Fred Thompson: Iran Still A Threat

Fred's latest commentary at his campaign website is smart, on point, and also provides us with a little historical reminder. Here's 4 key paragraphs that are right smack in the middle of Fred's column.

Let us be clear about who we are dealing with. Iran has long-wanted to be the powerbroker in the Persian Gulf. Other states in the region know this and fear this. Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs who run Iran have pledged to “wipe Israel off the map.” We also cannot forget that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and that their support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups, is all about achieving these ends. Iran has been modernizing its military for years, acquiring ballistic missile technology from around the world, and pursuing its nuclear program to facilitate its growing dominance and power. Would a country that is one of the world’s largest producers of oil and natural gas really spend billions of dollars just to acquire civilian nuclear power plants for electricity generation?

As a former member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I can tell you that the intelligence business is extremely difficult. Complicating this challenge is our long-standing inability to secure credible intelligence about Iran, North Korea and other “hard targets”. The international community had inspectors in Iraq for years prior to 2003, and U.S. intelligence still got it wrong. ln 2005, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman Commission report underscored that “across the board, the Intelligence Community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world’s most dangerous actors.” My experience as the recent Chairman of the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board confirmed this assessment.

Let’s also remember that NIEs are snapshots. As recently as 2005 the intelligence community said that “Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons…..despite its international obligations and international pressure.” The new NIE says Iran “halted” its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 in response to “increasing international scrutiny and pressure.” Both are “high confidence” conclusions; however, both can’t be right.

Even if the current estimate is accurate, too many people are too focused now on the assessment that Iran has “halted” its nuclear program. This is good news if indeed it has, but “halted” is much different than “abandoned.” We were told by the Clinton Administration in 1994 that the North Koreans had halted their nuclear program, and look what happened there. And other questions should concern us as well: is this an Iranian “disinformation” program; has their military program has gone too “deep” for us to detect it; or maybe they “halted” their program simply because they lacked the key ingredient—enriched uranium—that their increasingly successful civilian program is now producing.

It is good news, but Fred is right..."halted" is different from "abandoned". We can't simply throw up our hands and say "Oops, sorry, our mistake...we thought you were still trying to acquire nukes. Have a nice day, President Ahmadinejad. We'll be on our way." Remember, this is the same government that has provided IEDs that have killed American soldiers.

So, score one for global safety and security if Iran's nuclear weapons program has been halted. However, I have a feeling this game is far from over, because Ahmadinejad still has ambitions of Iranian dominance over the Middle East.

Trying to do the Right Thing

When it comes to the Middle East in general, America has done a lot to attempt to bring order and some amount of social freedom not granted to the people by the governments of that region. True, we always had our interests in mind to varying extents, but I believe that our attempts to simply democratize the region for the sake of providing freedom to those who never had it before have been genuine to at least some degree.


I've come to believe that true stability may never be reached in the Middle East...but you can't fault the U.S. for at least trying. The problem is, you have the roots of almost half of the world's religious beliefs set in this general region. You also have some of the most extreme tribalistic societies in this region. Combine that with a willingness to die for your beliefs because the man next to you does not believe what you believe...and by killing them and yourself, you get 72 virgins and an eternity in paradise...well, I guess personal freedom and democracy now can't compare with those kinds of promises that can be achieved by simply killing "infidels" in the name of Allah.

The worst part of it all is that most Muslims do not believe in these acts. However, their religion has been so hijacked by these extremists that they feel powerless to stop them. The other roadblock is the different sects of Islam refuse to coexist, much like the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, even though they read from the same book of beliefs.

However, I've read a few reports that state that Al Qaeda has lost a lot of influence in Iraq in recent months. Most of this loss of influence is due to these non-extremist Muslims standing up and refusing to give shelter to Al Qaeda terrorists, and not just U.S. military force alone.

Maybe we can end this occupation on a positive note, after all.

Weekly Podium: "Ending The Occupation"

(Cross-posted at The New Dominion)

Recently, I've been thinking about how our government can best wrap up the occupation in Iraq. I know that the popular cry from the left (and the Ron Paul camp) has been "just get up and leave!" However, I think many would agree that making the region more stable than it is now would be the "best-case scenario" of any exit strategy.

We're a nation that likes "best-case scenarios", we like things to go our way. That's about as obvious a statement as one could ever make. My question is, why are so many people avoiding the possibility of leaving Iraq with the best-case scenario?

The answer is simple...for many people, the "pack up and leave now" option is the most instantly-gratifying, soul-assuaging, "light at the end of the tunnel" scenario out there. We get the troops home, no more soldiers die, and we stop spending billions of dollars on this occupation.

Before I go further, we have to evaluate what the current situation in Iraq actually is. I do not consider the current situation in Iraq the "Iraq War". The "Iraq War" ended when the socialist Ba'ath Party government was toppled and Saddam Hussein was ousted from power. Right now, we are in the midst of a post-war occupation, with civil war being fought between various factions who have differing opinions on the direction of Iraq's future.

It's just like the Marshall Plan and the post-World War II occupation of Europe...except this time, there wasn't a unified appreciation and assistance of our efforts by the Iraqi's to rebuild their war-torn nation. In post-WWII Greece, Italy, and West Germany, our occupation and presence was well-received, and that is what led to the successful re-emergence of these nations from the ashes of war.

Even though things are uncertain and unstable in Iraq at this moment, we must realize that certain concessions must be made. I believe that, if a few forward-thinking plans are implemented, we can be out of Iraq (minus a base like what we have in Germany and other nations) within a year...give or take a few months.

So here is my personal opinion of what America and Iraq need to do...

The first thing that needs to happen is the Iraqi government needs to be structured so that the Kurds, the Shi'as, and the Sunnis have equal representation in governing the nation. The 3 factions already have, for the most part, geographically divided themselves into different areas. My suggestion is that, below the federal level of government in Baghdad, there is a regional government for each of the 3 areas. After that, each of the provinces within these regions should have their own level of government, then it continues from there to the more local levels.

Granted, this plan is a little more bureaucratic than I would prefer for our own nation...but when you have warring religious factions, a bit more control is necessary until tensions are reduced to minimal levels.

How these various factions can be quelled is through invoking a bit of pro-Iraqi patriotism amongst Iraqi civilians in regards to this new government. Broadcast it loud and clear that the new government will create one Iraq that will end the violence, and bring prosperity to the Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurds. While these groups are split among religious lines, they are all Muslims, and to create a great new pro-Islamic state in Iraq would be beneficial to them in the long run.

I think a lack of psychological warfare against the extremists and terrorist groups that are fueling the flames of civil war has been part of our nation's problem in getting our of Iraq. We haven't emphasized the benefits of a mutually-beneficial government in terms of the general promotion of Islam within Iraq's borders. We (the United States) are still seen as the secular/Christians, and many Iraqis believe we're trying to distance them from Islam. While we've attempted to build as close to a secular government as possible in the past...it just cannot be done.

While the federal government should lean secular, the regional and provincial governments will obviously have to cater to that region's particular Islamic sect (to a certain extent) in order to get this new government off the ground. These governments will also have to govern within certain limits of power, just as the federal government will have to do the same. However, the regional/provincial governments will be more involved with the day-to-day governing of the people compared to the federal level.

Next, the rebuilding of the Iraqi army and police needs to be sped up. It's their nation, they need to protect and defend it, as well as enforce their own laws. Once the above government is formulated and the main religious groups are pacified a bit, start enlisting these various militias into the ranks of the Iraqi military and police.

American forces would withdraw, with the exception of a single base, which will keep our presence in the region visible, but light and with as little imposition as possible. With this new government, the most federally-regulated sections of government will be the military and the importing/exporting of goods, such as oil...as well as the equal redistribution from profits made off of exports.

Oh yes, and there is a timetable for this. If this plan were to be implemented today, we would expect the Iraqi government to be fully operational, and the military/police in full working order, by July 31, 2008. Sometime before that date, we would make a decision as to where we go from there.

If the Iraqi government mobilizes into operation well ahead of schedule, we can start the gradual withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. As their military takes over defending the country, ours will then begin leave at the same rate. The further ahead of schedule they get, the sooner we are done and gone in regards to our continued military occupation of Iraq.

If the Iraqi government is uncooperative, refuses to work within this framework, and cannot come together...we leave. It is as simple as that. We're not going to simply sit around and let soldiers die while the Iraqi government refuses to function adequately (as has been the case). If the new Iraqi government can't (or won't) get their act together, or procrastinates in doing so for too long, they're going to have to clean up this mess on their own.

If things are close to completion, but the Iraqi's need a few more months to get things finally in order, we may stay and help finish things up if there is good reasoning for it. The effort on all parts must be evident in order for us to stay.

While the current strategy is already somewhat related to this, my idea involves heavy pressure on the Iraqi government. In fact, if we were to lay this out to our allies, I believe that we could create heavy international pressure from places far more influential (and investment-minded) than the extremists and terrorists that currently thrive on this conflict.

As far as Iran goes, that's a different story. I do believe that the growing public insurrection within Iran will cause them to focus enough of its energy inward that it's influence on neighboring countries with decrease substantially, even for a short period of time. Stabilization in Iraq, in my opinion, would further increase the appetite for change that the Iranian public has shown.

What is interesting is that despite the bickering between Democrats and Republicans over the issue over this messy occupation, I can't think of one person who wouldn't want to see our troops come home. I think that is the common goal that gets lost in all of the partisan fighting. Some Dems think Republicans are warmongering oil hogs, while more than a few GOP supporters see the Democrats as white flag-waving apologists for Islamic extremists.

What we need to realize is that both sides don't want to be in Iraq any longer than necessary. The disagreement is over what constitutes "necessary". Personally, I can see why both sides have their own definitions of "necessary". However, given our long-term interests as a leading member of the global society, to end this occupation with a more stable Iraq would make sense...as long as the Iraqi government gives us full cooperation.

To say "we've lost the Iraq War" is a complete misnomer. We won the war, we won that war a long time ago. The history books should reflect this as time goes on. However, in order to prevent future conflicts that will result in greater bloodshed; we need to leave this situation in a better condition than when we entered into it.

Why? To be honest, I don't think any of us want to go through this again anytime soon.

Weekly Podium: "Political Chop Suey"

(Cross-posted at The New Dominion)

With primary season in Virginia coming to a climax on Tuesday, the immigration bill currently on the shelf, and the first flurry of debates over…what is there to talk about? Well, there is plenty of “chop suey” (literal translation: “odds and ends”) in the political realm, both local and national.

For instance, the news that Barack Obama has sought the advice of former Secretary of State Colin Powell on foreign policy issues has caught the eyes of many who are closely following the presidential primaries. Powell previously served in both Bush administrations, and has always been associated with the Republican Party.

When asked about advising Obama, who is a Democrat, Powell said, “I've been around this town a long time and I know everybody who is running for office. And I make myself available to talk about foreign policy matters and military matters with whoever wishes to chat with me." Powell has ruled out running for any kind of an elected office, but also did not rule out a return to a post within a presidential administration.

For Obama, this is a great move on many levels. He is shoring up his foreign policy stances with advice from an excellent source of foreign policy advice. He is also working with a notable and popular conservative figure, which shows a willingness to work across party lines. Obama also will appeal to conservatives because Powell is a standout military figure, which also helps to distance him from the stereotype of liberals being weak on national security and military matters.

On a different note from the Democratic side of the presidential primaries, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean stated that the “one way to truly ensure we end this war” was to elect a Democrat in November of 2008. The interesting aspect of that statement is the fact that it was carried by most major news sources as if it were a somewhat groundbreaking and unexpected statement.

Had Howard Dean actually said “vote for a Republican, it’s the best choice for America”, that would be groundbreaking and unexpected. It must be summer during a presidential primary season when statements from a national party chairman that support the candidates of his own party are considered relevant.

Joe Lieberman, who once-upon-a-time was Al Gore’s running mate, says that the United States needs to consider eventually conducting air strikes against Iran. Some are taking this as Lieberman endorsing war with Iran, while others believe it is simply Lieberman attempting to protect Israel due to his Jewish heritage. I personally believe that Lieberman was stating that we cannot completely dismiss the possibility of eventually striking Iran, as it is believed they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

Many Democrats have turned themselves off to Lieberman, as his foreign policy beliefs are more in line with the GOP than with the Democratic Party. I am inclined to believe that Lieberman is being sensible, and stating that we have to leave all options on the table…at least for the time being.

A recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll stated that 58 percent of Americans believe that to stop illegal immigration, the United States needs to enforce current immigration laws. These percentages include 65 percent of Republicans, 62 percent of Independents, and 50 percent of Democrats. Only 34 percent of those polled believed the entire system requires an overhaul.

As I have espoused in the past, I do believe that the previous attempt at reform was a form of amnesty. I believe that, at least for the time being, we do need to enforce current immigration laws until we can create a better bill for updating the laws. A combination of stronger, smarter border security and more efficient methods for legal immigration into America are the way to go, in my opinion.

Some other interesting numbers from this survey include that 84 percent of those polled believe that Mexico should not shown preference in the number of immigrants allowed into America, and should be treated as any other nation. Also, 55 percent of Americans support the government raids on big businesses that employ large numbers of illegal immigrants, compared to only 34 that object to these raids.

Shrinking the scope down to the state level, the majority of the June primaries is upon us. One thing that is very notable about this year’s primaries is the fact that many moderate incumbents are facing serious challenges by more partisan candidates.

For instance, in the 24th State Senate GOP primary, you have Emmett Hanger being challenged by Scott Sayre. Sayre is positioning himself as the more conservative candidate, noting Hanger’s votes for tax increases and apparent support for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. In the Democratic primary for the 9th State Senate seat, incumbent Benjamin Lambert is being challenged by Don McEachin. Lambert has drawn criticism for his endorsement of George Allen over Jim Webb in last year’s Senate race. McEachin has promoted himself to Democratic voters as “a Democrat you can trust”, putting him to the left of Lambert.

Another good example of this is in the Democratic primary in the 79th House of Delegates district. The current incumbent, Johnny Joannou is fighting for his party’s nomination against Henry Light, who has aligned himself as a “Warner/Kaine Democrat”. Joannou has also faced criticism from fellow Democrats for his alignment with House Republicans on many issues. This criticism has helped Light, who currently has raised nearly $200,000 more in campaign funds than Joannou.

With the exception of the 27th State Senate GOP primary between Jill Holtzman Vogel and Mark Tate, the June 12th primaries seem to be based around perceived moderates being attacked from either the left or the right, depending on the party primary that is in question. It makes me think of the campaigns of George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000. I remember that, in the pre-9/11 climate that we lived in at the time, many people thought that the two candidates were interchangeable. They were seen as the type of candidates both parties would put up in the future; a moderate who only slightly leaned towards their party’s ideology.

Here we are, 7 years later, and it seems that both parties are attempting to move away from the center. While this is starting to show in the presidential debates we’ve seen on TV, it seems to be actively happening right here in the state of Virginia.

Finally, I want to talk about the primary in the 24th State Senate district that has caused so much controversy and political noisemaking. Some believe that the Republican Party in the Valley may suffer a long-term fracture due to this primary. With many of the local party chairs and bloggers rallying behind Scott Sayre, and Emmett Hanger collecting the support of many elected officials and a growing number of op-ed writers, it could very well seem like the party is heading for a split.

However, I know that at least few of the local party chairs have stated that they will support and work hard for the Republican candidate, no matter who wins. I believe that this is the start of reconciliation between the supporters of both Emmett Hanger and Scott Sayre. For the sake of the GOP in Virginia, this is a good start towards healing some of the fractures that are taking place. If the Republicans want to continue their majority in both the State Senate and the House of Delegates, they need to start mending these broken fences on June 13th.

Or else, they may find themselves in a position similar to their counterparts in Congress.

If You Ever Doubted Iran's Intentions...

...you should probably silence those doubts now.

Iran was caught shipping arms to the Taliban. Not just guns, either. We're talking heavy arms, more than 1,650 pounds of C4, advanced roadside bombs. Also seized were RPG rockets and mortar rounds. Kudos to NATO for catching this.

What's surprising is that Iran and the Taliban have never gotten along, especially since Iranian muslims are generally Shi'a, while the Taliban are Sunni muslims. However, given that Iran and the Taliban have a much bigger common cause (destroying America and the rest of western civilization)...I guess they've put their differences aside for the time being.