Blogcritics Author: Dr Politico

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Olmert Gives the Green Light: An Israeli Victory Must Be Clear, Decisive

Dr Politico — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:40:57 EDT

Despite the Bush Administration's hypocritical demands on Israel to appease the enemy, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has opted instead to escalate Israel's necessary offensive against Hezbollah terrorists. Just days ago, Israel's security cabinet approved a measure that would have sent an additional 40,000 troops into Lebanon to finish a job that began 31 days ago. But at the very last minute, pressure from the Bush Administration forced Israel to halt an operation that was already underway, thereby imperiling the lives of Israeli soldiers. According to one senior Israeli officer, the spineless decision making process cost the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) lives."A military force always needs to be on the offensive, pushing forward, and keeping the enemy on its toes," he said. "When you sit still for too long, you turn into a target and you begin to get hit again and again."President Bush, however, has sworn himself to a diplomatic resolution to a war that he should not be negotiating over. While unyielding in his own War on Terror, where Israeli lives are at stake, the president appears overly eager to discuss alternatives.Since delaying Israel's offensive, more than 15 Israeli soldiers have been killed and many more have been wounded.Today, PM Olmert gave the green light to the IDF to expand the ground invasion in accordance with the original security cabinet plan. Said one high ranking defense official, "We gave the diplomatic process a chance, it failed and now we will achieve our goals militarily."The aim of the IDF operation is to reach the Litani river by week's end. Another 4-6 weeks will be needed to eradicate Hezbollah from the region. Still, the president's latest manifestation as a weak-kneed appeaser of terrorists cannot be overstressed. Israel faces a brutal enemy on its northern border, whose ties to the rogue regimes of Iran and Syria makes this war a must-win for Israel and, by extension, the United States. That the president has lost sight of this fact leaves one to question his supposed resoluteness in confronting terror where ever it may exist.More importantly, should Israel agree to a cease-fire, or, more accurately, a postponement of hostilities, the safety of the Jewish state will be jeopardized. In the eyes of the Arab/Islamist world, the once invincible Israeli military will have been defeated by a group of terrorists, leading many to question their own "truces" with the Jewish state. By far, Iran would reap the most benefit from a postponement of hostilities. The Islamic Republic's unrestrained belligerence toward Israel has already proven to be a winning recipe among both radical elements and commoners in the Middle East. Add to that a Hezbollah victory, and Iran's stock will most surely soar.Israel must secure a decisive victory in the coming weeks. I supported Israel's offensive when it first began, and I continue to support it today. However, by entering into this war, Israel took a big gamble. Israel cannot just win this war, but rather they must crush their opponent beyond any doubt. Anything less will be viewed as a victory for Hezbollah while only imperiling Israel in the immediate future.

Dr Politico is a student of US foreign policy and international relations at the University of California, Berkeley. His political views cannot be explained with a conservative or liberal label, as he often floats between the two. If asked, Dr Politico would say he is a member of the "American Party." His writings on all things political and newsworthy can be read at his website, PartisanTimes.com. If you enjoy Dr Politico's writing, you might be interested in subscribing to his personal feed.

Ahmadinejad Quivers At The Prospects Of War

Dr Politico — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:31:25 EDT

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has apparently backed down from his usual, "kill all the Jews" rhetoric and is, instead, calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon. "We are calling for a cease-fire and ending this war," the Iranian leader told reporters after meetings with Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov and Afghan President Hamid Karzai during a two-day visit to the Central Asian nation of Tajikistan. "We are calling on the parties to sit down for talks without any preliminary conditions. The aggressor should compensate for the damage incurred on Lebanon and apologize before the entire world community."This guy has more chutzpa than a kosher deli has pastrami. Of course, no Ahmadinejad diatribe would be complete without the requisite lambasting of US foreign policy. Ahmadinejad suggested the hostilities fit in with what he called a US effort to influence the future of the Middle East. "The United States wants to recarve the map of the Middle East, acting through Israel. The United States is conducting its international policy through deceit, money and treachery," he said.What Ahmadinejad overlooks is that any recarving of the Middle East begins and ends with Iran. In fact, plans are already in place to "recarve" the Islamist nation, though debate continues over the precise shaping of the new country. Still on the table are the possibilities of carving the country into a king-size Star of David, or possibly a crucifix -- the latter shape was proposed only weeks ago.Ahmadinejad's call for a cease-fire -- and an apology -- come just one day after Saudi King Abdullah threatened Israel and the United States with a wider war in the region. "Saudi Arabia warns everybody that if the peace option fails because of Israeli arrogance, there will be no other option but war," state-owned media quoted Saudi's King Abdullah as saying before a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.King Abdullah issued the threat in order to appease the widespread anger among his compatriots at Israel's military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. Egyptian President Mubarak is dealing with similar anger in his home country. Still, neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt is in any position to carry out the Saudi threat. After all, both countries have become increasingly dependent on US aid in recent years, which would come to a screeching halt should they decide to get in Israel's way. More importantly, both countries are relying on the United States -- and secretly on Israel -- to deal with the growing threat of a nuclear Iran. While neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt can be counted as a friend to the West, both countries strongly support any and all efforts at curtailing Iran's growing power and regional influence.Meanwhile, the less than threatening rhetoric issued by Ahmadinejad confirms what we already know: Iran wants no part in the fight between Israel and Lebanon. In fact, the worst case scenario for Iran rests in the possibility that Israel's offensive extend to Syria. Iran recently signed a defense alliance with Syria promising to commit arms and troops should Damascus come under attack. Ahmadinejad reiterated his commitment to the pact in a recently-sent letter to Syrian President Bashar Assad.Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad is well-aware of the fact that his country is in no position to start a war with Israel, despite his numerous claims to the contrary. Rather, the war that Ahmadinejad is promising remains several years out. First, Ahmadinejad wants nuclear weapons and the capabilities to deliver them, and then he wants to annihilate Israel and every Jew therein -- in that order.My only hope is that Ahmadinejad dies of very unnatural causes, preferably from a missile delivered by Israel, but made in America.

Hezbollah's War, Hezbollah's Responsibility

Dr Politico — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:33:55 EDT

Israel's week-long military campaign against Iran- and Syria-backed Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon has effectively debilitated the group's terrorist infrastructure while completely undermining its ability to wage a meaningful response to Israel's incursion. According to the IDF, upwards of 50% of Hezbollah's military capabilities have been destroyed thus far, and its remaining capacity to threaten Israel should be neutralized within two weeks.Countless images have surfaced from the ground in south Lebanon that show a completely decimated region, leading many to question whether Israel is restricting itself to Hezbollah targets. Israeli officials, on the other hand, maintain that they are exercising caution so as not to target civilians, though conceding that mistakes will happen in times of war. How, then, does one account for the seeming discrepancy between what the images show and what the officials are claiming? It's simple, really:Much like the Palestinian terrorists in Gaza and Judea and Samaria, Hezbollah operations are neatly organized around and within population centers in Lebanon. The majority of rockets issued by Hezbollah originate from residential zones, which invariably leads to an exaggerated level of civilian casualties. Of course, this cowardly technique pays high dividends for terrorists and, most notably, in the realm of public opinion. As civilian casualties mount, public opinion shifts toward the terrorists' favor; this, in spite of the fact, that they alone are culpable for the deaths. The destruction that south Lebanon has endured evinces this fact. As previously noted, 50% of Hezbollah's military capabilities have been destroyed as a direct result of Israel's offensive. Were Hezbollah not operating from civilian areas, this would not be the case. Hezbollah, meanwhile, has all but admitted that it has suffered irreparable damage as a result of Israel's campaign. According to reports, the terrorist group has reached the point where withdrawal from the Israel-Lebanon border is an outcome that they are willing to entertain: The stunning campaign it (Israel) has waged against Hezbollah has reportedly brought the militia to a point where it is willing to discuss Israel's major demand - that it pull back several kilometres from the Israeli border, perhaps to the Litani River.Reports from Beirut yesterday said that Hezbollah officials had declared readiness to discuss the pullback proposal as well as a ceasefire with Israel but were not willing to discuss Israel's demand that it disarm.Hezbollah's talks of a cease-fire are highly premature, as Israel -- for the first time in recent memory -- has expressed and demonstrated that it is unwillingness to negotiate with terrorists. Moreover, any such talks will have to wait until the captive Israeli soldiers -- Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev -- are released by Hezbollah, unharmed.Many critics of Israel's military operation have suggested that the real victim here is the fledgling democracy in Lebanon. (Similar arguments have been made about Israel's operation in Gaza as well as the international community's decision to restrict aid to the Palestinians.)There is, however, a major difference between a democratic state and a state with democratic elections. Fair elections are a necessary, NOT SUFFICIENT, component of democracy. Actually, several ingredients must be present in order for a country to be recognized as a democracy. Here's one: a democratic state has a monopoly on the use of force within its borders.In Lebanon's case, the state is weaker than Hezbollah and, therefore, the use of force is out of the Lebanese government's hands. As a result, Lebanon is not in a position to tame the terrorist beast that Israel is now confronting. Until Hezbollah's military capabilities are diminished, Lebanon will be incapable of reaching a democratic status.Needless to say, Israel should continue exercising caution throughout its military operation, utilizing every tool at its disposal to limit civilian casualties. Nevertheless, it would be a serious misjudgment to blame Israel for the loss of civilian life and infrastructure. After all, Hezbollah terrorists initiated this war with Israel and they continue to use civilians as shields against Israeli reprisals.Special thanks to IDF Israel for the picture.

Iran's Unanswered War Against The West

Dr Politico — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:58:25 EDT

With American and Allied Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israeli forces in Gaza and Lebanon, and homegrown Jihadists rearing their ugly heads throughout the world, the War on Terror has taken on the global dimension that it was rightly ascribed back in 2001. Radical Islamist terrorists are sworn to the destruction of the Western World and they will continue down that bloodstained path until their singular objective is achieved.Speaking during a May 2006 interview with CNBC, President Bush equated the Global War on Terror to World War III. Indeed, numerous politicians and political pundits have offered similar assessments both before and after President Bush's statement.Speaking yesterday on CNBC's Meet The Press With Tim Russert, the former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, offered a similar conclusion. The dialogue was part of an overriding discussion on Israel's present battles with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza.MR. GINGRICH: I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough, we don’t have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel. And frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon and that the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force, not as a political force in the parliament, but as a military force in south Lebanon.MR. RUSSERT: This is World War III?MR. GINGRICH: I, I believe if you take all the countries I just listed that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you’d have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III.(Among the countries that Mr. Gingrich "listed" were Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and the homegrown Jihadists in America, Canada, and Britain.)Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, meanwhile, spoke today before the Knesset of an 'Axis of Evil' that extends from Tehran to Damascus. It is well-known that Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon receive primary monetary support from Iran -- to the tune of $100 million per year -- as well as weapons shipments that are flown to Syria at which point they are trucked into Lebanon.It is no coincidence that the terrorist attack in Northern Israel on July 12 that resulted in the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the deaths of three others occurred on the very day that a deadline for Iran was set to expire. Iran was facing an ultimatum to either suspend its nuclear activities or be brought before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.Tehran-made terrorists have left a major imprint in Iraq as well, claiming the lives of countless Iraqi, American, and allied troops. Iran is, in fact, the primary sponsor of terrorism throughout the world while it has allied itself with rogue nations such as Syria, North Korea and Venezuela.Throughout the Middle East, America, Israel and the Allied Forces are fighting Iran. They are fighting Iran in Lebanon; they are fighting Iran in Gaza; they are fighting Iran in Iraq; and they are fighting Iran in Afghanistan. When will they start fighting Iran in Iran?Iran launched its war against the West long ago and it is winning that war by a long stretch. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has put into effect the very strategy that the United States and its allies have been advocating for so long: they are fighting the enemy abroad rather than facing them at home.Moreover, Iran is winning the war on the diplomatic front as well. Indeed, while the international community fumbles around in its attempts at forging a united front against Iran, Ahmadinejad and the criminal band of mullahs standing beside him cross one nuclear milestone after another.Meanwhile, countries like China and Russia have made clear that Iran is not a problem state. In fact, Chinese missiles are being sold to Iran, flown to Damascus, trucked to Lebanon, and exploded on Israel. Russian nuclear technology, on the other hand, can be found in North Korea and will certainly make its way to Iran.Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is often described as a virulent anti-Semite, as an apocalyptic visionary, and as an enemy of the West. But, in fact, Ahmadinejad is the ultimate puppet master and, unfortunately, we are all just dangling from his strings.

Israel Brings Fight To Lebanon (At Hezbollah's Request)

Dr Politico — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 04:11:57 EDT

The scope of Israel's two-week long military offensive against Palestinian terrorists was extended dramatically today following an attack by Hezbollah terrorists that led to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the death of three others. Israel immediately responded to the attack by labeling it "an act of war" while opening up a second front for its ongoing military campaign so as to include Lebanon. The Jerusalem Post describes the attack as being "meticulously planned" while Haaretz adds that it was a "ringing failure [on the part of] the IDF." The terrorists' demands are similar to those issued by the terrorists who kidnaped Gilad Shalit seventeen days ago: they are calling for the release of prisoners who are being held in Israeli jails.Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who called this latest attack by Hezbollah terrorists an "act of war," holds the Lebanese government fully responsible for the abduction and wellbeing of the two soldiers. He has promised to exact a high price from Israel's hostile northerly neighbor.At a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi earlier today, PM Olmert vowed that "Israel's response will be restrained but very, very, very painful."Contrary to appearances, Israel's military offensive in Gaza has been extremely restrained thus far. In spite of the damage inflicted by the IDF -- primarily on abandoned buildings and terrorist infrastructure -- their incursion can by no means be described as "all-out war." Of course, that will soon change.The Israeli Air Forces quickly issued "call up orders" for reservists in preparation for air strikes against targets in Lebanon. Since issuing the orders, the IAF has carried out a series of strategic strikes that have effectively cut off south Lebanon from the rest of the country. The move is designed to preclude the terrorists from transporting the kidnaped soldier.The IAF struck a Hizbullah post and two bridges in southern Lebanon overnight Wednesday as the number of targets hit by the Airforce since fighting erupted after the kidnapping of two IDF soldiers, reached into the hundreds.Meanwhile, Hezbollah shelled the Western Galilee with mortars. No one was wounded and no damage was reported. According to MSNBC, Israeli strikes in Lebanon have been extended to within just ten miles of Beirut, Lebanon's capital city. The attacks were aimed at a Palestinian guerilla base just south of Beirut and were carried out by Israeli warplanes and gunboats.Warplanes flew over the Naameh base in the hills overlooking the Mediterranean, about 10 miles south of Beirut. Gunboats sailed facing the position, and explosions rang out across the area.The base is run by the Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and was a frequent target of Israeli attacks in the past.The international response, meanwhile, was for the most part immediate and predictable. As always, condemnations of the terrorist act gave way to calls for restraint. It's amusing -- in a sad sort of way -- that the international community never hesitates to subject Israel to a double standard. Take for example Russia's rsponse to today's attacks:Russia joined the condemnations of Hizbullah, but emphasized the need for restraint on both sides. The Russian Foreign Ministry said the urgent task was to avoid the Hizbullah raid in Israel and ensuing Israeli military offensive in southern Lebanon degenerating into a "full-blown confrontation."The many faces of Russia are hard to keep straight. Which face issued this latest call for restraint? Was it the one that issues $10 million bounties for information leading to the death -- not the capture -- of terrorists? Or was it the one that recently extended near unlimited power to Russian President Vladimir Putin to conduct the War on Terror as he sees fit? Of course, Russia is not alone in this respect. Indeed, all countries are quick to call for restraint when their citizens are removed from harm's way. Yet the moment they perceive the mere potential of a future threat, restraint goes out the window.The United States, while also urging restraint, placed the blame for the attack squarely on the shoulders of Syria and Iran. National Security Council spokesman, Frederick Jones, announced:"We condemn in the strongest terms Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on Israel and the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers.""We also hold Syria and Iran -- which directly support Hezbollah -- responsible for this attack and for the ensuing violence."America has included Iran and Syria in the 'Axis of Evil' for some time, though not nearly as long as Israel has. Still, the remarks from Washington deviate sharply from the diplomatic posture it has taken in recent weeks.Israel, of course, is fully aware that orders for this and several other terrorist attacks are issued directly from the Syrian and Iranian government -- a similar role was played by the Iraqi government prior to the toppling of Saddam Hussein.Still, one cannot help but wonder what motivated President Bush to allow such claims to be made. In one breath the United States is urging restraint while, in the next, it is (implicitly) extending permission to Israel to escalate its military offensive to Syria and Iran.With Israeli warplanes flying over Lebanese airspace, PM Olmert must consider the possibility of striking Syria before Syria launches an attack of its own. However, the consequences of such a move would be far-reaching, potentially leading to a larger, regional war reminiscent of the battles of 1967 and 1973 (the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War).In terms of size, Israel's military is the thirteenth largest in the world; in terms of sophistication, on the other hand, Israel's military rivals that of the United States while Israel's anti-ballistic missile systems actually surpass those of the United States. Still, PM Olmert is not looking to wage such an extensive military campaign, unless he can count on the support of the United States -- and by support I mean American forces fully involved in the offensive outside of Israel's borders. Time will only tell if the Bush Administration was utilizing a diplomatic face, temporarily, to disguise its intentions of broadening America's War on Terror.

Americans Are Stupid, By Ismail Haniyeh

Dr Politico — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:40:20 EDT

With the thoughtful assistance of the editorial staff at the Washington Post, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh enjoyed the unique opportunity of airing his hate-induced grievances with Israel for American consumption.In an op-ed published on Tuesday by the Post, the prime minister offered an interesting, albeit uninformed, perspective on the Israel-Palestinian conflict while making a special effort to incorporate a number of subtle jabs at the American people.PM Haniyeh's two-page diatribe concludes: "If Americans only knew the truth, possibility might become reality."And if only Americans weren't so stupid, right, PM Haniyeh?Unfortunately, the prime minister fails to recognize that U.S. foreign policy and American public opinion favor Israel for the simple fact Americans do know the truth. In fact, the testament offered by PM Haniyeh in today's Post will only strengthen our support for Israel.The "kidnapped" Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit is only a pretext for a job scheduled months ago.Note the quotation marks used when describing the kidnapped Israeli soldier. Is the prime minister denying that the soldier was kidnapped?As I inspect the ruins of our infrastructure -- the largess of donor nations and international efforts all turned to rubble once more by F-16s and American-made missiles -- my thoughts again turn to the minds of Americans. What do they think of this?Another jab at the cruel and stupid Americans who are guilty of "war crimes" by extension. When will the American public realize it is their government and not Hamas that is supporting terror? Of course, the majority of thinking Americans take pride in the fact their missiles are being used to effect justice overseas. In fact, many of us stupid Americans are never more pleased than when Israel delivers American-made justice in Gaza.They (the Americans) think, doubtless, of the hostage soldier, taken in battle -- yet thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of women and children, remain in Israeli jails for resisting the illegal, ongoing occupation that is condemned by international law.The prime minister's contention that the "hostage soldier [was] taken in battle" proves yet again that Hamas' political and military wings are one in the same – despite what the mainstream media would have us believe. Both wings support terrorism in all its forms and this latest confirmation comes straight from the prime minister's pen.I hope that Americans will give careful and well-informed thought to root causes and historical realities, in which case I think they will question why a supposedly "legitimate" state such as Israel has had to conduct decades of war against a subject refugee population without ever achieving its goals.Not only does the prime minister predicate Israel's legitimacy with "supposedly," but he places "legitimate" in quotation marks. That's a two-prong attack on Israel's right to exist.We present this clear message: If Israel will not allow Palestinians to live in peace, dignity and national integrity, Israelis themselves will not be able to enjoy those same rights. Meanwhile, our right to defend ourselves from occupying soldiers and aggression is a matter of law, as settled in the Fourth Geneva Convention.Here the prime minister takes his defense of terrorism to a higher level. Not only does he promise future terrorist activity directed against Israel, but he justifies that terrorism through international law. Perhaps the prime minister ought to get acquainted with the finer points of the Geneva Convention, including that pesky requirement that combatants don "fixed distinctive signs" so as not to be confused with civilian populations.Still, the prime minister's intention when writing this tripe was to obscure facts, not to accurately represent them. On that basis alone, PM Haniyeh did an excellent job. Of course, it doesn't hurt to have friends at the Washington Post who are willing to overlook the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that saturate the prime minster's argument.Finally, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Post's editorial staff for bringing new meaning to an old phrase. After all, this is Jihad Journalism at its finest.

A Dormant US Emboldens N. Korea

Dr Politico — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:55:33 EDT

Since launching a series of missiles less than a week ago, the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Il, has yet to face the promised consequences of his actions. The United States and Japan were particularly vocal in their opposition to the planned missile launches, which were known of weeks in advance. However, the collective warnings issued by the two countries must have sounded more like barking puppies to Kim Jong Il, who has long engaged the West with a far more inflammatory line of rhetoric.The past few days have surely exceeded Kim Jong Il's highest expectations. Despite the numerous threats issued prior to the launches, neither the United States nor Japan has been willing to put a little bite behind its bark. For the North and many another enemy of the West, there's an important lesson to be learned: nuclear states can get away with anything. (Are you listening, Ahmadinejad?)On Friday (July 7), a Japanese newspaper reported that the North's long-range missile, the Taepodong-2, which the country launched on July 5, targeted waters near Hawaii. The North immediately dismissed the report, claiming instead that the missile launches were devoid of hostile intent. "This is not an attack on someone," argued the North's councilor at the U.N. mission in Geneva, Choe Myong-nam. But isn't it? When one takes into account the rhetoric that accompanied the launches, Myong-nam's position is hard to defend. In fact, just one day prior to the missile launches (July 3), the North threatened the United States with an "annihilating strike and a nuclear war."Weeks earlier (June 18), a similar threat was issued by the North, when the country promised to "mercilessly wipe out" US forces.On Thursday (July 6), the North mocked international criticism of its missile launches and, yesterday, Kim Jong Il called the United States "our archenemy." He vowed not to compromise on the North's nuclear program, adding that his country is prepared for "all-out war" with the United States.Still, the daily verbal assaults directed against the United States do not constitute the greatest threat emanating from the North. Instead, the United States must concern itself with the second Taepodong-2 missile that the North has already prepared for launching.Ironically, President Bush's new-found respect for multilateral negotiations could not have come at a worst time. Rather than take the action needed to neutralize the North's ever more threatening posture, the president has appealed to the United Nations in order to diffuse the crisis. Apparently, the president overlooked the fact that passing a legitimate resolution in the UN is like passing a kidney stone -- it's slow, painful and generally unsuccessful.Nevertheless, a resolution was circulated in the UN Security Council that called for sanctions to be placed on the North and -- as expected -- it was met with strong opposition from none other than Russia and China. In closed consultations Wednesday, Russia and China made clear their distaste for a resolution, which could be legally enforceable.While China's distaste for a resolution against the North is readily understood -- China is after all the North's number one trading partner -- what exactly was Russia's excuse?Russia secretly offered to sell North Korea technology that could help the rogue state protect nuclear stockpiles and safeguard weapons secrets from international scrutiny . . . (Washington Times, July 9)Yeah. That makes sense.Japan, meanwhile, decided to air a military threat of their own earlier today:Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on North Korea's missile bases would violate its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a possible Security Council vote.Japan's constitution precludes the country from using military force to settle international disputes. Of course, Japan lacks the military capability to carry out the threat so it doesn't much matter:A Defense Agency spokeswoman . . . said Japan has no offensive weapons such as ballistic missiles that could reach North Korea.Japanese fighter jets and pilots are not capable of carrying out such an attack, a military analyst said."Japan's air force is top class in defending the nation's airspace, but attacking another country is almost impossible," said analyst Kazuhisa Ogawa. "Japan has no capacity to wage war."Actually, Japan can carry out the attack, but their pilots wouldn't be able to return to Japan. In other words, it would be a suicide mission, which the country's constitution would surely frown upon.If anything, Japan's empty threat undermines the international community's efforts -- and those of the US in particular -- at reigning in the North. After all, Kim Jong Il will surely recognize that Japan's threat was the product of frustration rather than careful planning. More importantly, it alerts the North to the fact that the United States and Japan are not presently engaged in bilateral discussions on a potential military strike on the North's weapons facilities.The Western world faces a major handicap in its dealings with the North. Democratic nations tend to be excessively transparent. The North, by contrast, is exceptionally secretive and is far more deserving of Winston Churchill's quip, "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma," than Russia ever was.Even less is known of Kim Jong Il, which precludes the West from determining his intentions. His decision to launch the missiles in spite of the mountain of warnings that he was issued may have been a cry for attention. After all, the world's focus had long since shifted away from him and his country, concentrating instead on developments in Iraq and the growing threat emanating from Iran.Then again, Kim Jong Il could have been looking to convince his followers that his backbone was intact. After all, his late father set the bar of tyranny rather high and, until recently, Kim Jong Il never managed to shake his father's domineering reputation.Finally, it's possible that Kim Jong Il simply recognized an opportunity and took a chance. With the United States mired in war overseas, and a shortage of troops at home, Kim Jong Il probably figured he could get away with launching a few missiles. More importantly, Kim Jong Il's escalated rhetoric and missile launches come at a time when the number of US troops in South Korea and neighboring states are at a low -- as part of the Pentagon's preparations for the potential threat posed by China as well as the ongoing War on Terrorism.Pentagon figures show just under 30,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, compared with 37,000 two years ago, with some troops being deployed instead to Iraq. In its biggest reorganization in two decades, the U.S. plans to bring down the number further to some 25,000 by 2008.Whether those plans stand to change in light of the North's renewed hostility has yet to be announced.Despite the diminishing US troop presence in the region, President Bush could still launch a strike on the North's missile test bed. In fact, former Secretary and Assistant Secretary of Defense, William J. Perry and Ashton B. Carter, who together served under President Clinton, encouraged President Bush to do so. In a June 22 Op-Ed published in the Washington Post, the former officials went so far as to lay out the plans for an attack scenario:[If] North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive -- the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea's nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted.The officials made their argument prior to the launching of the first Taepodong-2 missile, but considering the North's preparations to launch a second missile, the plan is no less valid today. Mike Allen and Romesh Ratnesar of Time Magazine, however, cast serious doubt on the notion that President Bush has any plans to engage the North militarily. Indeed, the title of their feature article speaks volumes: "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy."The authors note that the days of President Bush's "zero tolerance warnings" are long gone, only to be replaced by appeals for diplomatic solutions. His new approach is all the more baffling, considering that the Bush Doctrine has long advocated a policy of preemption through military means. While some Americans may favor President Bush's new approach to resolving international conflicts, others will rightly recognize the inherent deficiencies of altering his foreign policy approach this late in the game. Indeed, Iran is closely monitoring the US response to the North's "provocations," the term used by the Bush Administration to downplay the current crisis.More importantly, no US President should stand by while an overtly hostile enemy regime has made preparations to launch a missile that is capable of reaching US soil.The President's continued refusal to take action against the North poses a grave danger to US citizens and leaves me to question his ability to lead our nation.

Profile Of A Dead Chechen Warlord

Dr Politico — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:03:56 EDT

The most wanted man in Russia, Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev, has been killed today by the country's special forces. While the precise circumstances of his death have yet to be publicized, one can only hope that his final breaths on planet Earth were marked by an intolerable level of pain.Basayev was among the most notorious leaders of the Chechen separatist movement. The initiation of his murderous campaign against innocents coincided with the Russian invasion of Chechnya in 1994, when he became one of the leading commanders of the Chechen guerrillas. Basayev's meteoric rise to prominence in the terrorist ranks was facilitated by his sheer barbarity on the battlefield, where he made perfectly clear that no one was immune from punishment -- not women and especially not children.Basayev's extensive resume of terrorist activities is second only to Osama bin Laden. Still, Basayev will be most remembered for his role in the Beslan school attack in 2004. The three-day standoff began on September first at School Number One in the Russian town of Beslan in North Ossetia. Over 1200 school children and adults were taken hostage by armed Islamist terrorists, who were demanding a full withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya. The three-day standoff came to an end on September third, when shooting broke out between the terrorist captors and Russia's special forces. Of the 344 innocent civilians that were killed over the course of the hostage crisis, the majority of them were children.Days later, Russia's Federal Security Service announced a $10 million reward for information that would lead to the "neutralization" of Basayev and Aslan Maskhadov, who jointly masterminded the hostage attack. It is not yet clear whether the circumstances of Basayev's death warrant payment on the bounty. Of course, it's not for money that Russians are celebrating today."This is retaliation he deserves for killing our children in Beslan, Budennovsk, all the terrorist acts his bandits perpetrated in Moscow and other regions of Russia, including Ingushetia and the Chechen Republic," FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev Patrushev said.More on Basayev:Shamil BasayevFull Name: Shamil Salmanovich BasayevDOB: January 14, 1965 in a village near the town of Vedeno in south-eastern ChechnyaIn 1987, enrolled at the Moscow Engineering Institute of Land Management (expelled in 1988)In 1992, fought on the side of separatists in Abkhazia, a breakaway region of Georgia In 1995, led a hostage-taking raid at Budennovsk, a town in southern Russia. In August 1996, led a successful operation to retake the Chechen capital Grozny, driving out Russian troops In December 1996, run for president in Chechnya’s first presidential election, coming in second with 23.5% of the vote. In January, 1998 appointed prime minister of Chechnya by Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov for a six-month term, after which he resigned In August and September 1999, led a small army of radical Chechens in an unsuccessful attempt to take over the neighboring Russian territory of Dagestan In January 2000, lost a foot after stepping on a landmine while leading the rebel withdrawal from Grozny In November 2002, claimed responsibility for the Moscow theatre siege In September 2004, claimed responsibility for a number of terrorist acts, including the downing of two passenger jets and the school hostage siege in the south Russian town of Beslan

Neighbors And Friends: The Future Of US-Canada Relations

Dr Politico — Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:18:46 EDT

Did you know that Canada has committed over 16,000 troops to the war on terror? Or that Stephen Harper, Canada's first conservative prime minister in twelve years, took office on February 6, 2006? Or that PM Harper has committed to keeping 2,300 Canadian troops in Afghanistan through 2009? Or that PM Harper has vowed to rejuvenate his country's long-neglected military forces?Americans have forgotten that Canada remains one of our key allies in the War on Terror. Of course, it's hard to overlook the fact that Canada has long distanced itself from the militaristic focus that occupies much of the industrialized world. Since 9/11, the Bush administration has has been pushing our northerly neighbors to increase military spending, but that advice was generally ignored -- until now, that is. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is committed to a stronger, more secure Canada and, more importantly, he is pushing for a closer alliance, military and otherwise, with America. Today, PM Harper will be visiting President Bush in the White House for discussions on a wide range of topics. It will be a nice change of pace for the President, as he has grown accustomed to Canadian officials -- especially prime ministers -- whose far left ideologies sharply contradict that of the present Administration. More than anything else, PM Harper's visit reemphasizes his deep commitment to strong relations with the United States, which have suffered some setbacks in recent years.Mr. Bush also can expect a major improvement in atmospherics after years of prickly relations with Liberal Party governments, whose members were accused at times of adopting anti-American positions to score political points.[...]"Canadians take a very pragmatic view about their relationship [with America]," said Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner of Strategic Counsel, a research firm based in Ottawa. "We want to have good relations with the United States and resolve issues and concerns." Last month, PM Harper's government announced a major boost in military spending. According to the plan, $13.5 billion will be spent on new ships, trucks, helicopters, and aircraft. Additionally, the government has proposed to add 23,000 troops to its military. Though it may not sound like much, consider this: Canada's military is presently made up of 62,000 regular and 26,000 reserve forces; 23,000 additional troops translates into a 26% increase of its present forces. Now that's big.In June, Canada pledged an additional $229 million over the next two years for anti-terrorist related measures. The money will be used to improve the screening of passengers and cargo at airports, secure its rail system and boost port security. Presently, 100% of all airline baggage and rail cargo is screened for security before entering the U.S. from Canada.The government is also working to tighten border security.Finally, Canada has the second-largest known oil reserves in the world and they are eager to increase trade with the United States. Of course, Canada is already America's largest supplier of oil, gas, hydro-electricity and uranium. Still, Canada has openly expressed that the United States need not depend on hostile regimes in order to obtain the fuel needed to keep America running."You need not worry about dealing with a despot or an unstable regime to access that energy," Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, told the Canadian Press wire service.At the state level, strong ties between Canada and the United States constitute a strategic asset from which both countries surely benefit. At a more personal level, Americans and Canadians have much more to offer one another. Having visited Canada on numerous occasions - primarily Ontario - I can say from experience that Canadians are a beautiful and friendly people, who are generally warm toward the American public. Though often overlooked, citizens of either country need not travel far to find a friendly face. If nothing else, PM Harper's visit to the White House should remind us of that.(Be sure to visit CanadianAlly.com for more information on Canada's involvement in the war on terror and their commitment to strong relations with the United States.)

Where's The Response To North Korea's Missile Launch?

Dr Politico — Wed, 5 Jul 2006 17:28:59 EDT

Independence Day 2006 was one of the more bizarre birthdays in our nation's history. After several days of postponement, NASA launched the Discovery shuttle, marking the first Independence Day launch ever. However, the numerous objections to the launch issued by experts within NASA, who argued that the shuttle was in need of further fuel-tank repairs was troubling. Additionally, a group of anti-war protesters, led by Cindy Sheehan and a number of Hollywood elites, embarked on an Independence Day fast that some participants claim will continue until US troops return from Iraq. One might wonder whether Sheehan & Co. are protesting the war or entering into a suicide pact. After all, depending on one's body mass -- which Hollywood elites are generally short of -- a person can only survive a few weeks without food. To be sure, conservatives are eager to see how this one plays out.Still, the most bizarre development yesterday was North Korea's decision to light off some fireworks of their own. Unlike the bottle rockets that Americans were setting off throughout the country, the North's rockets have the added potential of delivering a nuclear payload to US soil. While the six rockets launched by the North can be collectively described as a failed endeavor, the communist regime did learn an important law of physics: what goes up must come down; in this case, the missiles went up, and egg came down -- all over their smug little faces.The immediate response by the international community was to condemn the North's "provocation," which the United States, Japan, and others were working feverishly to avoid over the past few weeks. Of course, the major concern was the launching of the North's long-range missile, the Taepodong-2, which has the potential to strike targets in the United States. Despite the chorus of condemnations that the North's belligerence provoked, the communist regime went on to fire a seventh missile earlier today; only one of the seven missiles fired had long-range capabilities.Today, the Bush Administration must decipher the message behind the North's launching. Is Kim Jung Il planning to make a move against his country's immediate neighbors and the United States? Or is he simply attempting to step out from under his father's dominating reputation?More importantly, how will the Bush Administration respond to the North's violations of the 1999 moratorium on missile tests, which the North signed? Surely, President Bush intends to respond to the North with something more than a sharply-worded letter from the UN Security Council. Indeed, name calling and whining alone will hardly deter future violations by the North. What's more, Iran's criminal band of mullahs are doubtless monitoring the still-unfolding situation. Should the United States fail to act, the Islamist regime will likely conclude that the United States is nothing more than a barking dog; these guys need to see some teeth.On June 22, 2006, William J. Perry and Ashton B. Carter -- President Bill Clinton's secretary and undersecretary of defense -- wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, in which they called on President Bush to take military action against the North before the missiles were airborne.Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. [Emphasis added]Perry and Carter then offered a strategy that involved the decimation of the North's "carefully engineered test bed." Obviously, the Bush Administration chose not to heed Perry and Carter's advice. Instead, they called the North's plan a "provocation." That's it. In fact, when the North threatened the United States with nuclear war the day before the launch, officials again labeled it a "provocation." While I'm no expert in defense planning, I find it hard to believe that calling a provocative act "provocative" constitutes an effective deterrence policy.Of course, it's not too late for the Bush Administration to respond to the North's "provocation" with a little provocation of their own. At this point, the North is expected to launch additional missiles in the near future. Perhaps the time has arrived for the present Administration to take a little advice from its predecessor. After all, IF Perry and Carter's op-ed are any indication of how the Clinton Administration would have responded to a similar threat from North Korea, THEN many Americans -- including myself -- would feel a little more comfortable with President Clinton back in the Oval Office.