Waterboarding is vital to our security needs.

So it seems as though we’re back on the whole waterboarding issue once again.

After President Obama released some top-secret Bush-era memos (memos that gave the government's first full account of the CIA's use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods) he has now left the door open to prosecuting the people that devised the legal justifications for allowing such activities to take place. These people would most likely be Justice Department officials, not CIA personnel.

My question is, “Why”?

Why is the President of the United States open to prosecuting people that have succeeded in keeping this country safe from another terrorist attack(s)?

Isn’t he interested in preventing attacks that could kill untold numbers of Americans?

I would imagine that he is, so why would he make it more difficult for our intelligence community to stop such events?

Oh… some of you still do not believe that waterboarding and other “harsh” methods of interrogation work?

Well you would be sadly mistaken, as you have to look no further than the CIA’s comments to CBS News regarding waterboarding for proof of its effectiveness.

According to those comments, waterboarding, in particular, helped stop a 9/11-style attack that was planned for Los Angeles. CIA officials went on to say that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, planned to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles in 2005.

He only gave up this information after he was waterboarded.

Additionally, President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair stated, “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country”.

But now you have many, including President Obama, claiming that we “lost our moral bearings” in these interrogations, rather than applauding our intelligence community for a job well done.

These people seem to think that our “harsh” interrogation methods that have been used (used in retaliation to a war declared on us, mind you) are somehow the moral equivalent to the deeds of the terrorists themselves.

I am sorry, but they are not and we are not sinking to the level of the terrorists by practicing such methods.

As military historian Victor Davis Hanson has said, when a country is at war (which we currently are) there is a level of barbarity that it needs to descend into in order to succeed. Our dissention into barbarity is marked by actions that can kill high numbers of people, treat prisoners cruelly and marginalize the rights of enemies. Those actions, when used to stop a greater amount of death and destruction, however, do not put us on the same moral plane as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad or The Taliban as they would do far worse if they possessed the resources and opportunities to do so.

Take the example given above.

Is waterboarding harsh? Unquestionably.

Is it cruel? Most definitely.

Is it torture? You could make a case for it, as Christopher Hitchens once did.

While waterboarding is all of those things… it was also very necessary in this situation, as it was responsible for saving an untold number of American lives.

The expectations and limitations that the Left wants to place on our intelligence community are completely unrealistic. They seem to have this ridiculous post-facto notion that if our intelligence officials aren’t perfect, then they’re not good. That is pretty shabby treatment for the people that keep us safe. It is also rather dangerous, as it places needless barriers in the way of these people gaining valuable information about our enemies and their intentions.

Listen, I wish we could gain information by merely sitting down and reasoning with these people, but that is impossible. These people, the terrorists we are currently at war with, are not a rational group of people, therefore, they do not respond to rational forms of interrogation. They are willing to die for a cause that has been started and led by a number of murderous madmen. What would lead anyone to believe that these terrorists would respond to standard interrogational techniques?

That leads me to another question, what is going to happen when we do have a prisoner that has vital information and simply won’t talk?

That’s a question that President Obama needs to figure out as, literally, thousands of American lives could be riding on his answer.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

One Surge Fits All?

As we have all been reading over the past few months, the situation in Afghanistan is slowly deteriorating. The Taliban is experiencing a resurgence, Al-Qaeda is still operating between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Karzai Government is becoming less effective, respected and influential.

Obviously, this is rather alarming and something has to be done…and fast.

But what needs to be done? It appears that everyone is under the assumption that all we need to do is execute a troop surge in Afghanistan. After all, it worked well in Iraq; so it should work in Afghanistan… right?

I am not so eager to grant that reasoning (the reasoning that seems to be the main argument for this action, by the way) as 100% sound.

Afghanistan and Iraq share very little similarities.

Simply from a geographic standpoint, Afghanistan is far larger than Iraq. Its extremely mountainous topography makes it much more difficult to patrol when compared to Iraq’s predominantly desert landscape. These mere geological differences make a troop surge far more difficult to accomplish and less likely to be effective.

The geographic issues are one problem; however, the countries’ other differences are even more daunting. The people, government, customs, culture, society, economy, infrastructure and history of Afghanistan are far different in innumerably different ways from those of Iraq and pose significantly more challenges than the geographic issues.

As one can see, one surge does not fit all.

Now, I am not suggesting that we pack up and head home.

That would be ludicrous.

What we need to do is not simply throw more troops at the Afghan problem; rather we need to develop a completely different strategy for Afghanistan. I am not talking about a strictly military strategy either.

We need to gain the trust of the Afghani people, so there needs to be cultural and economic portions of the plan, so the Afghans realize that we are the good guys and if they side with us, they will be safe.

It was this, a change in strategy enacted by General David Petraeus, that I believe was the main reason for the remarkable turnaround that Iraq is currently experiencing.

After all, the troop surge that happened in Iraq was, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively small influx of personal. In fact, we have had more troops in different times in Iraq than we did after the surge.

The troop surge, however, went hand-in-hand with a different strategy. The counter-terrorism approach (where we would run around, seeking out the bad guys, engage them, go home and repeat the next day) that we had in place from 2003 until the middle of 2007 ultimately failed.

What was successful and what did turn Iraq around was the strategy of connecting with the Iraqi people. Under General Petraeus, coalition troops went out and gained the trust of the Iraqis, showed them that they would be safe with our support and really learned what made these people tick.

It is this type of strategy, this outreach that will lead to an Afghanistan awakening.

Right now, people in Afghanistan are unwilling to help our troops or the Karzai government for fear of reprisal from the Taliban.

If we can change that, if we can go out to the population centers and convince them that they will be safe if they trust us, then the Taliban’s and Al-Qaeda’s support system will begin to be dismantled.

I deliberately say, “begin to be dismantled” in the previous statement for a major reason…Pakistan.

Right now, Pakistan is a major thorn in the side of anyone that wants to see the Taliban and Al-Qaeda eliminated. Due to Pakistan’s incredibly weak government in Islamabad and a complete lack of control of its northern and western borders, the Pakistani-Afghani border is a superhighway for terrorists flowing in and out of both countries.

Any time American or NATO forces turn up the heat on the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, they simply slip into Pakistan and return at a later date.

This needs to stop.

It is my opinion that the Bush Administration was too easy on the Pakistani government. After all, they have had over seven years to eliminate the terrorism problem in their country. In those seven years, they have received military support, billions and billions in economic and humanitarian aid and political support from us and in return, they have not upheld their side of the bargain.

We need to make it perfectly clear to the Zardari Government that we will have a terrorist-free Pakistan with them or without them. I think even they will understand that message.

We also need to continue the drone aircraft attacks, even if they go into Pakistan. They are an incredibly efficient way of eliminating the bad guys while not risking the life of a single American soldier.

To be clear, we cannot have a terror-free Afghanistan unless we have a terror-free Pakistan.

I know that I am painting a fairly bleak picture of Afghanistan and I will admit, I am slightly pessimistic about our chances of succeeding there, just ask the Soviets how difficult it is to tame Afghanistan.

I will say this however; I have tremendous faith in General Petraeus. I believe he is without a doubt the right man for this monumental job.

I am also hopeful that when the August Presidential elections come for the Afghani people, they elect a real leader, unlike the one they have now. With the rampant corruption that infests the Afghan Government, I am not going to hold my breath that a Nouri al-Maliki with step forward, but you never know.

Just remember it was only a mere 20 months ago that most politicians and commentators were calling Iraq a lost cause.

It’s funny what a little time and a new strategy can accomplish.

Let’s hope the previous statement can be applied to Afghanistan in the near future.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

The Iranian Problem

We are not at the point of no return…but it’s getting perilously close.

In a routine update released on Wednesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran has made 1,390 pounds of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride. This amount of uranium is enough to make one nuclear bomb.

Let me repeat that, Iran now has enough uranium to produce a nuclear bomb.

This is a frightening realization that the Iranian nuclear threat will be upon us far sooner than we feared.

This does not mean that they are ready to assemble a bomb, as two major steps that would precede such an event have yet to take place.

The first would be the eviction of IAEA inspectors. The processes of preparing uranium for a nuclear reactor that produces energy versus weaponry are vastly different and would be noticed by these inspectors rather quickly. The only fear with this, however, is that the Iranians have constructed secret nuclear facilities that are fully functional, something that is possible.

If they do not have these secret facilities, at least the expulsion of inspectors would alert the world to the nefarious activity in Iran. If world leaders possess enough will and fortitude to stand up to the Chinese and Russians (two staunch allies of Tehran) something could be done to stop the development of nuclear weapons. Forgive me if I’m a tad skeptical of that ever happening.

The second, and more difficult, step is the purification of the uranium to weapons-grade fuel. Once this fuel is enriched, it would have to be turned into a warhead design. This is step that Western intelligence agencies “doubt” that Iran has achieved.

They doubt that? That’s all we get, a doubt? We’re hanging our hopes of Iran not having the capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon in the near future on a doubt by intelligence agencies? Forgive me once again if I don’t exactly sleep soundly tonight.

So, what do we do about this?

Unfortunately, there aren’t many options.

I guess we can take the Iranians at their word and believe them when they say that the country with the third largest crude oil reserves in the world needs to develop nuclear technology for the sake of energy production.

I suppose we can also choose to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well.

One obvious, dynamic move would be President Bush ordering an aerial attack on all Iranian nuclear facilities. This attack would echo the action taken by Israel in September of 2007 as they attack a suspected nuclear facility in Syria. This attack halted Syria’s nuclear activities and failed to incite a war or even intensify attacks on the Israeli people.

This type of response seems fairly unlikely as President Bush is consumed by the current economic situation and seems unwilling to make any political waves in his last 60 days in office.

I do know one person that may be hoping that he does carry out such an attack. That person is Barrack Obama.

If nothing is done in the next two months to stop the Iranian nuclear program, Obama may be saddled with a problem that dwarfs the current economic problems facing the country.

If I’m Obama, this is what I do:

I approach President Bush in secret and ask him to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities to effectively shut down it’s program.

I suspect Bush would go for it for numerous reasons:

• He knows that they’re developing nuclear weapons and that puts us at risk and I firmly believe that this man (Bush) wants what’s best for America.
• He knows that if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon(s), he will be blamed for allowing it to happen, rightly or wrongly.
• If Iran does develop said nuclear weapons, it will shift the balance of power in the Middle East significantly to Iran and seriously jeopardize all of the progress that has been made in Iraq and, as we all know, a successful Iraq is Bush’s last hope for a solid legacy.
• His loyal base of supporters will support this action and think even better of him.
• This will serve as payback for the Iranian’s support of the insurgency in Iraq.

I would preface this request by telling President Bush that, in public, I will denounce this action as more of the same unilateral actions that led this country to the mistakes made in Iraq.

Now, you may wonder why I would suggest that Obama take this approach and not just attack Iran on his own. Well, it would certainly not sit well with his base of supporters and, after all, he has another election to win.

This approach would allow action to be taken on Iran without Obama having to suffer the consequences from his base. Additionally, this would actually help President Bush’s political standing as much of his base have become less and less enamored with his administration after the past four years.

I don’t think the worldwide political fallout would be that serious either. With the price of oil extremely low and the current economic downturn ensuring it will probably stay that way for some time, there would be little effect economically.

Iran’s staunchest allies (Russia and China) would have a relatively weak response to the attack as well. Both are dealing with serious, domestic economic issues that require political action and resources. Furthermore, Russia lacks the credibility to criticize this action after their invasion of Georgia in August.

Plus, how many countries, no matter what their “official” response would be, would not be ecstatic that the threat of a nuclear Iran is erased? I doubt there would be even one that wouldn’t welcome this development.

So let’s see here…

We eliminate an extraordinarily dangerous situation from developing in the most tumultuous region of the globe? Check.

It helps both the current and future president politically? Check.

There will be little, if any, international outcry? Check.

I think I may be on to something here people.

I know some may scoff at this approach, claiming it to be a simplistic view of a complicated situation and that’s fine. To them I say; what else should we do?

I will patiently wait for a response.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

The U.S.-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement

Perhaps the most important foreign policy event of 2008 happened over the weekend with surprisingly very little fanfare.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet approved, by a 21-7 vote, a status of forces agreement with the U.S, effectively giving a hard deadline as to when U.S. troops will finally leave Iraq.

While the agreement still needs to pass the Iraqi Parliament with a simple 51% majority, it appears that this is a done deal.

Now, I have been extremely leery of establishing a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq, however, I think this deal works our well for us, Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Not all of the details have been released, but here are the specifics we know:

• U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq's populated areas by June 2009.
• All U.S. forces will be gone by 2011.
• US soldiers will not be immune to Iraqi law if they commit crimes on Iraqi territory.
• Agrees to a 10-year mandate for the U.S. to guarantee the security of Iraq, in exchange for the right to use Iraqi land, waters and skies to base and train troops and store military equipment.
• Pledges that the U.S. will protect Iraq from any war, coup or revolution.
• Commissions the building of 50 U.S. military bases in Iraq.
• Establishes long-term, American supervision of the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and Defense.
• Gives the U.S. the right to arrest or persecute any Iraqi working against its interests, within Iraq.
• Grants the U.S. control of Iraqi airspace.
• Does not rule out delaying the troop pullout if conditions on the ground warrant their presence beyond 2011.

As you can see, while we won’t be “waging a war” in Iraq we will still hold a significant presence there.

I know many people in this country want us to be completely finished in Iraq, but I think this presence is extremely necessary. There are many in the Middle East (the Iranian government, the Syrian Government, Al-Qaeda and Hamas, just to name a few) that have a vested interest in seeing the democratic advances made by Iraq fail. Our extended presence gives the Iraqis a security blanket while they continue to advance their already dramatic democratic strides.

This is so critical, because if we want democracy to have a real chance of spreading throughout the Middle East, Iraq must succeed. If Iraq does succeed and leads to other democratically run governments in the region, perhaps then we can really begin to talk about putting an end to global terrorism.

As important as supporting Iraq, the agreement also gives us an even stronger foothold in the Middle East, allowing us to:

• Closely monitor the nuclear activities conducted by Iran.
• Prevent a rogue group like Hamas or Al-Qaeda from filling a power vacuum should the Maliki government collapse.
• Put Syria on notice that if they continue their terrorist activity, we’ll be right there to take them out.
• Show the Iranian people that if they want to overthrow their oppressive government (which there is a movement to do) that we’ll be there to support them.
• Illustrate to the rest of the world that we are serious about ending global terrorism and will stop at nothing to ensure our success.
• Help negate the Chinese and Russian influence in the region.
• Ensure a legitimate and safe round of elections next year.

Predictably, Iran is irate over this agreement (another example of why this agreement is so important and beneficial). Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani (the official head of the Iranian state) called on the Maliki government to think twice before committing Iraq to an agreement that Iraqis considered "a pact of humiliation".

Maliki politely declined, continuing to prove that he is no “pawn of Iran” as his critics claimed. As if this was even in question after he ordered routs -- by the Iraq army -- of Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City last spring.

Despite his critics inside and out of Iraq, Maliki is proving to be an effective leader that is not merely looking out for the interests of Sunnis, but rather Iraq as a whole. With the help of the U.S., he has managed to control the sectarian violence that was tearing the country apart for four years. Additionally, he brought together an incredibly divisive group of political leaders and convinced them to put their differences aside and work toward the greater good of Iraq.

With leaders like Maliki, diplomacy like the status of forces agreement and strong support from the U.S. government and military forces, Iraq appears to be headed for success…something that was literally unthinkable a mere 20 months ago.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John