For some years now, I have been concerned that the great national debate over the terror war has been systematically misguided. Instead of a discussion of the strategic issue, our leaders and pundits have dealt with tactical questions. And so it goes, most recently in Thursday’s speeches from former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Barack Obama. The strategic questions are finessed in favor of single pieces of the issue.
Neither asked, let alone answered, the big question: what are we facing? Who is our enemy? So neither had an answer: what should our overall strategy be? How will we win? How do we measure our progress?
From the beginning we have dealt with each theatre—whether Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Europe, the homeland—as a thing in itself, something requiring its own distinct approach. At no time, save for some general statements shortly after the 9/11 attacks, has any leader discussed the fact that we are involved in a big war, in which specific enemies are engaged against us. We have debated military tactics, ideological imperatives (from winning hearts and minds to challenging radical Islam, to deconstructing Islam itself), nation building, methods of interrogation, the use of one sort of court or another. But we have yet to face the central fact of the broad war, the big war, what I insist is the real war, the one that has been waged against us for decades, in which our enemies aim at our domination or destruction.
Without that debate, it is hard to craft a winning strategy, and we will continue to be jerked around from one battlefield to another, sometimes doing well, sometimes not.
To put it differently, we refuse to look evil in the face and so we fail to confront it as we should and as we eventually must.
It’s notable, and enormously disappointing, that neither Obama nor Cheney felt it necessary to talk about Iran, which is the main artifice in the war against us. Instead Cheney, whose administration notably failed to develop a serious Iran policy, presented us with , of all things, an encomium to the CIA. The very same agency that regularly accused him of all manner of criminal or near-criminal acts. And Obama wrapped himself in feel-good language about the rule of law when the central issue facing this country is whether we will defeat our main enemy. Iran. Which was not mentioned at all.
When Iran IS mentioned, her importance is invariably contained within the nuclear issue. We are never reminded that Iran has been waging war against us for thirty years, nor that Iranians and Iranian proxies are killing Americans every single day in the real war. Nor do leading politicians, journalists or broadcasters see fit to inform the American people that American presidents have been negotiating with Iran’s fanatical leaders all those years, to no effect. It is as if the past three decades never existed, and the world was created some time during the last presidential election campaign. It is routinely claimed, by authoritative experts in and out of government, that Iran has not attacked Americans for many years. As if we had not killed and captured Iranian military officers in Iraq and elsewhere, engaged in mayhem against our men and women. As if Hezbollah were not an arm of the Iranian state. As if Hamas were an independent actor, rather than an Iranian proxy. As if Syria, in cahoots with would-be assassins and suicide terrorists in Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, were an independent actor, instead of an Iranian satrapy.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
PJM Home
Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West
The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots’ Quest for Destruction
The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We’ll Win.
Tocqueville on American Character: Why Tocqueville’s Brilliant Exploraton of the American Spirit is as Vital and Important Today as it was Nearly Two Hundred Years Ago
Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago
Freedom Betrayed: How America led a Global Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War and Walked Away
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
61 Comments
1. Pajamas Media » Cheney and Obama: the Great Evasion:[...] the entire story here [...]
May 22, 2009 - 5:54 am 2. sheesh:Obama distinguished himself and his argument. Cheney embarrassed himself and this country.
May 22, 2009 - 6:04 am 3. Alex:If we discuss Iran, then we must bring Saudi Arabia front and center. The Saudi royal family funds wahabi schools which teach radical fundamental islamic philosophy. Most of the terrorists that hijacked the planes on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia continues to fund and foster radical islamic philosophies, it is their arrangement to maintain security; export terror to avoid importing terror.
How is Cheney / President Obama going to look discussing Iran and refusing to acknowledge Saudi involvement in world terrorism..? Cheney is former head of Halliburton Petroluem, managing huge contracts with Saudi Arabia and its Royal family. President Obama needs Saudi petroluem and regional stability and avoid Middle Eastern conflict.
the 800 Pound gorilla is Saudi Arabia, not Iran.
May 22, 2009 - 6:09 am 4. Thrasymachus:But why is the US establishment, as a whole, unable to confront Iran, even in words? My completely uneducated guess is that every Persian speaker in the State Department and the CIA is sympathetic to the regime, and convince or prevent the political establishment from taking any action other than more negotiation. But no one has ever explained this.
The Saudis have bought off everyone who could cause them the least bit of trouble. Why the press or some cranks don’t say much about this is also a mystery. But do the Iranians do this as well? I have never heard of anytning like this. Do Iranians in America and the West in general fix things for the mullahs?
May 22, 2009 - 6:47 am 5. David Thomson:“instead Cheney, whose administration…”
Dick Cheney had to play second fiddle to George W. Bush. He did not set administration policy! I expect Cheney will have more to say about Iran—and other matters in the near future. He must gradually move away from Bush’s shadow.
May 22, 2009 - 6:59 am 6. Ms. Attitude:Hezbollah and Hamas along with all of the other Islam groups that bent on world domination are treated as the victim and Israel as the agressor. History is being rewritten by the liberals.
Israel bombed Lebanon in 2006 after Hezbollah fired on Israel from Lebanon. Yet, The UN made Israel is the bad guy. Now this year Hamas fired on Israel and Israel retaliated yet the press and UN called it Israeli aggression?????
The US is going to handle Iran by letting Israel do the dirty work.
May 22, 2009 - 7:04 am 7. Fred Beloit:I always thought we did have a good piece of GWOT strategy but wisely did not announce it for the NYT, WAPO, and all the other internal enemies to attack. I suggest, Michael, you go to a map and check out the location of Iran. It is between Iraq and the Afghan. In short between two areas where we have strong forces. Were they to actually confront us directly in the near future, they would be fighting a war on two fronts, good strategically for us, bad for them.
That is why we must not hurriedly leave Iraq (don’t believe Obama’s line about withdrawing only “combat” troops; all troops can be combat troops in the right circumstances…see the history of the Battle of the Bulge).
By the way I thought Cheney spoke honestly and with common-sense unusual in a politician. Obama merely sang from the deceitful teleprompter and danced with his illusive daydreams in public as usual.
May 22, 2009 - 7:15 am 8. Banned by Huffpo:“There is still no national leader who seems to understand this, and who is determined to drive the real debate about the real war.”
Nut, meet shell.
Excellent summary. One can only hope someone in power will wake up and realize the truth.
May 22, 2009 - 7:31 am 9. chris in Toronto:I believe GWB named Iran as a huge part of the problem. Evidenced, even by the rightly mistrusted Wikipedia:
‘”Axis of evil” is a term coined by United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002 in order to describe governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. President Bush named Iran, Iraq and North Korea in his speech. President Bush’s presidency was marked by this notion as a justification for the War on Terror.’
May 22, 2009 - 7:35 am 10. anton:I think that the refusal to name the enemy is a result of a wish to not deal with the logical outcome of such an act; that overt miltary action will be the only thing to stop the mullahs from getting nukes.
If any Western pol finally came out and said in plain language “Iran is an enemy of civilization, they are a backward, misogynist, hate-filled bunch of murderous Stone-Age thugs that cannot be trusted with nukes” they would be hammered by all the media and liberal elites that live La-La-Land (that wonderful place where there are no bad guys and everybody really just wants to get along).
Consider for a second the hammering that W took for the “Axis of Evil” comment. Can anybody argue that the three nations named as such were good and happy places? So why the uproar.
It is one of the sorriest features of Post-Modern society that we are trapped in this refusal to decide, an inability to speak the name of the Devil and point him out, even when he is in the room and ready to steal our souls.
From parents that will not discipline thier children to nations so caught up in PC babblespeak that they cannot find it within themselves to define their enemy, we are speeding toward the cliff with our foot firmly on the gas-pedal and our eyes clamped shut.
May 22, 2009 - 7:46 am 11. sheesh:Here’s one of a dozen I found:
“Cheney accused Obama of “the selective release” of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.
“I’ve formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained,” Cheney said. “Last week, that request was formally rejected.”
However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA , which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits.”
May 22, 2009 - 7:54 am 12. anton:11. sheesh: Obama can issue an Executive order rescinding the previous one. But then, he would have to do something other than voting “present” on the issue. This would cause one (or more) of his constituencies to howl. Taking a real stand isn’t his bag.
May 22, 2009 - 7:58 am 13. JED:The Persian god-empire has been threat to democracy and the conquest of South Europe since before the Greek city states. The current policy is a continuance of the 1990’s plan that predicts and feeds a popular uprising in Iran against the Mullahs. Neither disposition allows for nuclear weapons with long range capacity.
May 22, 2009 - 8:00 am 14. Rocker:Denial of the danger seems to be the ongoing policy with token threats and sanctions. Israel is necessary to the Arabs and Persians as the strawman which distracts from the Arabs and Persians internal economic inbalances and problems. Were Israel no longer the common “enemy”, then the North African dynamics would be much more unstable.
The larger equation must include Russia’s need for a warm water port and China’s need for oil. The greater benefit to all of those factions is the diminishment of the USA. Being the super superpower guarentees enemies, especially from non-democracies.
Sheesh…we know that as things stand, the documents will not be released by the CIA. The point is, Obama has the authority to order them to release them, just as Bush did to withhold them. Why did W do that? Who knows, but the context has changed now in that information has been selectively released since Obama took office, in order to make the case that the previous administration were a bunch of wild-eyed war criminals. The argument is that to fully understand the issues, both sides of the coin need to be revealed.
May 22, 2009 - 8:04 am 15. dmgold:THE TWO REAL ENEMIES ARE AN EMBOLDENED ISLAM intent on conquering what remains of DAR AL HARB and our DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED WESTERN LEADERS INCLUDING BHO WHO HIDE THIS VERY REAL DANGER FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE WESTERN WORLD AND DO NOTHING BUT SUBMIT.
May 22, 2009 - 8:04 am 16. shaui-jan:yeah sheesh….that’s a real no brainer on who’s experience to trust in these matters..but hey spin away..it is your……job.http://www.answers.com/topic/dick-cheney
May 22, 2009 - 8:11 am 17. Morton Doodslag:compared to….obama.http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167
i will be checking back with you from time to time as this sad trainwreck unfolds….don’t get too dizzy,my man!
BTW….you forgot to squeeze palin in there,somewhere…be careful…your going to lose your”casual friday”privileges.
Ledeen criticises Obama and Cheney for reducing the argument and failing to name “the enemy”, and then himself reduces the argument by saying “the enemy” is Iran.
What Ledeen, and nearly every other “expert” in this field fails to do is confront the fact that the Islamic Jihad against us is wide and deep — that it involves a wide range of tactics, from strapping on suicide vests to mass Miuslim immigration to the West. It is ALL designed to spread Islam and subvert, subjugate, and subdue. Whether Muslims spread the cancer of Islam through birthing babies, having bake sales for the “local Mosque”, mass murder, wage genocide, intimidate through lawfare, or wage Jihad by populating, concealing, and/or funding terror cells, support murderous proxies such as Hezballah or Hamas, whether they pay for Imams to “radicalize” blacks in prison or pay for imams to “preach” in infidel neighborhoods, IT IS ALL JIHAD.
Muslims are our enemy. Islam is their ideology. Our so-called “experts” on Islam for too long have misguided us down the primrose path for with their myopic or apologetic and nuanced bullshit.
Muslims are at war with us – and we pretend that’s not a fact, then we pretend to our mortal peril.
May 22, 2009 - 8:17 am 18. anton:14. Morton Doodslag:
Good point, and further; to say that there are “moderates” is the same as saying, “some of the lions are not hungry right now”.
May 22, 2009 - 8:29 am 19. Pastor of Muppets:I don’t understand why people are surprised/shocked/ disappointed that Iran was not mentioned.
The President had absolutely no reason to mention Iran. Cleary the purpose of his speech was not to make a laundry list of all the hostile countries in the world and discuss how we plan to contain them.
The purpose of his speech was to remind a torture-weary America that we cannot begin to hope to execute any effective foreign policy, in Iran or Iraq or elsewhere, until we re-establish our credentials as the Shining City on the Hill, and exhibit to the rest of the world that we are practicing the values to which we claim to hold.
One of the great points that he made in his speech was that in the past, enemy soldiers surrendered to us by the truckloads because they knew that they would get better treatment from us than they would their own commanders. Sadly, that is no longer the case.
In essence, the President was making a point that has confirmed by our campaign in Iraq – that military victory does not necessarily ensure foreign policy victory: Our ‘victory’ in Iraq has made Iran more powerful. Furthermore, regardless of how many soldiers, spies, private warfighters, and diplomats we throw at a foreign policy ‘problem’, our foreign policy will not in the long run be successful if it is detached from our system of values. We simply cannot win hearts and minds by breaking hearts and minds; and in a world of constantly shifting alliances, where yesterday’s enemy is tomorrow’s ally in the war on terror, yesterday’s enemy will continue to remain our enemy as long as memories of humiliation and brutality persist. And they do persist in Iraq.
Cheney also had no reason to mention Iran because unfortunately our strategy for that country was a colossal failure for their administration, and the purpose of Cheney’s speech was to repeat his claim of his administration’s successes in fighting terror, not failures.
The Bush administration’s plan was to march through Iraq and continue on to Iran, creating a lasting American dominance in the region. Obviously, that failed miserably – not only did we fail to establish dominance in Iran, but Iran has actually become stronger because of our presence. Firstly, we destabilized Iraq, which was a huge check on Iran’s power.
Iran then effectively bogged us down in Iraq by supplying fighters, weapons and training to Iraqi insurgents, and have been successful in recruiting new terrorists using evidence of our brutal and humiliating treatment of Muslims.
Any mention of Iran on Cheney’s part would only have been counter to the message he was trying to get across.
May 22, 2009 - 8:30 am 20. johnt:Ledeen makes a few good points, and his criticism of both parties is justified.
What is particularly striking in both it’s accuracy and stark simplicity is the painfully obvious point that we are engaged in a war, not different wars [ as in the war in Iraq,-the war in Afghanistan]. As well that the war, the only one, has gone on and will continue to go on for years. It despite flaming idiocy abounding, is not Bush’s war, it is not, will not be Obama’s war, though now his responsibility.
We as a nation are woefully numb to the consequences, extent, and possible duration against an enemy who measures war in centuries.
Glad to see though the usual brain dead partisan drivel ignoring Ledeen’s post.
May 22, 2009 - 8:34 am 21. Keith W. Brown:Simple answer: nuke ‘em till they glow!
May 22, 2009 - 8:35 am 22. billslayer:I think that Mr Ledeen is one of the few writers who has even passingly glanced at what I see as the second of the major problems with the Bush administration: They didnt walk their talk. Bushy liked to sound tough with quips like “you’re either with us or you’re against us” but apparently that didnt apply to Iran or Syria.He allowed these countries (I’ll go ahead and include Saudi Arabia in that list) to kill our soldiers. Say that last sentence out loud. Say it again. See how that sounds in your ears and tastes in your mouth. No, Obama isnt better, in fact he’s worse in certain ways–but if we want to have an honest resurgence of a conservative party in this country we need to be honest about the failing which led us to our being marginalized.
May 22, 2009 - 8:48 am 23. Ms. Attitude:19. Pastor of Muppets:
So why is Obama keeping the Bush policies?
May 22, 2009 - 8:54 am 24. anton:PoM @ 19,
“enemy soldiers surrendered to us by the truckloads because they knew that they would get better treatment from us than they would their own commanders”
I defy you to show one instance where “enemy soldiers” were mistreated by our Armed Forces. Please try to keep the definition of Legal Combatant (per Geneva Conventions and the Law of War) in your tiny head while searching for the evidence.
“Firstly, we destabilized Iraq, which was a huge check on Iran’s power”
So, let me get this straight, having TWO countries run by nut-cases both seeking WMDs is better than only having one?
BTW Iraq was not a significant military power after Gulf I so that pokes a little hole in your theory anyways.
“Cheney also had no reason to mention Iran because unfortunately our strategy for that country was a colossal failure for their administration”
So, again, let me try to understand your point. Unilateralism (US vs Saddam)=BAD, multilateralism(EU/UN vs Iran)=BAD .
What sort of “lateralism” do you advocate. At the insistence of US and Euroweenie Lefties W turned the Iran nuke question over to the EU and the UN. These worthy souls worked very hard at smoking cigars and drinking fine wines in Switzerland while the mullahs worked very hard at building bombs. This went on for six years with the mullahs getting ever closer to a bomb and the EU/UN crew getting ever closer to the next case of chardonnay.
I suppose that you are one of the “engagement” people. you must try to take notice that the leaders of Iran are followers of a religion that actively advocates lying to “the infidels” whenever it is apropos. You can talk nice to an alligator but it will eat you just the same. Talking to these guys is just as pointless.
May 22, 2009 - 8:56 am 25. billslayer:Pastor of Muppets– I appreciate your candor and honesty in refusing to be a revisionist about the failings of the Bush administration, but I think it’s very important to also acknowledge, to not avert our gaze from the reality of the 24/7 leftist/dialectical materialist narrative about the US, and Western Society. That narrative takes exceptions i.e. abu graib, mai lai, and spins them as the norm. The result is that Kent State gets turned into the moral equivalent of Tianemen Square. IMAO the trumpeting of this by the left/democrat/liberals during the active phase of the Iraq was was far more devastating to our international standing than the reality of the war itself–and our standing in our own hearts and minds. And for Obama to co sign on this filth with his pathetic, groveling apologies is simply adding injury to insult.
May 22, 2009 - 8:59 am 26. Ran:The mullahs in Iran are in this for keeps, for no other reason than the simple fact that we don’t answer to them.
You are either in the War to win it, or you’re in the War to die apologizing. This isn’t a debate between Civilizations. It isn’t a frickin’ foosball match. The mullahs are in this to destroy our way of life, our civil values – and all of us – if that’s what it takes.
The best way to win it is to allow the Iranians the opportunity to remove the mullahs themselves. If we allow the nut-jobs to get whithery tech, then our range of options shrinks.
May 22, 2009 - 9:07 am 27. David W. Lincoln:Michael, with all due respect, the United States is not cut out to tackle what you eloquently say needs to be tackled.
Those with their hands of the levers of government are deaf, dumb, and
blind to the intangible. Therein lies the dilemma: few are willing to
do more than look like they are listening to you, David Horowitz, Joel Rosenberg, et al, are saying.
It is time for the torch to be passed from the unsteady hands of those
May 22, 2009 - 9:07 am 28. Fantom:Americans who have more clout than the average person, so that those Sons of Allah see their inhumanity catch up to them.
Actually our enemy is not just iran or suadi. It is called moslem… that is the enemy.
May 22, 2009 - 9:33 am 29. dan:Not Iran or Islam: Russia.
May 22, 2009 - 10:10 am 30. billslayer:Fantom–save the ironic humor for the huffpo.
May 22, 2009 - 10:11 am 31. tanstaafl:I don’t think the whole brouhaha is fundamentally about torture at all but is a continuation of the democrats still running against the previous administration.
It’s useful to Americans to know how lame the current administration is and to mull over the energy being expended and misrepresentations, e.g.,
“Cosmetic changes such as Obama’s declaration that “we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel.” Laughable. High-toned liberal law firms are climbing over each other for the frisson of representing these miscreants in court.” (Krauthammer, WaPo)
In very recent remarks (this President reiterated that, (as a function of his exposure in Indonesia !, and, of course, his empathy & brilliance) he, himself and him can bridge this western/Islamic gulf. In my view, a certain arrogance underlies a dangerous naiveté, and the entire “torture” debate has helped flesh this out.
It’s true, however, that larger and much more substantial issues in the WOT (aka overseas contingency operations) get short shrift with the nearly endless serial crapola coming out of national government.
May 22, 2009 - 10:13 am 32. JED:One of the strongest weapons in the Jihadist motivational arsenal is not American moral compass authority. It is the observable belief that the Western decadent nations will subvert themselves from within. The list of western cultural characters who would be the first to be put up against the wall is long and loud and trying to protect Gitmo rights.
May 22, 2009 - 10:34 am 33. Slippery Foot:How do you know we’re not addressing the Iranian issue, or that the Bush administration didn’t? I’m sure there were strategic goals translated into tactical goals that were conducted below the radar, and rightfully so. In some cases, they were traitorously broadcast by our esteemed main stream media. Remember the stories regarding the sale of tainted parts for nuclear reactors sold to the Iranians. I mean, why not let them know – thanks, NYT. Real patriots.
Frankly, you should not fight war on TV, and you don’t need to broadcast the success of clandestine ops.
May 22, 2009 - 10:48 am 34. Nick G.:I agree with everything written here, but with a few caveats: 1) I think there is a place and time to specifically discuss the tactics of this war, and when the new President so blatantly undermines our security is one of those times — but, yes, it’d be nice to see a broader strategic approach in Cheney’s counterpoint; 2) Is it safe to say that if there were a President Cheney (and Secretary of State Bolton, for instance) without Bush, Rice, Burns et. al., we would have addressed Iran sufficiently by now from 2001-09?; 3) I think Newt Gingrich is the national candidate you’re looking for, Dr. Ledeen. I always loved his wittiness and his ability to hold his own on any topic, but the other week he called for regime change in Iran and I fell in love.
May 22, 2009 - 11:15 am 35. Nick G.:As for those comments here discussing Iran and Saudi Arabia: I’d love to see both problems addressed at the same time, but let’s not kid ourselves. Our leaders don’t have the stomach for that. The greatest thing we can do in order to wean ourselves off the Saudis is help bring the mullahs down in Iran. If the more immediate problems of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah etc. were addressed, we’d be able to devote all of our attention and resources to the more difficult task of encouraging reform within the Islamic world proper, by countering Saudi-Wahhabi influence throughout Muslim communities in the West.
We could start in some of our own universities.
May 22, 2009 - 11:22 am 36. Pastor of Muppets:anton: “I defy you to show one instance where “enemy soldiers” were mistreated by our Armed Forces. Please try to keep the definition of Legal Combatant (per Geneva Conventions and the Law of War) in your tiny head while searching for the evidence.”
You’re completely missing the point, as always. When it becomes clear to our enemies that literally anyone from terrorists to insurgents to common criminals to average citizens, including kids, can be captured, detained, classified as “outlaws” and subsequently be “legally” tortured due to their “outlaw” status, do you think our enemies are going to surrender to us? Of course, not, they’d rather fight to the death than face the possibility of being brutalized in prison. This inevitably results in more US troop deaths. Dur.
So, let me get this straight, having TWO countries run by nut-cases both seeking WMDs is better than only having one?
From a strategic standpoint, yes, it helps to have two nutcases who hate each other on the other side of the world, because it creates a buffer between them and us. As long as Iraq and Iran hated each other, they spent less time hating us and Israel, and gave us a better opportunity to play them against each other. Now that Saddam is gone, so is our buffer, and Iran now loses an enemy that kept it in check, it gets to fill a power vacuum, and has a greater opportunity to set its sights on Israel.
“BTW Iraq was not a significant military power after Gulf I so that pokes a little hole in your theory anyways.
BTW the fact that Iraq was not a significant military power after Gulf I pokes a huge hole in the theory that we had to invade Iraq in the first place.
“So, again, let me try to understand your point. Unilateralism (US vs Saddam)=BAD, multilateralism(EU/UN vs Iran)=BAD .What sort of “lateralism” do you advocate.”
Wrong. “Lateralism” doesn’t even enter into the discussion. This is a discussion of good foreign policy decisions versus bad foreign policy decisions. If Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States, then “lateralism” doesn’t come into play. We go to war in that case, allies or no allies. If Iran poses a clear and present danger to the United States, then we go to war, allies or no allies.
“At the insistence of US and Euroweenie Lefties W turned the Iran nuke question over to the EU and the UN. “
Well, guess what, genius? If we had turned the Iraq nuke question over to the EU and UN, we would have learned the truth that Iraq did not have WMDs, we would not have had to invade Iraq, 5,000 American soldiers would still be alive, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, we would be in a much better situation in terms of containing Iran, we would have a much better relationship with our allies, we would not have drained our treasury to pay for the war, and, finally, Dick Cheney would not have to be dragging himself across the country to defend his torture policies.
May 22, 2009 - 11:33 am 37. Macko:Too much talk about how we mistreat and brutalize muslims. those that think we are doing that have not seen the way muslims brutalize muslims. Muslims are highly offended by infidels “talking” to muslims. The release of photos from Abu gharib caused a big stink because the muslims use it to get their own people riled and know the left want to use it against the right. The left wanted to release hundreds more of those photos but not due to any concern whatsoever about offending muslims. it is strictly to go after the right and while doing so bring “the wrath of the muslims” upon america so that they could say look what Bush did. These people are so “ate up with the dumba$$” that I believe they would literally cut off their own noses if they thought they could blame it on the right. Releasing photos and carrying on about torture gives fuel to our enemies but the left thinks it will put them in better standing with the rest of the world while the world frowns on the bush administration. Our enemies don’t care if you are left or right because they hate all americans. They won’t like you any better if you side with them on the photos or the waterboarding. They will just see you as traitors. Guess what…nobody likes traitors
May 22, 2009 - 11:45 am 38. JED:GWB’s mistake was to let the Euros try to talk Iran into giving up their atomic program, along with their mutual friends the Russians. The missile air defense of Iran is Russian, and the oil/gas contracts are Chinese. The Euros like to talk and it did not work.
May 22, 2009 - 11:53 am 39. shaui-jan:GWB’s best plan and best weapon against the terrorist inspiring Mid-East nations was to promote democracy. If the dictators, mullahs, shieks, and kings were taken out of the equation, our own chances of world peace would increase. Otherwise, we are left to the extortions of the few, the power hungry, and the extremists who control world energy. A free Iraq is a must better counterpoint to Iran than appeasing the former dictator.
POM… cannot keep up.too much lunacy…i am just going to stick with your ‘greatest hits.’
” do you think our enemies are going to surrender to us? Of course, not, they’d rather fight to the death than face the possibility of being brutalized in prison. This inevitably results in more US troop deaths.”
….please let me know where you get this information,i have been making the mistake of talking to soldiers who are actualy deployed…right now…in iraq.they will be shocked to learn of this.
May 22, 2009 - 12:28 pm 40. anton:PoM@32
#1
I was specifically responding to your point, so how am I missing the boat? There have been huge numbers (tens of thousands since the end of combat operations vs Iraqi Army) of Iraqis (and others) detained by our troops in Iraq during the conflict there. Very large numbers of them were Illegal Combatants but they did not fight to the death, they surrendered. The few that display the motivation you speak of were not likely to give up under any circumstances.
Of the many captures a microscopic portion ended up at Gitmo, not because they were nice guys accidentally picked up at the corner, because they were really bad men who wanted to kill as many of us as possible. Read the statements made by detainees, they beleive they are on a mission from Allah, these aren’t somebody’s kid that got lost on the way home from school.
#2
OK, TWO terror-supporting regimes, each actively fostering, arming and funding different ferociously violent, anti-western terror groups that they using as military proxies is a good thing. Both are working hard on WMDs to arm their proxies with (they don’t have any other delivery system to speak of) But, because they don’t happen to like each other, it’s cool, really?
#3
Saudi Arabia is a major supporter of terrorism but has nearly no miltary power at all, Pakistan’s miltary is working flat-out and barely keep the peace at home, but the ISI is a threat due to moles and they have nukes, they are a serious terror threat but not a significant military power. Syria’s army (who were building a reactor to make nukes until just recently) could just about invade Lebanon but they foster terror at several different levels. Conventional military strength is not a good indicator for the level of terror threat, in fact it is probably an inverse indicator.
#4
“If Iran posed a clear and present danger to the United States,….” Crazed mullahs that wish to bring about the 13th Imam are building nukes, and refer to us as the “Great Satan”, to me that is a clear and present danger. So we should go to war now, or perhaps we should wait some more, maybe for a nuclear “Pearl Harbor” style attack? Maybe a container ship in NYC or SF harbor? Millions of dead Americans would provide empirical proof of what the mullahs have been saying all along.
#5
Hans Blix and Co couldn’t find their ass if they sat on their hands, the UN inspection regime was a farce beyond imagining, always three steps behind. A decade of searching and they couldn’t find the stuff that the Iraqis admitted was there. This was the same sort of bureacratic half-wits that oversaw the Oil-For-Graft Program. Do you really believe that they were going to aggressively investigate anything other than how to spend Blix’s million dollar a year expense account? The longer they took they further the gravy-train went.
The UNs and EUs pathetic trade prohibitions are not anywhere near tough enough to bring the Iranians to the table, so maybe more endless, pointless meetings are in order.
The UN has been “watching” Iran and finding that they can find nothing because the Iranians say, “Nope, can’t look in there”. So the powerless bumblers shuffle off to their air-conditioned offices and file a report, the meaningless UN will pass another strongly worded note begging the mullahs to open the door and the world will be safe.
Yep, I’ll buy that.
May 22, 2009 - 12:40 pm 41. Wadeusaf:Mr. Ledeen, The point of the Speech and the other speech was political. Pure political. There was wanting in them anything to do with terrorism, or with enemies of the US much less mankind. The former VP was standing up for the decisions made during President Bush’s time in office, and I think the nation can to listen and learn from his statements.
On the other hand, president Obama was defending his failed and flawed political attacks on the successful policies of the former administration. Meanwhile his own administration of our nations business lacks clear direction, lacks persons appointed to fill numerous important positions and includes a growing laundry list of decisions that need to be made. Faced with the growing amount of the nations business still unattended president Obama tried to blame the Bush administration yet again, for a tempist of president Obama’s own making. Leaving the final determination of the gitmo issue to his administration was a legal tactic of the lawyers and members of the judiciary that sought to tie President Bush’s administrations hands in all manners to do with the conduct of the nations business. No such opposition exists before president Obama, so what then is the problem.
As you indicate Iran is a huge problem, at one time competing with Saddam’s Iraq for the hearts and minds of terrorist sympathizers and the tithing sent to fund extreme Islamic terror. Before that exacerbating tensions between European and Southern Asian peoples, then twixt Persian and Arab, Shi’ah and Sunni, and between factions within Iran itself.
In Labeling Iran as a member of the Axis of evil, It is my contention that President Bush did about as much as he could at the time. With US Military at a post Soviet Era low, having pilots, troops and equipment tied up patrolling Iraqi air space since 1990, plus the enormous diplomatic burden placed upon our emissary’s due to Oil for Food and all the other noxious and tedious effects of UN-sovereignty, I do not know how we could have taken down Iran, nor am I sure why we did not.
May 22, 2009 - 12:58 pm 42. William:The problem with all these “Geniuses” is that none of them has ever studied the eschtology of Islam.
May 22, 2009 - 1:10 pm 43. billslayer:PoM and all debating with him/her: It is important to note that Extraordinary Rendition as we know it now was began in 1995 by president Clinton under PDD39. That sort of changes things. We now have to deal in facts as opposed to narratives.
May 22, 2009 - 1:21 pm 44. Wadeusaf:Mr Ledeen,
To continue from 36,
I agree “we are involved in a big war, in which specific enemies are engaged against us”. I am not certain what evil you wish us to look into the eye and identify for the shrouds smoke and misdirection make it difficult to see much with clarity. I do not know if it is necessary to see all of it, but I believe that continuing the democracy movement is the best and maybe the only way to defeat radical fundamentalism no matter what stripe.
I believe in stepping away from the effort, president Obama has taken us out of the fight.
May 22, 2009 - 1:22 pm 45. Ira Zad:Dr Ledeen, I am sorry about the replies you are getting that miss your point of the on Iran regime’s historic true barbaric nature, and the mute response to it in America.
This conspiracy of silence on Iran has even extended and reached Israel now: Ehud Barak just ordered the shut down of the Iran unit in Israel which was responsible for regime change strategy and airing Farsi language through Radio Israel into Iran, among other things.
The real question that your blog should create in readers’ brains(if they have any), is “why?”.
May 22, 2009 - 1:45 pm 46. Sheila:I agree with Wadeusaf. Both speeches were political. Therefore, I think Mr. Ledeen’s criticism is off target in this instance. I don’t believe Cheney is trying to re-argue Bush’s entire foreign policy. He’s primarily addressing the interrogation issue, in his own defense and to the defense of those in the intelligence community.
May 22, 2009 - 2:01 pm 47. The Historian:I would also add that all of Obama’s speeches are or becoming increasingly meaningless. His actions belie his words at every turn. As Charles Krauthammer wrote today, “Obama will never admit in word what he’s doing in deed”.
PROFESSOR OBAMA’S IDEOLOGY IS DUMB
Placing the world’s most dangerous terrorists on American soil is stupid.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/05/fbi-director-mueller-is-right-obama-is.html
May 22, 2009 - 3:12 pm 48. Warren Bonesteel:The slippery slope is that sooner or later, the state will always justify the use of torture on it’s own citizens. Such use has already been justified and used on certain types of mental patients and even in American prisons.
History. You can see the future from back there.
May 22, 2009 - 4:26 pm 49. Jim:Michael Ledeen has been saying this for years. Wrote a book about it. I can’t understand why the Bush administration never listened to him. It seems so obvious. While I applaud Cheney for rebuting Obama — much more effectively than McCain did in the campaign — Ledeen rightly points out that Cheney said nothing about Iran and is not thinking strategically. Bush could have been Reagan II had he acted trategically and achieved regime change in Iran and Syria. The War on Terror would have been over years ago. Instead we are now saddled with an administration that is ruining the American way of life.
May 22, 2009 - 6:44 pm 50. AThinkingPerson:Pastor of Muppets: “a torture weary America”? What? You’re the one who is beating a dead horse. I, for one, think we could speed along the Gitmo closing by stepping up the interrogations and getting the needed info quickly without their feet ever touching our soil.
I know, I know, I’m a red-necked, racist, fill-in-the-blank whatever, but you and I know I’m right.
Go ahead…More torture talk PoM…*yawn*…wake me when you start talking about the 9/11 victims in the World Trade Center.
May 22, 2009 - 7:28 pm 51. Don Rhudy:Thank you again Ledeen for a pointed and sensible essay!
May 23, 2009 - 6:08 am 52. Andy B.:Agreed, Iran seems to be the root of all the issues currently (and not so currently) arising from the middle east. If Iran were ‘minimized’ the gas continuously being thrown on the fire of radical islam would undoubtedly be quenched. It’s going to take more than what we’ve had for a couple decades in leadership to end them, let alone realize that ultimately they can’t profit from continuing the way they are.
May 23, 2009 - 9:35 am 53. Jassem Othman:The Iranians and Syrians and Saudis and their proxies have been killed you in your own homeland “USA”, in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, and Sudan and they still killing you in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. They all are working together to harm the US’s interests in the region and to undermine the U.S. influence on the earth. And though, it became hard on minds of some American policy-makers, diplomats, journalists, and leading pundits to remind in all atrocious acts that happened against the USA. The Evil Regimes and their proxies still waging war against you, it is a real war but in a various strategy tactics!!!
Unfortunately, some western governments became accomplice to evil, and that evil regimes brought shamefully some policy-makers to their knees.
Today President Obama would like to be the savior’s president of the US through the policy of appeasement and humiliation i.e. “the policy of demolition” that certainly will bring the U.S. to serious consequences.
THEY FOCUS JUST ON INSIGNIFICANT ISSUES RATHER THAN THE VERY HIGH-RISK ISSUES. THIS IS THE GREAT AMERICA, TODAY. ALAS!!!
Dr Ledeen, None are so blind as those who will not see.
May 23, 2009 - 12:39 pm 54. Jassem Othman:Jassem Othman, Syrian – Poland
The U.S. National Security and your civil values are seriously threatened, and your life is daily endangered as long as there is a fundamentalist Islam on the earth, and so long as the terror masters are moving freely in the Middle East.
Unfortunately more than 74 % of earth wealth “Global Oil” is under the Islamist fascist’s footfall and pro-evil States.
We must destroy them and bring down all the pro-evil regimes that anti-the USA and anti-Israel.
Jassem Othman, Syrian, extremely an American patriot and extremely pro-Americans Right Wing – Poland.
May 23, 2009 - 5:33 pm 55. Pat J:Ledeen = warmonger
May 23, 2009 - 7:45 pm 56. whiskey:Pastor –
Obama is doing the same thing as Bush: renditions up the wazoo, holding people forever without trial, and so on. In the meantime he’s suggested Banana Republic type show trials for Bush for doing the SAME EXACT THING and made sure the CIA knows it too will be undergoing Pelosi-led show trials for doing EXACTLY what the President and Pelosi asked.
This means as a practical matter no one is going to do anything but ask nicely with a lawyer present (if that) regarding whatever stray Pakistani or Iranian nuke is headed in a shipping container for NYC or a city near you.
Result: millions and perhaps tens of millions (in follow-on nuke attacks) of Americans will die, and for the survival of the REST of our cities America will be forced to wipe out all of Iran and Pakistan (since we won’t know who sent the nuke).
You’re worried about “torture” and other irrelevant, stupid, and foolish things. What ought to concern you is the very real, and pressing threat, of nuclear blasts incinerating millions of Americans, and frying millions more into near cinders to die an agonizing death, and millions more to die slowly of radiation poisoning. Not to mention turning our great cities into a radioactive hole in the ground.
And you’re worrying about pouring water up the nose of the Architect of 9/11? Heck most Americans would figure he should get what he dealt out to his victims: doused with jet fuel, set on fire, and dropped 88 stories onto the ground. THAT would be to good for the guy, who personally beheaded Daniel Pearl (for being a Jew). Not to mention his plan carried out on 9/11.
Most Americans (that’s excluding the feminized, Oprah-ized, feeling/metrosexual inhabitants of Liberal Land) would figure that guy should have been set on fire and dropped. Right into the Center of Gitmo to encourage the rest of them to talk.
We are at war. With Muslims. Pretty much all of them. They’re not like us — they’re polygamist dark age savages. Because of the polygamy. A few men have all the women, the rest have none. So they kill in suicide attacks to get women in paradise, or engage in mass murder to become bigshot Big Men themselves. They’re not gonna change, ever. So our job is to keep them from nuking our cities.
Once we lose deterrence and dominance, and we lose a city to nuking, it will happen again and again and again, until we simply wipe out to the last man, woman, and child, the nations that might plausibly be involved. This on a lower scale is what Putin faced after Beslan, and the examples HE made (half of Chechnya slaughtered, all of Grozny leveled, ALL his critics shot in elevators or drinking polonium tea) ought to scare the hell out of you.
Far better to use REAL torture, not water up the nose, to scare the hell out of Jihadis and get real intel. Set em on fire, why not, they did it to us.
Your feminized, metrosexual, Oprah-esque desire to be loved is only going to get millions of Americans killed, and perhaps half a billion Muslims in the end slaughtered as a matter of National Survival.
May 23, 2009 - 7:45 pm 57. a Duoist:The enemy is not Iran, and it is not the Iranian people. The enemy is the very popular and dangerous idea in the three Abrahamic salvific religions that a broad sense of public disaffection can be ameliorated by politics of revenge which will ‘purify’ the danger from without by consolidating power within.
The politics of revenge is called ‘fascism,’ and its theofascist form in Iran makes Iranian political theory, “the learned jurisprudent,” lethal and homicidal. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Obama will never be able to articulate how to fight a lethal enemy if they have no idea who the enemy actually is.
May 24, 2009 - 11:12 am 58. Lawrence Kohn:To Pastor of Muppets: Iran was not strengthened by Sadaam’s overthrow. Beginning with the end of Desert Storm despite the millions killed on both sides in the Iran Iraq War, Iraq made a rapprochement with Iran. First came flying Iraqi jets to Iran during Desert Storm. Then came Uday Sadaam’s son meeting with Iranians and developing a joint strategy with Iran and Syria (also its rival previously). When Sadaam was captured Iran tried to undo the American victory via Sadaar’s militia but eventually failed. It tried to infiltrate eastern Iraq and kill American soliders but has taken significant losses. It tried to use the bungling American military strategy post Sadaam’s fall and pre Petraeus strategy to move quickly to a nuclear bomb. Here it is succeeding; Bush seemed paralyzed in term II and fell back on papa Bush style strategy now adopted by the current President. But as QED said W Bush did manage to surround Iran west and East and if Obama does not precipitously move out and if he wakes up in time after Iran rebuffs his gestures towards the mullahs then the original strategy of going into Iraq will have been vindicated from a broadly strategic view. In any case with Mohammed Atta’s two meetings with Sadaam’s intell agent, with Shakir Sadaam’s man at the key Malaysian Jan 2000 planning meeting with two AQ highjackers before they entered the US, with the Iraqi intell/ AQ meeting in Feb/March 1998 and the delivery of diplomatic passports from Sadaam’s men to Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the training of Saudi terrorists in southern Iraq in 1999, and Sadaam’s harboiring the Yasin after he helped bomg the Trade Center in 1993, Sadaam had to gol.
May 24, 2009 - 8:46 pm 59. Ira Zad:…one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton.
The Death of Israel: http://www.newsmax.com/morris/nuclear_iran_israel/2009/05/24/217793.html
May 25, 2009 - 3:13 pm 60. Ira Zad:Monday May 25th; Iran regime sends 6 war ships to Gulf of Aden in aggressive military move.
It seems the Iranian regime is emboldened by recent US appeasement, not softened its stance. Perhaps NATO signaled to its lap dog regime in Tehran to be bolder and more aggressive now so they can start off a war inside Iran(althouh Russia has not allowed this in a recent meeting in Moscow). NATO still has the plan of Iran’s disintegration, and with a war flaming in Iran, NATO could finally implement its 80-year plan of the break-up of Iran into many Iranestans.
Either way, we hope the Islamic Regime will be history in the end. But so may Iran as we know it today.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521730,00.html?test=latestnews
May 25, 2009 - 5:08 pm 61. Fat Man:I know this is OT, but I have no other way to communicate with Dr. Ledeen.
I read: “Have We Already Lost Iran?” by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, Op-Ed Contributors, in the NYTimes on May 24, 2009.
I was quite concerned by the article, and I was hoping that Dr. Ledeen would read it and debunk it.
May 25, 2009 - 7:13 pm