many in this country are demanding that we withdraw our troops from Iraq. Some have suggested that we should put our focus back on Afghanistan and those who attacked us on 9/11. Both of these arguments demonstrate a genuine lack of understanding not only about our enemy, but about the threats we face.

An Iraq pullout would signify the accomplishment of al-Qaeda’s first stage in the quest for global domination, the expulsion of the Americans from the Land of the Two Rivers. New al-Qaeda groups on every continent would be emboldened by the victory, and would likely attempt to seize the opportunity to step up efforts in their particular areas of operation. At least part of Iraq would, in all likelihood, become a safe haven for al-Qaeda elements to move to stage two, the establishment of an Islamic emirate from which the extension of jihad could be launched, pushing al-Qaeda’s plan to its third stage. Similarly, a focus on bin Laden and Afghanistan ignores the devolution of al-Qaeda from its original form into a decentralized, cellular organization that operates largely independently of the core leadership. While we focused our attention on the remnants of al-Qaeda and Taliban elements in Afghanistan, countries like Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be fighting for their very survival.

The debate over Iraq and the war on terror can easily become inflamed by personal passions. Amid all the partisan rhetoric emanating from both sides of the political aisle, though, it is important to remember that what we are fighting is not Islam, or bin Laden, or the al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11, but a radical ideology that seeks nothing less than global domination. 

Charles Hill, former political counselor to the American Embassy in Tel Aviv and former assistant to Reagan Administration Secretary of State George Schultz, is on the list, as is Stephen Rosen, a military expert and professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University. Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary magazine and an advocate for military action against Iran, also makes an appearance on the list, as does Martin Kramer, an expert on Islam from Harvard.

To provide a little bit of balance, Giuliani chose former Senator Bob Kasten, a respected conservative, and Peter Berkowitz, who studies legal issues surrounding policies designed to deal with terrorists and terrorist acts. Giuliani has also tapped Kim Holmes of the conservative Heritage Foundation in order to provide him with some expertise on U.S. homeland security issues.

Part of this, I think, involves Giuliani playing to his strengths. He received a lot of praise for his leadership in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and he, perhaps as much as anyone else, has a sharp understanding of the threat posed by radical Islamic elements like al-Qaeda and its offshoot splinter groups. He understands that the terrorists we are fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, and elsewhere will not just go away if we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and pull our forces out of the Middle East. He seems to grasp a simple concept that somehow eludes many of our elected leaders in the Congress: that radical Islamists want nothing short of global domination that destroys our values, our beliefs, and our way of life.

Giuliani’s foreign policy team reflects a keen awareness that the problems of the Middle East will not soon fade. While advocates of a reduced American presence in the region and anti-war activists may decry many of his choices, Giuliani is rightly focusing on the area of the world most likely to be a significant source of grief during the next president’s tenure in the White House. His foreign policy team is made up of intelligent men and women who will no doubt serve him well if he secures the Republican nomination and defeat’s whichever anti-war candidate faces him in the general election.

By Greg C. Reeson

Howard Zinn, writing recently in The Progressive, said that this Independence Day Americans “…would have done well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.” His column was an argument against the basic idea that we should consider ourselves Americans, and instead advocated an “allegiance to the human race,” as if the two were somehow incompatible.

He described our soldiers in Iraq as “victims…of our government’s lies” and claimed that Americans suffer from “a loss of a sense of proportion.” To support this claim, he said nationalist thinking had led us to such actions as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in response to Pearl Harbor, and the killing of tens of thousands in the Global War on Terror in response to the deaths of 3,000 Americans in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a clear indication of our “loss of a sense of proportion.” The implication, of course, is that we should have been much more restrained after being attacked by a ruthless enemy, in 1941 and again in 2001.

With all due respect to Mr. Zinn’s opinion, I must disagree. I take great pride not in the fact that I am a soldier, but in the fact that I am an American soldier. I am as capable at helping others as I am at hurting them, and I take far more pleasure in the former than I do in the latter. I am immensely proud and humbled to have the honor of representing my nation, as a member of the armed forces, in bringing relief to those who need it, and justice to those who deserve it.

I, and I believe most Americans, love all the symbols of our greatness: our flag, our anthem, our history, and our culture. I have sworn my life to defending the principles upon which this country was founded, and I do believe with all my heart that our nation is special and unique.

I teach my children to respect our flag and our country, and to be thankful for the blessings we enjoy. I get choked up at the playing of “The Star Spangled Banner” and at the passing of Old Glory, and I and my children stand and give proper honors when either occurs. That may make me a nationalist in Mr. Zinn’s eyes, but it doesn’t make me any less a member of the human race.

And what about that greatest symbol of America, our national colors, that Mr. Zinn would have us put away? Our flag stands for what this nation is: a beacon of hope to the rest of the world, a place where freedom and prosperity are available to all who come here peaceably and are willing to work for it. It represents the values and beliefs that our soldiers are dying for, because they know America is worth preserving. It represents that magical place where people from around the world still long to be, and it stands for justice and equality, the inherent human rights that are sadly lacking in many places around the world.

Do we sometimes make mistakes in dealing with other nations? Yes, of course, but this nation represents a land where good triumphs more often than not, and that is why the rest of the world continues to look to us for guidance and hope. And it is why our enemies seek to destroy us and everything that we represent.

I have been around the world and seen the joy in people’s eyes when American help has arrived, and I have felt pride and thankfulness for being part of such a wonderful nation, knowing that few other countries could provide the hope and promise that we do. And I have seen the utter fear in those who know that we have come to right the wrongs on behalf of those who cannot fight for themselves against tyranny and oppression. A former commanding officer of mine summed it up beautifully when he said, “When we deploy our forces, one of two things happens: people either say ‘Thank God, they’re coming, or they say, ‘Oh s***, they’re coming.’” Both speak to the greatness of this nation.

The flag, and all our symbols of national pride, mean something because they represent all that is good and right about America, and all that can be good and right in the world. They serve as an inspiration and source of pride not only to most Americans, but also to everyone who wants to be an American or wants their nation to be more like ours.

No, the time has not come to renounce nationalism and symbols of national pride. Instead, now, more than ever, it is time to stand up and be counted. Because now is a time of great peril for our nation, when radical enemies seek to destroy everything we stand for and everything we believe in. And it will take proud Americans, and not proud humans, to ensure that our country and our way of life continue, for us, and for the rest of the world.

By Greg C. Reeson

One of my favorite features from Rush Limbaugh’s “Limbaugh Letter” is a “Who said it?” section that offers quotes from two different individuals and asks readers to guess which noted figure committed the utterances. July’s edition of the newsletter highlights quotes from New York Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and noted socialist thinker, philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx. The really scary part is how much the two are alike when it comes to their political thoughts.

Listed below are five of the Clinton quotes that could have just as easily been spoken by Marx:

--“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” (June 29, 2004)

--“[W]e can’t…just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.” (June 4, 2007)

--“I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in [the] entire economy that they’re being watched.” (September 2, 2005)

--“I certainly think the free market has failed.” (June 4, 2007)

And finally,

--“We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West.” (April 6, 1993).

Remolding society. That means American society. Why? Why would we remold the society that has made us the most prosperous and most powerful nation in the history of the world? Why would we remold the society that built this nation through hard work and individual responsibility. The bottom line is that Senator Clinton believes in taking from the “haves” to give to the “have nots.” That means that those members of society who are most productive are penalized in order to benefit those members who contribute the least to our national well-being. It sounds eerily like “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” from Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme.

I’m sure Marx would have been proud.

In its just published Third Quarter Forecast for 2007, private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (STRATFOR) predicts that the governments of the United States and Iran “…are now closer than ever to reaching an agreement…” on Iraq. If such a deal is indeed finalized, STRATFOR expects Iraq to “…become somewhat ordered near the quarter’s end….” If no agreement can be reached, however, the analysts in downtown Austin foresee full-blown violence that will likely last for several more years.

As things stand now, I believe the likelihood of any U.S.-Iranian pact on Iraq will be sabotaged not by the negotiating parties from Washington and Tehran, but rather by the Iraqis themselves. Thus far it has been the Iraqis that have been the main obstacle to peace, regardless of what the United States and Iran may want to see happen. It is true that foreign fighters have played a role in the continuing violence, making grand efforts to stoke sectarian conflict by attacking Sunni and Shi’a Iraqi civilians indiscriminately. And it is equally true that Iraq has become a central front in the Global War on Terrorism since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. But the main source of the fighting does not stem from the multitude of terrorist organizations operating within Iraq’s borders. The chief fomenters of violence are Iraqis, and they are killing each other by the tens of thousands.

Why is this happening? Why would Iraqis insist on sectarian warfare that prevents national reconciliation and the possibility of a stable and secure nation? I suspect that it is because the Iraqis themselves have no real desire to get along with each other and to move the country forward. There is a deep-seated hatred between the three main ethnic groups, a hatred that was violently suppressed under Saddam’s ruthless dictatorship, and none of the fighting parties have thus far been willing to take any meaningful action to end the cycle of violence that is preventing political progress and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces.

There has been some progress in al-Anbar Province, where some Sunni leaders have joined together with coalition forces to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. And there have been some initial signs of success in Baghdad, where General Petraeus says he sees “astonishing signs of normalcy.” But significant numbers of Sunnis still attack American and Iraqi troops and Shi’a militias still roam the streets like vigilante death squads, conducting mass executions and terrorizing the populace. The Syrian border remains porous, with foreign fighters flocking to Iraq to take on American troops. And the Kurds, who have thus far managed to avoid much of the conflict plaguing Iraq, are becoming progressively more vocal in their demands for increased regional autonomy and resolution of the status of oil-rich Kirkuk.

The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is barely functioning, and the police and army forces have been thoroughly infiltrated by sectarian militias more loyal to tribe and sheikh than to the authorities in Baghdad. The population is not secure, and the people refuse to put their faith and trust in a government that cannot protect them. The outlook is grim, but the war is not yet lost.

The final troops involved in President Bush’s security plan for greater Baghdad and al-Anbar Province are now in place and the “surge,” announced in January, is just now getting fully underway. The purpose of the “surge,” to remind readers, is to provide the Iraqi leaders in Baghdad a level of security that will facilitate political progress among the major fighting factions. This means that al-Maliki’s government must get control of the militias, and it must resolve the issues of de-Baathification, revenue sharing, regional autonomy, and minority representation in the government.

But above all, it means that Iraqis have to step up to the plate, now more than ever, and demonstrate that they are willing to live together first as Iraqis, and second as Shi’a, Sunni, or Kurd. Time is running out, and the American public’s will to keep up the fight is quickly fading. The will of the Congress is already gone. The consequences of failure have been pushed aside in favor of getting out of this mess as quickly as possible.

And while the United States and Iran may reach an agreement on the future of Iraq, it will be meaningless unless Iraqis can take control of their future, moving beyond sectarian division and toward a peaceful and prosperous Iraq that can serve as an example for the rest of the region.

By Greg C. Reeson

Republicans in the U.S. Senate yesterday blocked a series of new taxes on big oil companies that would have paid for planned tax breaks for renewable energy development. The really scary part is that Democrats came dangerously close to getting the package to the floor, falling only three votes short.

Now, don’t get me wrong here. I'm all for exploring possible alternative sources of energy if, and only if, it can be done responsibly. Imposing new taxes on the major oil companies in America, though, will only result in decreased research and development efforts, reduced investment in current and future infrastructure, and increased costs to consumers. That means you and me, folks.

The Democrats in the Congress are very good at promoting the nonsense about obscene oil company profits, as if the basic economic laws of supply and demand were simply nonexistent. Oil companies set prices for their products at levels designed to support continued growth, R&D, investment, and returns to investors. If these companies are subjected to new taxes that increase the cost of doing business, they will ultimately pass those costs on to consumers. Of course, some supporters of the tax package dismiss this notion outright, claiming that large profits negate any burden that might be imposed.

It's almost like they think the oil companies will just absorb the increased costs out of the goodness of their hearts, and with complete disregard for their investors. Would you, as an investor in a company, be happy if the board of directors decided to cut your returns so that average consumers were not inconvenienced by higher prices? I didn’t think so. After all, they would be taking money out of your pocket to keep others happy.

So what should the Congress do? Here's a crazy idea. How about cutting some of the ridiculous taxes that are currently imposed on gasoline sales in order to provide some relief to the consumer instead of taking measures that will inevitably result in an increased financial hardship for ordinary Americans? Or better yet, how about providing some additional tax BREAKS to the oil companies in exchange for increasing research and development on alternative sources of energy? What a concept! Let corporations and consumers keep more of their own money instead of constantly barraging them with newer and higher taxes.

I know, that’s silly talk, isn’t it? The reality is that too many in the congress think that they know better than you do when it comes to spending your money. And that mentality is likely to only get worse under the current crop on Capitol Hill.

Private intelligence company Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (STRATFOR) recently published an article describing what it sees as the imminent end of the leftist domination of Europe. Specifically, the article says, “…2007 will see the end of the left as a leading force on the Continent.”

In its analysis, STRATFOR states that a slow shift to the political right in Europe extends beyond Germany, France and the United Kingdom, and includes Poland, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria, the result of elections that have seen moderate and conservative parties making substantial gains.

While I agree with STRATFOR that a noticeable shift to the right is occurring in European politics, I break with their analysis on the future of the European Union. In the article, STRATFOR states that “A right-leaning Europe could be united under one leader, particularly since the states are brought closer together by common problems such as immigration and economic reform.” Despite common security concerns and increasingly intertwined economic interests, European nations have thus far been unwilling to sacrifice traditionally sovereign powers and rights to the EU. The French think of themselves first as French and second as European. Likewise with the British, who place primacy on their status as citizens of Great Britain above their association with Europeans on the Continent. Nationalist ideals have been, and will continue to be, a significant contributor to the rejection of the proposed European Union Constitution.

In an interesting twist to the article, STRATFOR speculates that a united Europe has only two viable contenders for its leadership: Germany and the United States. Germany has indeed replaced France as the leading power in Europe, and Chancellor Angela Merkel is certainly capable of pushing hard for a strengthened European Union that could challenge the United States as a global power. If the sovereignty concerns of the 27 EU member states could somehow be overcome, and that is a long shot at best, then Germany could emerge as the most dominant nation in the EU.

But the United States? While America does have significant “reach and influence,” as STRATFOR says, on the Continent, the idea of a unified Europe somehow led by the United States is inconceivable for a very simple, almost blatantly obvious, reason: the level of anti-American sentiment that exists on the Continent. The publics of most European nations adamantly oppose our actions in Iraq and many Europeans are resentful of our status as the world’s lone superpower. We are seen by many as bullies who seek to impose our standards and values on everyone else, and further interference in European affairs is not likely to be appreciated or tolerated.

The most positive aspect of the article is the recognition that conservatism in Europe is making significant strides. Europe is buckling under the pressure created by the leftist policies that have dominated the Continent for the last couple of decades. The immigration problems of European countries require immediate attention and the social welfare systems in place throughout Europe cannot be maintained, especially with dwindling numbers of workers and declining birth rates. The populations of European nations are responding to the growing crises on the Continent by turning to moderate and conservative candidates who will push their countries in the right direction. This bodes well for the United States, which is likely to benefit from improved relations that will facilitate solutions to the common economic and security concerns that threaten both America and the nations of Europe. The challenge will be for the United States to work with our European allies to advance conservative agendas while taking great care not to intrude too much into their internal affairs.

It seems that saying the Iraq war was already “lost” was just not quite enough for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Apparently he and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent a letter to President Bush saying, “…the escalation has failed to produce the intended results.” So final judgment has been passed, as far as Reid and Pelosi are concerned, even though the last of the so-called “surge” troops involved in the President’s security plan for Baghdad and al-Anbar Province have just arrived in Iraq’s capital.

Breitbart.com quotes the two Democratic congressional leaders as saying that “The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.” Maybe I’m a little bit on the slow side here, but I just don’t understand how someone can definitively declare a strategy dead before it has even had a chance to be implemented in its entirety. What happened to waiting for General Petraeus’s report on progress, or the lack thereof, due to the Congress in September?

If our elected leaders actually have a little patience and wait for the full plan to be put into action, they may be surprised at the results. In an interview with USATODAY on June 13, Petraeus said he was seeing “astonishing signs of normalcy” in at least half, and perhaps as much as two-thirds of Baghdad.

According to the paper Petraeus said, “I’m talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks—big ones, markets that are very vibrant.” Soccer leagues? Amusement parks? Vibrant markets? How can that possibly be the case if Baghdad is the center of what has been described as a country engulfed in a chaotic civil war where sectarian executions in the street are common occurrences and where people are afraid to leave their homes out of fear of being caught in the running battles between insurgents, militias and coalition forces? Is General Petraeus lying to us (a claim that is probably not far from the Senate Majority Leader’s lips)? More importantly, what basis would he have for doing so? No, the likelihood is that the general sees a glimmer of hope and is merely reporting what he is sensing as the head guy on the ground in Baghdad.

Now, this is not to say that everything is rosy in Baghdad, or elsewhere in Iraq for that matter. But it is a sign of possible progress in a country desperately seeking an end to the ongoing bloodshed and violence. And while Petraeus conceded in the interview that many problems still exist, he also said that what he sees is a sign that the new strategy in Iraq is working.

What General Petraeus is seeing in Baghdad should come as no surprise, even to the casual observer of the conflict. The American military can pacify virtually any city in the world, but only for a limited amount of time. The key to success for the “surge” security plan is, and always has been, the Iraqis themselves.

Iraqi security forces must be able to hold on to the areas cleared by American soldiers, and they must be non-sectarian in their administration of Iraqi law. They must put the nation of Iraq above their loyalties to sheikh, tribe, militia, or sectarian affiliation. And the Iraqi government must live up to its responsibilities as well. That means providing services to the Iraqi people in a fair and just manner, and not based on whether they are Sunni, Shi’a or Kurd. It means making the political concessions necessary to achieve national reconciliation, including the distribution of oil revenues, adjustments to the Iraqi Constitution, and revision of de-Baathification policies. It means getting control of the militia death squads that are perpetuating the cycle of violence. And it means treating all Iraqis as Iraqis, fairly and equitably.

It is a tall order, to be sure. We can buy some time for the government in Baghdad, but only Iraqis can do what it takes to move their country forward. The breathing room we are providing for political progress is being paid for with the sweat and blood of our sons and daughters. The patience of America’s citizens is quickly running out, and Iraqis should be cognizant of this fact. But as the final “surge” troops move into place this weekend, the least we can do as Americans is wait until they’ve had a chance to execute their mission before passing judgment on their success or failure.

The Washington Times reported June 11 that Democrats in the House and Senate are currently circulating more than forty pieces of legislation that would seek to end America’s involvement in Iraq. The Times quotes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as saying, “We’re fairly well set up now as to how we’re going to do it and when we’re going to do it.”

What’s emerging in the Congress is a Democrat plan to bombard President Bush with bill after bill after bill calling for troop withdrawals over very short periods of time. By forcing such legislation through Congress, Democrats, who know the President will veto the measures, hope to keep up the attacks on President Bush and Congressional Republicans as part of an overarching strategy to maximize their chances of success in the 2008 elections.

By playing on the public’s growing disillusionment with the war in Iraq, Democrats are ignoring the very real consequences for our national security that will inevitably accompany a premature troop withdrawal, and they are doing so purely for political advantage. Though I’ve written about the likely consequences before, it’s important to review them once again:

1) Iranian influence throughout the Middle East will be substantially increased, and Tehran will feel even more empowered to continue the development of nuclear technology in open defiance of an impotent United Nations.

2) Iran will be able to continue to impede any possible progress in Iraq, without interference from the U.S., and will likely help Iraqi Shi’a consolidate power in a fashion that will guarantee a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad.

3) Syria and Hezbollah will continue to be used by an even more powerful Iran in limited proxy wars with Israel that kill innocent civilians and threaten unrest throughout the entire region.

4) Terrorists everywhere will see an American departure from Iraq as a victory along the lines of the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They will rally radical elements to their cause and will begin in earnest the systematic targeting of pro-Western, secular Arab governments.

5) Iraq will complete its devolution into a classic failed state, sending hundreds of thousands of refugees across the borders of neighboring states, further destabilizing the Middle East.

6) A wider regional war may ensue as Sunni governments, who are increasingly nervous about an Iran-led Shiite ascendancy in the Middle East, may feel they have no choice but to act on their threats to intervene in Iraq on behalf of the Sunni minority.

7) The Kurds, already pushing hard to consolidate their position of autonomy, may take advantage of the power vacuum created by a U.S. departure to declare their independence, provoking Turkey, Iran and Syria into military action to crush Kurdish terrorist elements and prevent the establishment of an independent Kurdistan.

The risks to our long-term national security are potentially very grave and must be considered when discussing what course we should take in Iraq. Yet the risks that I just outlined are being dismissed out of hand by the congressional majority while Democrat leaders clamor repeatedly that Republicans will pay at the voting booth for continuing the Iraq war.

And don’t be fooled by the promises to keep “just enough forces to train the Iraqis and fight al-Qaeda.” It may be a great political statement, but the concept begins to fall apart once you get beyond the words and focus on what that strategy really entails.

Despite a late start training Iraqi security forces, the program is fully underway now and is due to be increased throughout 2007. Part of that training involves conducting combat operations alongside Iraqi units, not just providing instruction inside of a base camp and sending them out to face a ruthless insurgency on their own. Compare the idea to teaching a child to ride a bicycle or drive a car. You wouldn’t give them a lesson in the comfort of your living room and then send them out to engage in a potentially dangerous activity without providing the necessary guiding hand to help them along until they are able to do it on their own. The analogy may seem simplistic, but the principle is the same.

And when conducting offensive combat operations, there is no way to separate al-Qaeda from the various other elements contributing to the violence in Iraq. It would be nice if al-Qaeda members stayed in one place, all bunched together, so that we could end the terrorist problem once and for all. Unfortunately, that’s not the case and al-Qaeda is not in one place, but scattered throughout the country, intermingled with the population, and conducting attacks not just on Americans, but on Shi’a and Sunni as well.

Brave young Americans are bleeding and dying in the cities and on the roads of Iraq every day. Our elected leaders owe it to them and to us as a nation to put partisan politics aside and frankly debate what might happen if American forces are prematurely withdrawn.

By Greg C. Reeson

As the United Nations Security Council prepares to debate a third round of sanctions against Iran for its continuing refusal to stop its uranium enrichment program, it is time for the five permanent, veto-wielding states to get serious about their efforts to curb the ambitions of an increasingly powerful and defiant clerical regime in Tehran.

So far, the United Nations has managed only two weak sanctions resolutions, one in December and a second in March. What effect have these measures had on the ability of the Iranians to continue their nuclear pursuits, in spite of repeated demands from the international community that such activities be stopped immediately? You be the judge:

**Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli, Deputy Secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, was recently quoted as saying that Iran currently has 1,600 active centrifuges for enriching uranium and that Iran is installing 3,000 centrifuges in the Natanz nuclear facility. The Deputy Secretary also said that Iran plans to construct more than 50,000 of these centrifuges in the future.

**Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated in the last few weeks that Iran intends to continue its nuclear program, become an exporter of nuclear fuel, and ignore any future U.N. Security Council resolutions against it.

**Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader and the real power behind the government in Tehran, has said in just the past few days that Iran would never back down from its nuclear right.

**A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on May 22, 2007 stated that there had been notable advances in Iran’s uranium enrichment program and that the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency knew less about Iran’s nuclear efforts than has been the case in the past.

Maybe it’s time for the member states of the United Nations to start taking Iranian leaders at their word and recognize that they have meant what they have said about their nuclear program all along. Iran has carefully worked to position itself as the dominant power in the Middle East. Tehran continues to sponsor the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon and there is increasing evidence of direct Iranian involvement in arming Iraqi insurgents and militias. And, just this week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that Iranian weapons were making their way to the Taliban in Afghanistan. And while Secretary Gates said there was no evidence of direct involvement by the government in Tehran, does anyone believe that weapons are being funneled from a tightly controlled theocratic state to the Taliban without the knowledge of the ruling clerical regime?

Iran wants to dominate the entire Middle East, and its actions in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and with the United Nations all contribute to that long-range strategic goal. The development of a nuclear capability that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction would make it much easier for Iran to realize its national objectives in the region and could spark a wider crisis if Israel or Sunni-dominated governments feel threatened enough to act in an effort to counter the Iranian push.

Thus far, negotiations that have included very attractive incentives packages from the European Union and the west have yielded no real progress as Tehran continues to stall for time with the U.N. while working feverishly to fully develop its nuclear capability. With negotiations failing, there are really only two options available for nations opposed to the continuing nuclear developments in Iran: a military strike or tough, meaningful sanctions that will have a real impact on Tehran.

The United Nations will never act to authorize a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if all five permanent members of the Security Council agreed that Iran posed a grave threat to stability and security in the region, which they don’t, France, Russia, and China would never vote to allow a military strike on a country in which they are so heavily invested. That would leave the United States, and possibly Great Britain, to execute such an attack without the backing of the U.N., something that is probably not realistic given the probable regional and international consequences of such a move.

With a military endeavor against Iran unlikely, we return once again to the prospect of additional sanctions designed to curb Tehran’s nuclear aspirations. Historically, economic sanctions have been relatively ineffective, especially when the targeted behavior is deemed crucial to national interests by the state subject to the sanctions or when imposing nations enforce the sanctions half-heartedly, or even worse, not at all.

The acquisition by Iran of a nuclear capability that can be used to produce atomic weapons poses a serious threat to the Middle East and to the rest of the world. The consequences of such a development are severe, and the options for dealing with this threat are limited.

If the international community is willing to live with the prospect of a Middle East dominated by Iran, and the consequences associated with such a shift in the balance of power in the region, then we can expect the next round of debate in the Security Council to produce another weak condemnation of Iranian nuclear activities. If the member states of the U.N. are truly worried about the spread of Iranian influence and power, though, then the time is rapidly approaching for them to demonstrate the seriousness of this situation. The best way to do that is by authorizing measures tough enough to demonstrably affect Tehran’s ability to defy the U.N. and pursue a nuclear program capable of developing nuclear weapons.

By Greg C. Reeson

Now that Representative William Jefferson, (D-LA) has been indicted on 16 alleged violations of federal law, including serious charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering, I have to wonder if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will honor her 2006 campaign pledge to make this a "more ethical" Congress?

The investigation into Representative Jefferson has been going on now for some time, a fact that did not prevent his re-election from the 2^nd District of Louisiana in last November's congressional elections. Reports detailing some of the evidence collected by federal authorities include $90,000 in cash that was found in the congressman's freezer when law enforcement officials raided his Louisiana home in August 2005 and a videotape of Jefferson taking a $100,000 bribe from an FBI informant.

The charges are so serious that the congressman, if convicted on all counts, could face up to 200 years in prison, not exactly a lightweight sentence. Two of his former associates have already reached plea deals with prosecutors in exchange for cooperation in the case against Jefferson. As one would expect, Republican leaders have already begun to take steps to have Representative Jefferson expelled from the House of Representatives, even as Jefferson has voluntarily given up his seat on the House Small Business Committee in order to avoid a vote on his removal from that position.

Speaker Pelosi could get off to a running start in her promised quest to preside over the most ethical Congress in history, a campaign pledge she now has the opportunity to make good on, by honoring the Republican request to expel Congressman Jefferson from the House of Representatives. Now, I know that a fundamental principle of the American legal system is that those accused of crimes are presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law. But rarely does a federal prosecutor take on such a high profile case, against an elected official of the federal government no less, unless the evidence is pretty sound that a conviction will result from the proceedings. One could easily argue that Representative Jefferson has a sufficient cloud over his head to justify his removal from the House.

Will Speaker Pelosi move to expel Jefferson as part of her campaign pledge for a more ethical Congress? My guess is no, although I suspect that if Mr. Jefferson were a Republican she might be more inclined to take such a measure.

The Guardian (UK) reported in its May 22, 2007 edition that Iran is working to establish ties with al-Qaeda elements and Sunni insurgents in order to launch a major summer offensive against coalition forces in Iraq. The intent of such an operation, if the factional elements could pull it off, would be to undermine the President’s security plan for Baghdad and al-Anbar Province, the so-called “surge,” just as General David Petraeus was scheduled to return to Washington to brief the Congress on military and political progress in Iraq.

Let’s suppose for a moment that the Iranians, Sunnis and al-Qaeda terrorists were able to come together in an organized assault against their common enemy, the United States, to launch the Iraqi version of the infamous Vietnam Tet Offensive. Just imagine the severity of the consequences, even if the offensive was only moderately successful. I suspect the sentiment in America would be much the same as it was in early 1968.

In January of that year, as American military forces in Vietnam expected a relative lull in fighting during the Tet holiday, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops launched simultaneous and coordinated attacks throughout the country. The American public was shocked as images of enemy forces inside the American Embassy compound in Saigon flashed across television screens throughout the country and the war, in all its brutality and savageness, was brought home to the viewing public as it had never been before. President Johnson withdrew from the race for the White House and the effort to “Vietnamize” the war gained considerable momentum.

On the battlefield, our enemies in Vietnam had suffered crushing losses as the Tet Offensive was systematically put down and attacking elements were forced to abandon their assaults without achieving significant tactical success. But in the eyes of the American press and public, and in the eyes of many Congressmen, it was the United States that had been handed a humiliating defeat. What was ultimately a military failure for the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong was in fact a crucial turning point in the war for public opinion. The press was crucial in shaping public perceptions about the war then, as it is with regard to the war in Iraq now.

The unfortunate truth today is that the public, the press, and a sizeable portion of our legislative branch lack a true understanding of existing military and strategic realities, both in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

Militarily, on the battlefields of Iraq, coalition troops have conducted themselves with dignity and honor, and their performance has been nothing short of magnificent. When they engage enemy forces they defeat them with deadly precision, all the while making every effort to protect innocent civilians and avoid unnecessary damage. The enemy we face shows no such restraint, nor battlefield honor, and any coordinated offensive against coalition troops would be nothing more than a desperate act to turn the tide of public perception, once and for all, against a continued U.S. presence, no matter what the consequences might be for Iraq or its citizens. That desperate act would be short-lived and futile, ending much as the Tet offensive did in Vietnam: a military failure.

But having failed militarily, an Iraqi Tet offensive that featured spectacular attacks in Baghdad and Anbar Province, and the inevitable coalition and civilian deaths that would accompany such attacks, would finally push a wavering American public over the edge as scenes of violence and chaos filled news programs on the major network and cable channels. And as the public goes, so goes the Congress. The outrage from the populace would probably force the House and Senate to bow to the electorate, granting the Iranians, the terrorists, and the Sunni insurgents the battlefield victory they otherwise could not achieve.

At the strategic level, there is either a lack of comprehension of the consequences of our defeat or a willingness to suffer those consequences in order to bring our troops home as fast as possible. Either is unacceptable for the national security of the United States. Make no mistake about it; an abrupt American departure from Iraq will be catastrophic for the region and for the world.

Iranian influence throughout the Middle East will be extended and enhanced, and the clerical regime in Tehran will feel even more empowered to pursue its nuclear work in defiance of the world community. Additionally, Iran will be able to continue its meddling in Iraqi affairs, without interference from the U.S., and Syria and Hezbollah will continue to be used as pawns in proxy wars with Israel that devastate Lebanon and destabilize the region.

Terrorists across the globe will be emboldened, and the ideological movement of radical Islamists will exploit success in Iraq by attempting to take the fight to regional secular governments that will be forced to fight for their survival. Iraq will become a failed state in an already troubled region, sparking a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions that will cross the borders of neighboring states like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait. The possibility of a regional war cannot be discounted either, as Sunni governments already fearful of Iran and rising Shiite power will feel compelled to intervene in Iraq to prevent the wholesale slaughter of their sectarian brethren. The Kurds, too, may seize the opportunity to take advantage of the chaos and declare their independence. Such a move would invite military intervention in northern Iraq by Turkey, Iran, and probably Syria.

Each of these likely consequences has the potential to become the reality on the ground very quickly if American and coalition forces leave before establishing a security climate conducive to the diplomatic progress necessary for Iraq to move forward. The President’s security strategy may or may not work. It’s still too early to tell as “surge” forces continue to arrive and the full strategy is just beginning to take form.

But an Iraqi Tet Offensive could force premature departure by simply creating the perception that the “surge” has failed and that the cause is lost. The television images of multiple insurgent attacks throughout the country would likely force the end of the American-led mission in Iraq. The question then will become one of when, not if, the war will follow us home.

By Greg C. Reeson

The Associated Press reported this week that Senator Hillary Clinton's deputy campaign manager has written a memo urging the Presidential candidate to skip the Iowa caucuses in order to focus on other key states. The memo seems to be an acknowledgment, by at least one senior campaign staffer, that Senator Clinton's showing in Iowa will be a weaker one than the campaign had hoped for.

Now, in reality there is little likelihood that Mrs. Clinton will skip Iowa, but her standing in the polls for the Hawkeye State should give the Senator cause for concern.

According to the AP article, a recent poll by the Des Moines Sunday Register put former Senator John Edwards in the lead in Iowa with 29% of the Democratic vote. Senator Barack Obama was in second place with 23% and Senator Clinton rounded out the tail end of the top three with 21%. The numbers are close, and factoring in the margin of error likely puts Senators Obama and Clinton on an equal plane. But looking at these numbers, I can't help but wonder what has happened to the Hillary for President campaign?

Since long before she announced her bid for the Presidency, Senator Clinton was assumed to be the inevitable Democratic nominee. As other notable Democrats entered the race, the talk focused on the fact that the nomination "was Hillary's to lose." None of the political analysts I saw on television or in print in the early going gave any candidate other than Mrs. Clinton a fighting chance. The nomination was hers, it was her turn, and the campaign leading to the general election was a mere formality, something that just had to be done.

My how the times have changed. Senator Obama's popularity continues to soar with Democrats and John Edwards has steadily made progress toward making the Democratic primary a three-way contest in several important states. No longer is Hillary the presumed nominee and no longer is the press giving her the deference she expected. Having been forced to announce her candidacy much earlier than she wanted to (due to the rising "rock star" status of Obama), Senator Clinton is now being forced to fight hard just to stay in the race.

This turn of events virtually guarantees a Democratic primary that will get nastier and meaner as the months drag on. There have been some minor spats between the Obama and Clinton camps thus far, but the best is surely yet to come. The Clinton campaign machine is indeed a force to be reckoned with, and Senator Obama is likely in for the political bruising of his life. Senator Edwards will likely trail off some as more voters become aware of his intention to significantly raise taxes.

But what I expected to be a relatively boring run-up to the Democratic nomination now has the potential to become very entertaining. I still think Senator Clinton will take the nomination, and probably with some considerable breathing room to spare. Still, in a sick, twisted sort of way, I'm actually looking forward to watching the two main contenders slug it out for the chance to be President of the United States.