Home | Notes
Contributors
Archives | Search
Links | About

..........
Julia Gorin
The America Show
Episode 4
Jesus and Mordy
Watch Video Now
..........

Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco
by Burt Prelutsky
.........

America Alone
by Mark Steyn
..........

..........

The CRO Store
..........

..........

Time may be running out for Iraq. But a precipitous pullout of U.S. forces or announcing a rigid timeline, as some propose, would not be in our best interests because sectarian violence would escalate and an Iraq in chaos would become another base for exporting terror directed against America and the west. Moreover, a Shiite-dominated government free of American influence, would likely drift toward an alliance with Iran, linking the countries with the world’s second and third largest proven oil reserves.

It is time, therefore, for the United States to inform Iraqi leaders, if they have not yet done so, that they must get their collective acts together and gain control of the country they purport to govern. The United States cannot maintain current troop levels there indefinitely for the purpose of keeping Iraq’s tribes and sects from killing each other. Other threats increasingly demand our earnest attention and possibly our military forces. Our primary purpose in invading Iraq was to drive Saddam Hussein from power and eliminate him and his murderous regime as a threat to us and the region. We did that.

Establishment of a functioning democracy in Iraq to serve as a model for other Arab states was a noble but secondary purpose. Democracies are usually conducive to peace and compatible with American interests, as President Bush has observed, but, in truth, it probably does not matter greatly to most Americans whether Iraq’s factions enjoy the fruits of democracy and peace or go on fighting and killing one another as long as they don’t pose a direct threat to us. With over 2600 Americans killed in an unpopular war in Iraq now in its fourth year, we have invested heavily in this secondary purpose but we may eventually have to acknowledge that a viable democracy in this divided land is too much to expect.

Democracy cannot flourish in an atmosphere of sectarian violence and terrorism. While officials quibble over whether or not these conditions meet the definition of civil war, the Baghdad area remains chaotic and dangerous. If the current, stepped-up efforts to control the violence there are not successful, we need to consider trying something different because the patience of even those Americans who still support the war is not infinite.

Iran, meanwhile, gains power and influence in the region, its reputation enhanced among many Muslim nations for its support of Hezbollah in what they perceive was a victory against Israel and for standing steadfast against American and European demands to cease enriching uranium. Iran not only refused to comply but announced the dedication of a heavy water plant which could produce plutonium and expedite its attainment of nuclear weapons. Ominously, Iran has recently tested anti-ship missiles which could disrupt vital shipping in the Persian Gulf and raise havoc with oil supplies. Its leader, Mahmoud Amadinejad, continues to advocate the elimination of Israel . A leader who openly favors the destruction of an entire nation and its people conjures up images of Adolph Hitler. The fact that much of the population in the region actually agrees with him means that we must take him seriously.

Can we permit a lunatic that advocates such a horror to acquire nuclear weapons? Can we accept on faith that his nuclear program is for peaceful uses only? Perhaps the appeasers in the European capitols are willing to take such risk but we cannot because we may be the only nation left with the means to prevent it.

But Ahmadinejad knows that we are fully extended militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan and gambles that we will remain so, long enough for him to acquire a limited nuclear capability which, however small, will act as something of a deterrent, limiting our options. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its European allies rely upon diplomatic actions and the threat of sanctions that we have little reason to believe will work because they will not be supported by Russia, China and others with commercial ties to Iran..

We need to prepare, then for the strong possibility of a military showdown with Iran at a time that will surely not be convenient for us. Our ground forces, overly-reliant on reserves and the National Guard, clearly are not sized for multiple, major contingencies. That needs to change quickly and the time to start is now because you can’t just push a button and instantly produce all the trained troops and combat leaders you need. It takes time.

I don’t know precisely what actions may be necessary to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. That’s for the president and his advisors to determine. Expanding our armed services, especially ground forces, and accelerating missile defense programs, particularly mobile sea and space-based systems, would appear to be no-brainers. Selling Congress on the necessary increases in defense spending will be difficult but we can either make the necessary financial sacrifices now to win the war on terrorism or we might as well reconcile ourselves to a long and dangerous slide toward appeasement as most of Europe already has.

A reactive policy of waiting until an enemy acts on his threats encourages him to test our resolve. We cannot depend on diplomatic efforts alone and we know by now that UN sanctions are toothless and a waste of limited time. Better that the United States gain and maintain the initiative now, making our expectations crystal clear to Iran’s leaders and leaving absolutely no doubt as to the consequences if these expectations are not met. CRO

copyright 2006 J. F. Kelly, Jr.

§