By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

Next week President Obama is expected to announce his new Afghanistan strategy. Americans should look for answers to four questions when judging that plan. What’s at stake? What’s the desired end state? How will he accomplish the mission? How much will it cost?

Afghanistan will define Obama’s presidency which might explain the long, dysfunctional process he followed since his commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, warned: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term … risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

Almost three months have passed since McChrystal’s dire assessment and a combination of factors proved politically awkward for Obama — high American death counts, a corrupt Afghan election and a resurgent enemy. His assessment ends this week and next week he must answer questions.

What’s at stake? Presidential candidate Obama made Afghanistan “his war.” Weeks after assuming the presidency Obama announced a reinforcement of 21,000 troops and a new strategy: al Qaeda was the target and counterinsurgency operations for destroying it.

Last March, Obama argued that if the Taliban are left unchecked it “…will mean an even larger safe heaven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting, this is fundamental to the defense of our people.” Has the president’s understanding of the threat changed and, if so, how and why?

There is a hint of a shift in Obama’s thinking. In October, retired Gen. James Jones, Obama’s national security adviser, said there were “less than 100” al Qaeda members operating in Afghanistan without the “ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.” Apparently, Jones doesn’t “foresee the return of the Taliban” and that the “next step in this is the sanctuaries” in Pakistan. Is Obama preparing to quickly exit Afghanistan while increasing support for Pakistan? Is the threat diminished?

What’s the desired result for America? Last week, Obama outlined a possible Afghanistan endstate declaring he wants to create enough stability and build-up the Afghan security forces so they “…can do the job of keeping their country together.” This is a nuanced version of the March endstate. What does “keeping their country together” really mean for America’s security?

How will he accomplish the mission? Obama hired McChrystal because of his counterinsurgency expertise. That means he views the center of gravity as the Afghan people which was the basis for McChrystal’s dire assessment. Obama has to overcome the dire situation through a combination of improved security, development and good governance, similar to our Iraq surge strategy.

McChrystal’s security formula is known as “ink spot,” key population centers are secured and developed. The areas outside the selected population centers are protected via a counter-terrorism approach based on actionable intelligence. This approach buys the Afghan government time to win hearts and minds among the population while the U.S. and its allies build-up Afghan security forces.

The Afghans need far more and capable security forces — police and army — before they are ready to assume the mission. Army training, which is shepherded by America, is going well but police training and vetting by our allies has been shoddy. Only a quarter of police are trained. They frequently quit and often change sides. Their ranks must grow but only after serious problems like corruption are fixed.

The 96,000 strong Afghan National Army (ANA) is in better shape than the police. Retired Marine Corps Colonel Jeff Haynes, who addressed the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute, spent a year advising the ANA’s 201st Corps. He cautions against a rapid expansion of the ANA because that would undermine the fragile success that has been achieved to date. The primary problem is the ANA’s leadership deficit, says Haynes.

Haynes argues that counterinsurgency is “leader-centric” warfare. The ANA’s primary problem is weak leadership and a surge in growth will exacerbate that problem. He cautions that growing the ANA rapidly will result in poorly trained, less effective units that break and run on the battlefield or collaborate with the enemy. These soldiers will be more likely to engage in corruption and absences will increase.

Good governance and development go together but necessarily follow security. Corruption touches every aspect of Afghan life, fix that problem, add aid for development — jobs, education and infrastructure — fostered by expert oversight and good governance has an opportunity to grow.

The U.S. Army developed the Social Science Research and Analysis Program that provides insights into Afghan corruption. It found most Afghans lack confidence in their legal establishment’s ability or willingness to end corruption. They estimate that nearly 90 percent of those currently serving in government are using their posts to enrich themselves.

Obama is pressuring Afghan president Hamid Karzai to clamp down on corruption. Last week at his second inauguration, Karzai promised “The government of Afghanistan is committed to end the culture of impunity and violation of law and bring to justice those involved in spreading corruption and abuse of public property.”

But many Afghans doubt Karzai can curb corruption. He must clear his cabinet of ministers wrapped up in bribery and kickback schemes, and the problem allegedly includes his brother as well. Afghans perceive they are ruled by a thieving class which weakens support for government and bolsters sympathy for the insurgents.

Adjunct to our efforts in Afghanistan is a parallel effort in troubled Pakistan. That atomic-armed neighbor must wrestle itself free from insurgents and terrorists. Islamabad’s increased willingness to tackle its problems, secure the border territory and deny terrorists sanctuary is critical to stabilizing the region. Obama must address this issue.

Finally, how much will Obama’s new strategy cost?

McChrystal’s “ink spot” strategy requires more troops, perhaps 40,000 more than the 68,000 now in Afghanistan. The cost of adding an American soldier to the fight is at least $1 million or for 40,000, according to McChrystal, somewhere between $40 and $54 billion more annually. The high-cost-per-soldier is understandable when one considers that it cost as much as $400 a gallon to deliver fuel to our troops fighting in the mountains.

Then there is the cost in blood. The U.S. has lost 923 service members to combat in Afghanistan since 2001 and many thousands of others wounded. Increasing our footprint will increase the blood spilt and rob our military’s flexibility to respond to other crises.

In March, Obama pledged to send “agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers” across Afghanistan to relieve the development burden on our troops. That civilian surge never happened. But once our troops stabilize the region who will help Karzai’s government develop and bring good governance?

There’s also the matter of burden sharing. There are 42 allied countries in Afghanistan but only a few fight and two of those, Canada and the Netherlands, plan to pull their troops out in 2010 and 2011. Obama needs to explain the equitability of the effort to include combatants and aid money for development.

Time is a precious expendable resource. We are into our ninth year in Afghanistan and successful insurgencies last on average 14 years. Last week, Obama said “My preference would be not to hand off anything to the next president.” Does that mean Obama expects the war to last up to seven more years?

The world will watch when Obama announces his new Afghan strategy. His answers to the four critical questions will define his presidency and America’s security for years in the future.

By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

Kaiserslautern, Germany: Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Washington without a White House appointment, even though he had important issues to discuss with President Obama. But the president left the Israeli twisting in the wind waiting for an appointment until his conditions for granting the meeting were satisfied. Only then did they huddle after dark and without the press present. These circumstances illustrate a highly-strained relationship and Obama’s failed Middle East policy.

A White House statement on the Obama-Netanyahu meeting said they discussed “…Iran and how to move forward on Middle East peace.” Before leaving Washington, Netanyahu said the “…importance of the visit will become clear in the future.” He characterized their 100-minute talk as “warm” and “open” without mentioning his alleged “difficulties” with Obama.

Apparently, Netanyahu expects the secret details of the meeting to produce tangible results. But of the two crises discussed, the Iranian atomic stand-off is Netanyahu’s priority. The other issue, Middle East peace, is politically important for Obama because of his campaign to win support among Muslims, but Netanyahu knows it’s a dead issue in part because of a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Last week, Clinton was in the Mideast where she said an Israeli settlement freeze in the “West Bank” should not be a precondition for resumption of peace talks that broke down last December. That statement pleased Netanyahu, who opposes any freeze but angered many Arabs by appearing to reverse Obama’s commitment to a total freeze. It also put Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas in an untenable position because he refuses to resume talks “…without a full cessation of settlement construction.”

But the freeze dispute is only part of the Palestinian problem. The peace process is also in turmoil because Abbas called for elections in January even though the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, refuses to participate and threatened to punish any Palestinian who supports the elections. Now, Abbas says he won’t run for re-election and the State Department virtually admitted defeat when it said Obama’s special envoy for Mideast peace, George Mitchell, has no immediate plans to return to the region to continue his push for a resumption of peace talks.

Even though the peace process is dead, Obama insisted Netanyahu pretend otherwise. That’s why, according to the Wall Street Journal, Obama officials held Netanyahu’s meeting request hostage until the Israeli agreed to express “…a more robust and public commitment to the peace track” in his speech before the Jewish Federations of North America in Washington last Monday.

Predictably the prime minister caved to Obama’s arm twisting. Netanyahu described himself in his speech as “…a not-cynical supporter of the peace process,” called on Abbas to “…let us seize the moment to reach an historic agreement,” and praised Obama’s leadership on Iran.

The White House meeting likely began with a pro forma discussion of the failed peace process, but Netanyahu quickly turned Obama’s attention to Iran. He reviewed the latest Israeli intelligence regarding Tehran’s nuclear weapons program. Israel believes the rogue could have an atomic weapon within the year and it already has a ballistic missile ready for mating. His briefing possibly mentioned the International Atomic Energy Agency’s breaking news about Iran’s work with a state-of-the-art two-point atomic implosion warhead.

The prime minister likely solicited Obama’s help preparing for the inevitable blowback should a military strike become necessary. That’s why Netanyahu probably asked Obama to help wean Syria away from Iran in anticipation Damascus would support Iranian attacks against Israel. But weaning Syria from Iran is linked to Israeli-Syrian peace, which according to Syrian President Bashar Assad, is stalled by the U.S. “weak link” by which Assad means the lack of Obama’s leadership.

Syria is also important because it provides critical support to Iran’s terrorist proxy, Hizbullah, which occupies most of southern Lebanon along Israel’s northern border. In 2006, Hizbullah launched thousands of rockets against Israel and is now rearmed for the next round at Tehran’s command. Recently, Israel seized a ship near Cyprus that was carrying 500 tons of Iranian-made weapons for Hizbullah.

Obama and Netanyahu must have reviewed the president’s failing diplomacy. In May, Obama counseled patience promising Netanyahu the G8 economic leaders intended to impose a deadline for Iranian cooperation or Tehran would face severe sanctions.

In June, those leaders set a late Sept. deadline for Iran to quit enriching uranium and open its atomic facilities for inspection. Predictably, Iran waited until after the deadline to accept a meeting but ignored the G8’s other demands.

Then on Oct. 1 in Geneva, Switzerland, world economic powers met to produce a deal that promised to buy more time to diplomatically resolve the crisis. The proposal calls for Iran to surrender to Russia most of its low enriched uranium (LEU) for further enrichment and then France would convert the uranium into fuel rods that would be returned to Iran for use in a reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes.

That deal would deny Tehran access to its LEU for bomb making for at least a year. But as an Obama official said last week, “…[I]t’s evident [the Iranians] cannot bring themselves to do the deal” a view confirmed by Alaeddin Borujerdi, a leading Iranian legislator.

In spite of the deal’s failure Obama “…postponed the official announcement on Tehran’s refusal due to internal political reasons,” according to a senior western official quoted by Israel Radio. Rather, Obama aids expect an official announcement by year’s end and then the president will rally international support for severe sanctions like a gasoline embargo.

But Netanyahu understands the success of severe sanctions depends on Russia’s support, which is doubtful. Obama likely told Netanyahu about Western plans to entice Russia’s support by offering economic investments to help Moscow’s crippled economy. That offer likely took place over the weekend in a meeting between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Singapore, where the two attended the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

The bottom line for Obama is he needs Netanyahu’s continued patience because the American’s plate is overflowing with crises – Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, troubled economy and more. The president does not want to deal with Iranian blowback from an Israeli military strike until it’s absolutely necessary.

But Netanyahu likely argued with Obama that time has run out on Iran. Diplomacy failed. Sanctions even with Russian support are doomed and soon Israel’s military option will be more difficult if Russia fulfills its contractual obligation to supply Iran with the sophisticated S-300 air defense system.

At some point in their meeting, Obama reminded Netanyahu about Juniper Cobra, a recent U.S.-Israeli anti-missile exercise which took place in Israel and included thousands of U.S. troops and their sophisticated systems. Obama used the exercise to illustrate America’s continued commitment to Israel and perhaps he promised to join an eventual military strike once diplomacy and sanctions run their course. That might explain what Netanyahu meant by the “importance” of the meeting becoming “clear in the future.”

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

The Afghanistan commander warned his political master that “Our soldiers are not to blame. They’ve fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions… [But] without a lot more men, this war will continue for a very, very long time.”

This wasn’t an exchange between Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and President Obama at last Friday’s White House strategy meeting, but it could portend a future meeting. Rather, the speaker was Gen. Sergei Akhromeyev, the commander of the Soviet armed forces, testifying before the Soviet Union’s Politburo in 1986 to explain why 110,000 Russian soldiers were losing in Afghanistan.

Russian generals warned their politicians to abandon the Afghan mission from the start. Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, then-chief of the Soviet defense staff, warned in December 1979 that an Afghan invasion “…could mire us in unfamiliar, difficult conditions and would align the entire Islamic east against us.” But defense minister Dmitri Ustinov rejected the general’s advice. “Are the generals now making policy in the Soviet Union,” asked Ustinov. “Your job is to plan specific operations and carry them out …. Shut up and obey orders.” Russia abandoned Afghanistan in Feb. 1989 after losing 15,000 soldiers.

The circumstances of our war in Afghanistan may be different from those that led to Russia’s invasion but the political lesson is applicable. American political leaders shouldn’t expect their generals to just “Shut up and obey orders.”

President Obama needs his generals’ counsel as much as their obedience, but it appears he is ignoring that wisdom to dangerously swerve out of his lane and into the generals’ war fighting business. The president should set his sights on developing a much-needed global strategy rather than playing field general.

In June, Obama handpicked Gen. McChrystal, a counterinsurgency expert, as his new Afghanistan commander. The president gave McChrystal 60 days to assess the battlefield situation and to report back. More than three months after that report arrived in Washington, Obama is still dithering with the general’s assessment.

Obama has chaired seven meetings to review McCrystal’s assessment of the Afghanistan war. His review team once included non-partisan experts — intelligence officials, generals, and professional diplomats. But recently, Obama culled that team to a handful of senior appointees like White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s primary political adviser.

Last week, according to the Washington Post, Obama’s political-centric review team asked for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan to guide the decision on additional troops to send to the battle. This is a no confidence vote for McCrystal’s assessment and evidence, as a senior military official told the Post, of “…a 5,000-mile screwdriver tinkering from Washington.”

Apparently, the president politicized his review team because he smelled disaster and doesn’t want to be remembered for Afghanistan the way President Lyndon Johnson is for Vietnam. Obama’s war review team is now picking apart McCrystal’s proposal trying to create a minimalist strategy that cuts losses and gets us out of Afghanistan before the next presidential election no matter the consequences.

But this is dangerous political ground for Obama because his Afghan policy is growing unpopular and the public doesn’t like him second guessing the battlefield commander. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal (pdf) poll found that only 47 percent of Americans support sending more troops to Afghanistan yet 62 percent believe McCrystal’s view should trump Obama’s in deciding how many troops to send to battle.

Worse, Obama’s protracted and wrong lane strategy decision process comes with a cost. It makes him appear weak, indecisive and allies are beginning to wonder whether he has the vision and tenacity needed for the Afghan fight or, for that matter, any fight. This hurts America’s stand in the world and makes us less secure.

In March, Obama gave McChrystal the mission “…to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” The general analyzed that mission to conclude it requires a counterinsurgency “…that takes from the insurgent that what he cannot afford to lose — control of the population.” Therefore, McChrystal’s assessment sent to Obama identifies the center of gravity in Afghanistan as the population which is the basis for asking for more troops. He proposes to secure the urban centers — like Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kunduz, and Herat — and then win the Afghan population’s trust.

But McChrystal’s focus on population centers is contradicted by a Rand study commissioned by the Secretary of Defense in 2008. That study, “Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan,” concludes “The counterinsurgency in Afghanistan will be won or lost in the local communities of rural Afghanistan not in urban centers such as Kabul.” This suggests McChrystal’s focus on the population centers fails to go far enough and that perhaps he really needs to secure the entire country, which would require many times the 40,000 additional troops requested.

Obama has a clear choice. He can accept McChrystal’s strategy (realizing the average successful counterinsurgency lasts 14 years) and add troops even though it will be costly in blood and treasure. Alternatively, if the price is too high, Obama can withdraw our forces from Afghanistan. But he should not force McChrystal to embrace a politically inspired minimalist strategy — too few troops and a confused mission — because that would guarantee a repeat of the 1980s Russian debacle.

What America needs most from Obama is for him to articulate a long-overdue global strategy that addresses violent extremism. That strategy is critical to our fight in Afghanistan as well as other global hot spots.

Obama should take advice from retired Gen. Richard Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who outlined a three part global strategy roadmap to defeat violent extremism. Myers warns, “America’s security is at risk; it’s time to develop this strategy now.”

First, identify the adversary. Myers says “We are dealing with disparate groups of violent extremists united for convenience to advance their own agendas” and “Afghanistan is just one of the tactical fights in the larger global insurgency.” Myers explains the enemy’s ultimate goal “…is to limit America’s influence so that their extreme view of Islam can be the basis for governance – ideally, a global Caliphate [Islamic government].”

Second, Myers says the global strategy must involve all elements of power (military, political-diplomatic, economic and educational-informational). Until now military power has been dominant in our global struggle with Islamic extremists. But to be successful that must change because military action alone “…may poison the dialogue within the Muslim world.” Only the president can get the entire government engaged in the global fight.

Finally, America can’t fight alone. We have differences with our allies regarding the way we see the problem. We need a “common definition of the adversary” if we “…are to lead the international community in a strategy for making our world safer.” We need a strategy that recruits more allies to the common cause.

President Obama should spend his time advancing a global strategy against Islamic extremists and give Gen. McChrystal what he needs to do the Afghan mission or withdraw our forces and accept the consequences. But stop the political dithering with our security.

By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

The Afghanistan commander warned his political master that “Our soldiers are not to blame. They’ve fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions… [But] without a lot more men, this war will continue for a very, very long time.”

This wasn’t an exchange between Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and President Obama at last Friday’s White House strategy meeting, but it could portend a future meeting. Rather, the speaker was Gen. Sergei Akhromeyev, the commander of the Soviet armed forces, testifying before the Soviet Union’s Politburo in 1986 to explain why 110,000 Russian soldiers were losing in Afghanistan.

Russian generals warned their politicians to abandon the Afghan mission from the start. Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, then-chief of the Soviet defense staff, warned in December 1979 that an Afghan invasion “…could mire us in unfamiliar, difficult conditions and would align the entire Islamic east against us.” But defense minister Dmitri Ustinov rejected the general’s advice. “Are the generals now making policy in the Soviet Union,” asked Ustinov. “Your job is to plan specific operations and carry them out …. Shut up and obey orders.” Russia abandoned Afghanistan in Feb. 1989 after losing 15,000 soldiers.

The circumstances of our war in Afghanistan may be different from those that led to Russia’s invasion but the political lesson is applicable. American political leaders shouldn’t expect their generals to just “Shut up and obey orders.”

President Obama needs his generals’ counsel as much as their obedience, but it appears he is ignoring that wisdom to dangerously swerve out of his lane and into the generals’ war fighting business. The president should set his sights on developing a much-needed global strategy rather than playing field general.

In June, Obama handpicked Gen. McChrystal, a counterinsurgency expert, as his new Afghanistan commander. The president gave McChrystal 60 days to assess the battlefield situation and to report back. More than three months after that report arrived in Washington, Obama is still dithering with the general’s assessment.

Obama has chaired seven meetings to review McChrystal’s assessment of the Afghanistan war. His review team once included non-partisan experts — intelligence officials, generals, and professional diplomats. But recently, Obama culled that team to a handful of senior appointees like White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s primary political adviser.

Last week, according to the Washington Post, Obama’s political-centric review team asked for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan to guide the decision on additional troops to send to the battle. This is a no confidence vote for McChrystal’s assessment and evidence, as a senior military official told the Post, of “…a 5,000-mile screwdriver tinkering from Washington.”

Apparently, the president politicized his review team because he smelled disaster and doesn’t want to be remembered for Afghanistan the way President Lyndon Johnson is for Vietnam. Obama’s war review team is now picking apart McChrystal’s proposal trying to create a minimalist strategy that cuts losses and gets us out of Afghanistan before the next presidential election no matter the consequences.

But this is dangerous political ground for Obama because his Afghan policy is growing unpopular and the public doesn’t like him second guessing the battlefield commander. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal (pdf) poll found that only 47 percent of Americans support sending more troops to Afghanistan yet 62 percent believe McChrystal’s view should trump Obama’s in deciding how many troops to send to battle.

Worse, Obama’s protracted and wrong lane strategy decision process comes with a cost. It makes him appear weak, indecisive and allies are beginning to wonder whether he has the vision and tenacity needed for the Afghan fight or, for that matter, any fight. This hurts America’s stand in the world and makes us less secure.

In March, Obama gave McChrystal the mission “…to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” The general analyzed that mission to conclude it requires a counterinsurgency “…that takes from the insurgent that what he cannot afford to lose — control of the population.” Therefore, McChrystal’s assessment sent to Obama identifies the center of gravity in Afghanistan as the population which is the basis for asking for more troops. He proposes to secure the urban centers — like Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kunduz, and Herat — and then win the Afghan population’s trust.

But McChrystal’s focus on population centers is contradicted by a Rand study commissioned by the Secretary of Defense in 2008. That study, “Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan,” concludes “The counterinsurgency in Afghanistan will be won or lost in the local communities of rural Afghanistan not in urban centers such as Kabul.” This suggests McChrystal’s focus on the population centers fails to go far enough and that perhaps he really needs to secure the entire country, which would require many times the 40,000 additional troops requested.

Obama has a clear choice. He can accept McChrystal’s strategy (realizing the average successful counterinsurgency lasts 14 years) and add troops even though it will be costly in blood and treasure. Alternatively, if the price is too high, Obama can withdraw our forces from Afghanistan. But he should not force McChrystal to embrace a politically inspired minimalist strategy — too few troops and a confused mission — because that would guarantee a repeat of the 1980s Russian debacle.

What America needs most from Obama is for him to articulate a long-overdue global strategy that addresses violent extremism. That strategy is critical to our fight in Afghanistan as well as other global hot spots.

Obama should take advice from retired Gen. Richard Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who outlined a three part global strategy road map to defeat violent extremism. Myers warns, “America’s security is at risk; it’s time to develop this strategy now.”

First, identify the adversary. Myers says “We are dealing with disparate groups of violent extremists united for convenience to advance their own agendas” and “Afghanistan is just one of the tactical fights in the larger global insurgency.” Myers explains the enemy’s ultimate goal “…is to limit America’s influence so that their extreme view of Islam can be the basis for governance – ideally, a global Caliphate [Islamic government].”

Second, Myers says the global strategy must involve all elements of power (military, political-diplomatic, economic and educational-informational). Until now military power has been dominant in our global struggle with Islamic extremists. But to be successful that must change because military action alone “…may poison the dialogue within the Muslim world.” Only the president can get the entire government engaged in the global fight.

Finally, America can’t fight alone. We have differences with our allies regarding the way we see the problem. We need a “common definition of the adversary” if we “…are to lead the international community in a strategy for making our world safer.” We need a strategy that recruits more allies to the common cause.

President Obama should spend his time advancing a global strategy against Islamic extremists and give Gen. McChrystal what he needs to do the Afghan mission or withdraw our forces and accept the consequences. But stop the political dithering with our security.

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

Defense Secretary Robert Gates challenged North Korea to “chart a new course” and warned the communist regime it would be held “fully accountable” for the consequences of transferring nuclear weapons or material to “states or non-state entities.” That statement explains why a Bush administration anti-proliferation initiative needs new life including broader levels of international cooperation, intelligence sharing and a willingness to take direct action.

In 2003, President Bush launched the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to target the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). PSI encourages participating countries to use their national laws to interdict ships and planes to stop WMD trade.

But PSI needs an overhaul to keep up with the spread of WMD-related weapons and materials.

On May 26, Seoul reacted to Pyongyang’s recent nuclear test by announcing its decision to join PSI. North Korea predictably lashed out at South Korea after the announcement warning that it would no longer be bound by the 1953 Armistice Agreement and that “…any hostile act against our peaceful vessels, including search and seizure, will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty” and would provoke a military response.

PSI threatens Pyongyang’s primary source of hard currency — the sales of missiles which generates $1.5 billion annually. The communist regime is the leading supplier of Scud missiles and long-range missile technology to the Mideast, South Asia and Northern Africa according to the Central Intelligence Agency. Now, in the wake of Pyongyang’s second atomic test, the U.S. is concerned the regime will try to sell its atomic wares.

“This is a pretty serious moment,” said retired Marine Gen. James Jones, Obama’s national security advisor. “The imminent threat is the proliferation of [nuclear] technology to other countries and potentially to terrorist organizations and non-state actors.” But Pyongyang has already been caught repeatedly transferring atomic technology.

A North Korean-owned company, Nomchongang Trading Company, reportedly constructed an atomic reactor in Syria. Dennis Wilder, a former Bush administration adviser, said Nomchongang “… was the arm of the North Korean government dealing with nuclear issues” in Syria.

In 2007, Israeli fighters destroyed that facility which U.S. intelligence officials described as a plutonium reactor built by North Koreans. The UN’s atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported that soil samples taken at the site showed traces of processed uranium.

Pyongyang’s atomic activities extend beyond Syria. North Korea works closely with Iranian and Pakistani atomic experts and one press report states the communists bartered missiles for uranium enrichment technology from Pakistan. Recently, U.S. and Asian officials said North Korea was “…detected selling equipment to Myanmar that could be used for a nuclear program.”

There are numerous WMD proliferators besides North Korea. Iran ships missiles to its terror proxies Hizballah and Hamas and may have shared WMD technologies with Venezuela.

In the 1980s, Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan’s leading atomic scientist, set up a black market network that sold nuclear know-how and equipment to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Now that country is expanding its nuclear program and there is a concern Pakistani scientists or military officers will attempt to sell their newest atomic technology.

Russia helped Iran complete and fuel the Bushehr atomic reactor. That project provided Tehran nuclear know-how that assists the regime’s weapons program. Moscow has also spread missile technologies to China, India, Iran and other countries.

China provided missile and other technology to North Korea and Pakistan. Chinese atomic weapons plans were among the nuclear packages Pakistan sold to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

“Ours remains a world at risk and our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” states the 2008 Congressional Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. The commission believes that unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is likely that a WMD will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.” That’s why PSI “the world community” must act decisively to stop WMD proliferation.

Currently, 95 countries on six continents are PSI participants. The program started because traditional nonproliferation measures such as diplomacy, arms control and threat reduction programs weren’t stopping states like North Korea.

John Bolton, former U.S. under-secretary of state for arms control, proposed PSI to close anti-proliferation gaps. The incident that spawned the program was the discovery of 15 Scud missiles hidden under cement on board a North Korean freighter. That shipment was released because U.S. and Spanish authorities which cooperated in the intercept lacked legal authority to seize the ship.

PSI quickly earned success. The U.S. intercepted aluminum tubes and French and German efforts intercepted sodium cyanide all bound for North Korea weapons programs. A North Korean cargo vessel, Be Gashing, was detained in Taiwan and chemicals for rocket fuel were confiscated.

The best know PSI success was the seizure of atomic centrifuge components aboard the German-owned BBC China destined for Libya in 2003. Allegedly, that operation convinced Libyan president Moammar Gaddafi to renounce his WMD programs and welcome international inspectors to Tripoli to dismantle that country’s WMD programs and long-range missiles.

Secretary Bolton said PSI’s long-term objective is to “… create a web of counter proliferation partnerships through which proliferators will have difficulty carrying out their trade in WMD.” To achieve this goal PSI partners should take the advice of the 9/11 Commission “to strengthen and expand” by doing the following.

First, PSI states should review national legal authorities for action and approve WMD seizure authority. Their review must provide for agreements in advance that consent to boarding, searching and seizing cargo of its own flag vessels by other PSI states.

Second, PSI authority must extend to facilities and government transportation. Domestic laws should govern seizure of suspect cargo at ports and airfields but government vehicles are a special challenge.

Right now government vehicles (ships, planes, trucks) cannot be legally interdicted which is a problem when dealing with countries like North Korea. In 2002, according to the New York Times, a Pakistani C-130 was reportedly used to ship missiles to North Korea but PSI rules would prohibit interception today.

Third, PSI needs to improve its ability to track and seize dual-use exports. PSI states must create the authority to legally seize this cargo when there is suspicion it will be used for WMD. This will require intelligence sharing which is a high hurdle especially among non-NATO allies.

Fourth, PSI efforts must properly resource efforts to target shipments to and from rogue states and terrorists. Tracking shipments is a complex and resource intensive challenge especially terrorist acquisitions because they depend on actionable intelligence spanning many national jurisdictions.

Finally, every PSI mission requires a risk assessment and national determination. Do we seize a North Korean ship confirmed by imagery to be loaded with WMD even though the communist regime threatens war? Just how far are the PSI states willing to go to stop the transfer of WMD? The answer to such questions will ultimately determine whether PSI succeeds in the dangerous cauldron of global proliferation.

Former U.S. Sen. Jim Talent, vice chairman for the WMD Commission, warned “… the risk is growing, not because we’re making no progress but because the enemy is adapting and we must constantly anticipate and adapt as well.” That’s why PSI must hold proliferators “fully accountable” by adjusting authorities and procedures, sharing intelligence and taking necessary risks to stop, search and seize ships and aircraft suspected of carrying WMD-related weapons and materials.

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

Iran’s full-speed-ahead atomic weapons program appears focused on creating a capability that minimizes the risk of retaliation by destroying America’s or Israel’s electrical infrastructure without killing its people. This makes an American and/or Israeli preemptive strike necessary and exposes President Obama’s current strategy as dangerously naïve.

All Tehran needs is a single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude to shut down any country. That explosion will interact with the Earth’s atmosphere to produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which will have a cascading effect – knocking out electrical power, frying circuit boards, and disrupting telecommunications. Most non-hardened military systems will be inoperable.

Even though the Obama administration understands the seriousness of Iran’s emerging EMP threat, it seems to be flailing about for an answer.

Last week, the New York Times reported Obama sent a letter to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev offering to abandon our planned missile defense system in Europe if Moscow is willing to help combat the threat of a nuclear Iran. The White House denies the letter offered a quid pro quo, but if it did, the approach rests on a questionable assumption that Russia shares our goals, which – given the Russian roles in building Iran’s nuclear plants and selling Iran missile systems to protect them – is a leap of faith, not grounded in reality.

Obama advisers also recommend incentives and talks with Iran and sanctions against it to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. Last week, Obama advisor Zbigniew Brezinski, who was President Carter’s National Security Advisor, recommended a strategy of direct talks with Iran. Dennis Ross, Obama’s Iran policy coordinator, favors sanctions such as cutting off refined petroleum products to pressure the regime. But those sanctions require the wholehearted cooperation of European nations unlikely to help.

These efforts evidence the administration’s hope the Iranians are rational actors who will count the costs of pursuing atomic weapons and change course rather than radical theologians as they have been labeled by many in the West. But time is running out while Obama’s team hopes in the Russians and looks for “rational” mullahs.

“Iran is moving full steam ahead, not only with uranium enrichment but missile development as well,” said Emily Landau, a director at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies. “It’s going to reach its goal — whether nuclear weapons or remaining one step short of them — very soon,” Landau said.

Last month, the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) disclosed Iran had produced sufficient low-enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for at least a single bomb. U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen agrees with that assessment and said “Iran having a nuclear weapon … is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world.”

The UN emphasized that to produce highly enriched uranium for a bomb the Iranians would have to reconfigure its Natanz enrichment plant which would be visible and take months. But certainly the IAEA remembers Iran has mastered the art of concealment as demonstrated by keeping its atomic program secret for decades until it was exposed in 2002.

Some experts believe Iran is already close to weaponization. Prof. Raymond Tanter, president of the Washington-based Iran Policy Committee, said Tehran has smuggled enriched uranium for further refinement from Natanz to Lavizan-2, a secret military facility near Tehran. That site, which is not open to UN inspection, is buried deep in tunnels and operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

America’s intelligence community confirms the Iranians also have bomb making “know how” and critical materials. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessed “… with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons.”

In the 1980s, Tehran bought a package of nuclear technologies and materials from Pakistan’s nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan. Those materials include directions for casting uranium metal and for working with polonium and beryllium, metals primarily used for making nuclear bomb components. The IAEA has discovered Iranian scientists working with these metals.

Simultaneously, Iran is developing a missile to deliver an EMP atomic weapon. Last May, the IAEA reported Iran was working on a new missile warhead, known as Project 111, for its long-range Shabab-3 ballistic missile. The IAEA claims Iran has redesigned the current “Shabab-3 missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a nuclear warhead.” The Shabab-3 has a range of 1,250 miles and can carry a one-ton payload.

William Graham, President Reagan’s top science adviser and the chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the U.S. from EMP, testified in July 2008 that Tehran has also conducted successful tests to demonstrate that the Shabab-3 could be detonated by remote control at high altitude – that makes it an EMP capable system.

Tehran isn’t limited to the Shabab-3 for an EMP platform, however. Peter Pry, a senior staffer with the EMP commission, testified that Iran has successfully test-fired Scud missiles from a barge in the Caspian Sea which provides Tehran with the capability to target many countries with a short-range EMP capability by launching from a freighter.

Finally, Iranian media has addressed the EMP as a weapon. A 2001 article in Siyasat-e Sefa-I (The Journal of Defense Policy) includes EMP as a part of “terrorist information warfare” and an article published in Iran’s security journal Nashriyeh-e Siasi Nezami in 1999 identified an EMP attack as a way to defeat the U.S.

So what should be done? Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argues Iran is “…not close to a weapon at this point.” Likely, that puts the brakes on any preemptive American military strike. But how certain is the secretary?

Two years ago the NIE stated “We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.” But Leon Panetta, the new Central Intelligence Agency director, believes Tehran has an active weapons program. “I think there is no question that they [Iran] are seeking that [nuclear weapon] capability,” Panetta testified.

Israeli leaders have been warning for years that Iran is dangerously close to crossing the nuclear weapon threshold and Tehran’s consistent incendiary rhetoric – “wipe Israel off the map” – has raised the level of alarm in Jerusalem and Washington.

It appears the Israelis and prime minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu have already figured out that Iran has crossed the nuclear red line and attack plans are being rehearsed.

Jerusalem has the means to destroy a lot of Iranian real estate. It has a fleet of sophisticated fighters and refueling aircraft which have practiced strikes on mock Iranian nuclear facilities using a variety of bunker buster munitions. Three Israeli Dolphin submarines are equipped with 930-mile capable Popeye sea launched cruise missiles and fighter mounted Popeye turbo cruise missiles provide plenty of stand-off capability. As a last resort, Israel has more than 50 nuclear-capable Jericho-II ballistic missiles that can range all of Iran.

Any Israeli or American preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear sites will draw an ugly response. Tehran will try to close the Straits of Hormuz through which 40 percent of the world’s crude oil must pass. It will launch ballistic missiles at Israeli and American targets and it will unleash Hizballah and Hamas, its terrorist proxies, to attack Israeli and American targets in the region and across the globe.

Tehran’s response to being attacked is a predictable consequence of denying the mad mullahs nuclear weapons. The alternative to striking Iran is a Middle East intimidated by an atomic-armed Persian hegemon which will result in a regional arms race or worse.

The facts are frightening enough, but, based on a track record of intelligence failures, it is what we don’t know that is terrifying. Israel and America have been threatened over and over and Iranian actions show that it is not idle rhetoric. It is time to trust that they mean what they say and time to act rather than react after some tragedy. Dispatch the diplomats to deliver the deadline notice and back it up with military action.

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

Syria is building a new chemical weapons factory next to a long-range missile base, hiding evidence of its mushrooming nuclear weapons program and radically increasing military spending on conventional systems. These activities which are primarily funded by Iran suggest Damascus is preparing for war and not — in President Obama’s unhappy terminology — unclenching its fist.

President Obama promised “If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” Why then has the president “extended” his hand when Damascus is obviously on the war path?

Last month, Obama sent a congressional delegation headed by Senator John Kerry (D-Ma) to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad. After that meeting Kerry said there are possibilities for “real cooperation” with Syria but in return Syria must “change its behavior.” Then last week Obama’s State Department hosted talks with Syria’s ambassador hoping to “advance U.S. interests” but immediately President Obama authorized the Commerce Department to approve the export of U.S. components for Syria’s fleet of aging Boeing 747 aircraft.

The export of components for Syria’s aircraft marks a departure from nearly five years of sanctions under the Syrian Accountability Act. Reportedly Syria has used its passenger jets to ferry weapons from Iran to Tehran’s terrorist proxy group Hizballah in Lebanon.

There isn’t a shred of evidence that Syria is about to unclench its fist as Obama wishes. In fact Damascus has become an Iranian pawn, part of the Persian hegemon’s growing empire which has put the entire region in danger.

Syria’s relationship with Iran is widely understood. Last fall, Ali Ibramhim, an Egyptian Member of Parliament and editor of the Egyptian daily Al-Gomhouriyya, labeled Syria “a vassal of Iran.” Even important Syrians admit Tehran’s influence over Damascus. In Dec. 2008, former Syrian vice president Abd al-Halim Khaddam admitted, “Iran has a significant presence in Syria. Iran is involved in the very heart of the regime — in its security agencies, in its military forces, in its economic [institutions], and in its mosques.”

Iran has taken great pains to establish this special relationship with Syria. A July 2007 article in London’s daily Al-Sharq Al-Swsat outlined a previously secret Iran-Syria agreement that establishes their quid pro quo relationship and explains Damascus’ current militarization binge.

That report states Tehran and Damascus sealed a secret strategic cooperation deal allowing Iran considerable sway in Syria including the right to deploy weapons like long-range missiles and using that country to resupply Hizballah.

Hizballah, one of the world’s most dangerous terrorist organizations, aims to destroy Israel, is a dominant force in Lebanon, and is among Iran’s terrorist surrogates fighting in Iraq.

Syria receives significant military aid in exchange for allowing Tehran free rein. Damascus was promised money to purchase weapons and Iran would build in Syria factories to produce missiles and launchers. Damascus was to receive armored vehicles and Iranian-made antiship missiles and it was promised technological aid relating to nuclear research and chemical weapons.

There is significant evidence Tehran has delivered on all these promises.

Syria has been on a conventional weapons buying binge to equip its 380,000 man army. In the past three years, Syria spent more than $3 billion on weapons, which is 10 percent of its annual budget for each year. By comparison Damascus spent only $100 million for weapons as recently as 2002.

Most of the arms money appears to have come from Tehran. Last March, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Syria received $1 billion from Iran to buy missiles, rockets and anti-aircraft systems. Two months later a Syrian delegation visited Moscow seeking a variety of new weapons. It sought sophisticated long-range S-300 surface-to-air missiles that could defeat Israeli fighters, MiG 29 fighter jets, Iskander surface-to-surface missiles and Amur-1650 submarines from Russia.

Since 2007, Syria has added significant capability to its ballistic missile fleet. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, Syria has a massive missile production facility at al-Hamma known as “missile city” which houses hundreds of ballistic missiles and their launchers, as well as “… 30 reinforced underground concrete bunkers, production facilities, development laboratories, and command posts.” The report indicates chemical agent warheads for the missiles are stored separately outside the missile complex.

Syria has expanded its weapons of mass destruction program since signing the Iranian agreement. The February 2009 edition of Jane’s Intelligence Review (JIR) reported Syria has stepped up production of chemical weapons at its al Safir facility. The report states Syria shows “significant levels of construction” including sophisticated filtration systems and cooling towers adjacent to a missile base with long-range Scud-D ballistic missiles, which can reach all of Israel.

A July 2007 accident demonstrates Syria’s chemical weaponization efforts and Iran’s complicity. Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that 15 military personnel and “dozens” of Iranian advisers died when the fuel for a missile caught fire and the weapon exploded. The report said the explosion sent out a cloud of nerve gases, including deadly VX and sarin agents as well as mustard gas.

Syria also has a nuclear program. Last Tuesday, Syria announced that it converted a suspected nuclear site bombed by Israel in September 2007 to a military installation for firing missiles. Converting the al Kibar site to a military facility means it won’t be open to inspection and therefore cripples the United Nation’s ongoing investigation.

Initially, Syria refused the UN access to al Kibar after Israel’s attack claiming it had “nothing to hide.” But once the site was bulldozed and new construction started it allowed an inspection visit in June 2008.

That inspection was to determine whether there was nuclear development there as Israel has alleged. A November 2008 UN report states samples taken from the site included 80 uranium particles used in nuclear fuel, high-grade graphite, used to control the speed of fission in some reactors and barium sulfate, a nuclear shielding material.

Last April, senior U.S. intelligence officials testified al Kibar harbored “… a nuclear reactor … constructed by the Syrians … for the production of plutonium with the assistance of the North Koreans.” Officials indicated that once finished the reactor would have been able to produce plutonium for atomic weapons.

It’s noteworthy that DEBKAfile, an Israeli open source military intelligence website, alleges Tehran “funded the North Korean reactor in Syria.” The Iran-Syria plan in the event of a war with Israel, according to DEBKAfile, was to use al Kibar to produce “dirty weapons” material to be distributed to the terrorist organizations fighting Israel, while “Iran would go for a nuclear bomb.”

Israel knows Syria is rapidly militarizing and recognizes that their win now, lose later calculus is running on borrowed time. They also see that Obama is quickly removing America from their calculus in favor of their enemies. With Binyamin Netanyahu now at the helm in Jerusalem we seem to be driving Israel closer to attacking Iran and/or Syria unilaterally.

There is no evidence Syria has unclenched its fist. Rather, Damascus is firmly in the clenched grip of Tehran and its hegemonic agenda. President Obama should retract his extended hand and join hands with democratic Israel to stop the Persians and their Syrian proxy.

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

Israel’s Operation Cast Lead aims to stop Hamas from launching rockets from the Gaza strip at the Jewish nation’s soft underbelly and prevent the terror group from obtaining more powerful rockets from its Iranian sponsor. But the hidden agenda in this crisis is Tehran’s manipulation of its terror proxies to prevent Israel from attacking Iran’s atomic weapons program.

Iran is arming Hamas and terror proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon with long-range rockets that eventually will threaten Israel’s major cities and the Jewish nation’s nuclear facilities at Dimona. That situation could create a “Mexican stand-off” between Tehran and Jerusalem. That is an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would cause Tehran to unleash its proxies to attack Israel’s key cities and Dimona.

Israeli leaders have said they will not tolerate an atomic Tehran. But that milestone is now within Iran’s reach and likely Israel is preparing to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. That forces Tehran to advance its “stand-off” strategy by demonstrating that its proxies present a credible threat. That brings us to the current crisis.

On December 19, Hamas, an acronym which — from the Arabic — translates as the Islamic Resistance Movement, started the latest round of fighting by raining rockets on Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip. The rocket offensive came after a six-month Egyptian-brokered truce which the terror group used to restock its arsenal and strengthen its militia forces.

Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups have launched thousands of crude rockets into Israel since 2001 but the rockets fired by Hamas in the current fighting have flown farther and been more accurate than weapons used by the group in the past. Some have flown two dozen miles, destroying buildings in the southern Israeli cities of Ashdod and Beersheba.

Jerusalem fears that should Hamas obtain rockets with even longer ranges and better guidance systems then Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Israel’s nuclear installation at Dimona, 20 miles east of Beersheba, would become targets.

The possibility that Hamas missiles might strike Israel’s nuclear reactor is frightening. A direct hit at Dimona could create a disaster at least as horrible as the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident which released four hundred times more fallout than did the bombing of Hiroshima.

Therefore, the longer-range rocket attacks and the prospect that more dangerous rockets are in reserve inside Gaza provided Jerusalem with the necessity of pretext to launching its massive assault. The public objective is to stop Hamas’ rockets but Israel will also seek to find any longer-range rockets that Hamas could use to support Tehran’s emerging strategy.

Before 2008, Hamas only had militarily ineffective short range Kassam rockets which are crudely made of iron or steel piping and armed with a volatile explosive mixture used as the small warhead. Then Hamas began smuggling longer-range rockets into Gaza.

The rockets that hit Beersheba were smuggled into Gaza after the Sinai border wall was blown up by Hamas last January. The Shin Bet (Israeli security agency) determined that they were transported through Sudan to the Sinai Peninsula via Bedouins and then through tunnels under Egypt’s border into Gaza.

Just how many rockets by type were smuggled into Gaza is not clear. But the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reports Hamas smuggled at least 80 tons of explosives — including rockets – into Gaza since the group took control of the area in June 2007.

Tehran’s strategy of building-up Hamas’ military machine is well known. “Iran is … very much involved in supporting the buildup of the Hamas … whether it’s in training … in funding … [or] supplying them with munitions,” Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said.

In 2002, Israel seized a Palestinian-captained ship bound for Gaza, the Karine A, carrying 50 tons of Iranian missiles, mortars, rifles and ammunition. Four years later, Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, accused Iran of being behind Hamas’ violent takeover of Gaza. Recently, Hamas fighters were schooled at Iranian camps run by the Quds (Jerusalem) Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

American and Israeli officials implicate Iran’s proxy Hezbollah for aiding Hamas as well. The Gaza terror group has acquired sophisticated bomb-making skills from Hezbollah and STRATFOR, an American intelligence think tank, just reported that 150 Hezbollah military advisers and fighters are in Gaza City preparing to lead Hamas units against Israeli ground forces.

Tehran’s proxy strategy includes a role for Hezbollah. It’s noteworthy that on January 3rd Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah hosted a demonstration in Beirut, Lebanon, against Israeli action in Gaza. His war-like words have prompted Israel to keep its eye to the north as it fights in the south. Since its 2006 war with Israel, Hezbollah has restocked its arsenal with longer-range rockets and expanded its fortifications. Like Hamas, Hezbollah can quickly fill Israel’s skies with rockets.

The threat of another war with Hezbollah and the need to deal with Iran’s atomic weapons program necessitates quick action in Gaza. Israel must not become embroiled in bloody house-to-house fighting but soon leave Gaza in the hands of an international monitoring force to verify compliance with what must be a tough cease-fire agreement. Unfortunately, Israel’s experience with the international monitoring force left in Lebanon after the 2006 war has been unsatisfactory. Those forces sat back and allowed Hezbollah to rearm.

That’s why Israel must race to field its counter-rocket, artillery and mortar (C-RAM) systems now in development to defeat future Hamas and Hezbollah rockets. These systems could become operational in the next five years and will be part of a layered network intended to protect Israel from short range Kassams up to long-range Iranian Shahab intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Israel must never stop trying to resolve its differences diplomatically. But when diplomacy fails, it has every right to defend itself and must be prepared to use military force as it is in Gaza today.

But the threat Israel faces today is far more complex than a few rockets launched by Hamas. It faces a coordinated strategy that employs Iranian proxies armed with rockets meant to intimidate Israel from attacking Iran’s atomic facilities. Should that plan work and Israel stands down its efforts to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the world will see an atomic Tehran which will reshape the Middle East and threaten global security.

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

The Bush administration has won a United Nations’ resolution that permits the pursuit of pirates inside Somalia. That document could provide the pretext for another disastrous slippery slope nation-building mission and the first geopolitical crisis for President-elect Obama. America should remain off shore and let those with stakes in Somalia wrestle the problem.

Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice persuaded the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution authorizing international operations against pirates inside Somalia. Resolution 1851 authorizes for one year countries already involved in fighting piracy off Somalia to “take all necessary measures that are appropriate in Somalia” to suppress “acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea.” Rice would not speculate on whether American troops might go ashore to join a UN force in that failed country.

Over the past two months thirty vessels have been attacked by Somali pirates and 17 major ships are now in their possession, including an arms-laden Ukrainian cargo vessel and a Saudi supertanker carrying two million barrels of crude oil. The pirates have collected at least $30 million in ransom payments this year which was split among the pirates, the federal and regional government bosses and the Islamic militia.

Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary general, said “This lawlessness constitutes a serious threat to regional stability and to international peace and security.” Rice echoed that sentiment to warn “…if chaos reigns in Somalia” we may have “…to turn at some point to peacemaking.” Currently, the UN has 12 peacemaking missions on the African continent.

Rice’s view should worry the Obama camp especially if President Bush commits troops to the UN operation. A new UN mission to Somalia could end up following the precedent established by President George H. W. Bush. The elder Bush sent a humanitarian force authorized by UN resolution 794 to Somalia in December 1992, Operation Restore Hope, which ended ten months later in the tragedy known as “Black Hawk Down.”

Conditions in Somalia at the time weren’t that different from today. There was widespread fighting and 300,000 died of starvation in 1991-92. Vast amounts of food relief shipments were hijacked and exchanged with other countries for weapons. Once the UN arrived its mission quickly morphed into protecting humanitarian activities and then into peace enforcement. By summer there were 37,000 UN troops on the ground and “peace enforcers” were fighting rebels.

The mission climaxed on October 3-4, 1993 when U.S. forces were pitted against Somali militia fighters loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The Americans were out-gunned inside the capitol of Mogadishu until a multinational rescue operation evacuated them but not before 18 U.S. soldiers died and 73 were wounded.

Days later President Clinton directed the military to stop all actions and announced that U.S . forces would withdraw by March 31, 1994. The mission failed because it was ill-defined, had poor intelligence and lacked the necessary troops and hardware.

That failure was followed by years of sustained disengagement from Africa and a shift in American foreign policy that avoided intervention in third world conflicts peripherally related to its strategic interests such as the crises in Rwanda and Congo.

The rules changed after 9/11, however. American special operations forces became engaged in anti-terrorism operations in Eastern and Northern Africa and the U.S. trained thousands of Africans to fight insurgents at home. But these efforts have been limited in scope as not to take resources away from America’s main efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Today, conditions in Somalia are as chaotic as they were in 1993. The population is plagued by widespread famine, disease and 400,000 people are internally displaced. Pirates operate from Somalia’s shores because there is no effective government. The government, which came to power in 2004, controls little territory and provides little governance. It is severely threatened by an Islamist insurgency being waged by the al-Shabab militant group which is intent on installing the Taliban-like Supreme Islamic Courts Council.

Even though Somalia is seething with Islamists and pirates, it does not pose a strategic threat for America that justifies the use of American ground forces other than a few unannounced special operations personnel seeking high value targets. After all, Somali pirates are no more than a nuisance to our sea-based commerce and the majority of the Islamists are not as yet a threat outside that country.

But Secretary Rice appears to want American warriors ashore in anticipation that Somalia’s problems will spread. She explained “I would not be here seeking authorization to go ashore if the United States government … were not behind this resolution.” Rather than looking for another war for American soldiers to fight, Rice should push those closer to the problem to do the fighting.

Unfortunately, Somalia’s neighbors haven’t provided much help. In 2006, U.S.-supported Ethiopian troops with the help of the African Union (AU), an East African defense organization, marched into Somalia to replace the de facto government run by the al Qaeda-linked Islamic Courts Union in Mogadishu and reinstalled the secular transitional government. But now the Ethiopians have run out of money and patience and their repressive tactics have pushed many Somalis into the arms of brutal Islamists who are enforcing Sharia law and gaining in popular support. Ethiopia is leaving Somalia and the AU won’t be far behind.

President Bush could send American troops to Somalia as one of his final acts in office much as his father did in December 1992. After all, Secretary Rice said “No American administration is going to want to see chaos in Somalia.” But more likely any decision regarding Somalia will fall to the next administration.

But how will the newly-minted President Obama deal with the Somalia crisis? Respected Africa-experts such as Susan Rice, a former assistant secretary of state, and Samantha Power, author of a book on the Rwandan genocide, supported Obama’s candidacy and now may join his administration. Will these Africa experts counsel the new president to use the Somalia crisis as an opportunity to demonstrate Obama’s promised style of diplomatic engagement with rogues like the Islamist militant group al-Shabab? Or will they counsel the new president to join the UN peace enforcers to wade ashore Somali beaches in search of pirates and radical Islamists?

Likely, Obama won’t ignore Africa. The current situation in Somalia is neither easy nor new, but that should not stop Obama from trying to find a solution. He should opt for a diplomatic approach by America and more forceful action by the nations whose interests are directly implicated rather than committing American troops to another slippery slope mission that’s doomed to fail and presents zero strategic threat for the U.S.

Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army.

By: Col. Bob Maginnis – HumanEvents.com

Iran now has enough atomic fuel and bomb making know-how for nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them. This matters because the soon to be nuclear-armed Tehran could ignite a Middle East arms race that might end catastrophically unless President-elect Obama finds a way to quickly disarm the atomic mullahs.

“Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable,” Obama said. “And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.” But does Mr. Obama understand that intensive and prolonged international diplomatic and economic sanctions have failed to curb Iran’s nuclear lust?

The diplomatic efforts of the so-called G-3 nations — Britiain, France and Germany — went on for five years without producing any change in Iran’s nuclear pursuits.

In fact, since the mullahs took over in 1979, there has been no diplomatic effort — on any subject — that has changed Tehran’s course of action.

Whether driven by its paranoia that the West seeks to occupy and control Iran or by Israel’s nuclear capability, Tehran is intent on acquiring atomic weapons. And it has, for two decades, hidden its pursuit of that goal from UN inspectors. Irrespective of Iran’s motivation, Tehran is on the cusp of achieving its atomic weapons goal. President-elect Obama’s promise to “…step up our economic pressure and political isolation” must be replaced by a more pragmatic strategy.

First, we must discount the Washington myth that atomic weapons make nations more responsible geopolitical actors. That may be true for Western nations but the Islamic Republic of Iran isn’t like Britain or France. Iran’s radical ayatollahs are driven by bizarre theocratic ideas and have a long history of intimidating their neighbors and targeting the West. There is little doubt that once the mullahs have nukes, Tehran will launch an intimidating and hegemonic row that will send its neighbors scrambling for their own atomic arsenals.

Unfortunately, time is on Iran’s side. Tehran is skilled at hiding its nuclear weapons program. It learned the art of delay and strategic ambivalence from its North Korean mentors, who after years of playing nuclear hide-and-seek surprised the world by testing a plutonium weapon in 2006.

Although Iran has had a nuclear program for almost 50 years, allegedly for peaceful purposes, in 2002 it was learned that Tehran had secretly built nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak where it works with materials related to weapons production. The subterfuge and deception have continued to the present in spite of UN resolutions, economic sanctions and diplomacy.

Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirmed that Tehran now has enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb. That achievement is mostly symbolic because there is more work to be done before the regime has a useable weapon.

The timing of this revelation is shocking, however. Last year, the controversial US National Intelligence Estimate assured the world Tehran was many years away from producing a weapon. It stated, “…centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon.” The NIE is right on that account but our intelligence experts must be surprised by Tehran’s rapid progress. Iran is expected to have nearly 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by the end of the year and another 3,000 in early 2009. The announced long-term goal is 50,000 centrifuges.

The NIE estimate went on to predict “…with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon is late 2009, but that is very unlikely.”

“They clearly have enough material for a bomb,” said Richard Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb. “They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that’s another matter.”

America’s intelligence community believes the Iranians do have bomb making “know how.” The 2007 NIE assessed “…with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.”

Years ago Pakistan, China and Russia sold Tehran atomic weapons technology. In the late 1980s, Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan’s chief nuclear proliferator, sold Tehran uranium enrichment centrifuges, the blueprints for a Chinese nuclear bomb, and a package of nuclear technologies, including assistance for casting uranium metal and for working with polonium and beryllium, metals primarily used for making nuclear bomb components. The IAEA subsequently discovered Iranian scientists working with these metals.

China’s cooperation with Iran began in the mid-1980s when it made significant nuclear contributions in terms of scientific expertise, technologies and dual-use transfers and helped build Iranian uranium enrichment plants. It also sold Iran several calutrons, magnetic isotope separation devices that can be used to derive enriched uranium for an atomic bomb. Even though China says it no longer provides Iran nuclear assistance, the intelligence community likely has a long list of nuclear and dual-use technologies Beijing continues to pass to Tehran with a wink and a nod.

The New York Times reported that in 1992 a House Republican Research Committee stated that there was a “98 percent certainty” that Iran had bought at least two Soviet-designed nuclear warheads. The IAEA never found the weapons. They may have been hidden at one of Tehran’s many secret weapons facilities.

Predictably, the Russians assured the world that they had accounted for all warheads. Israeli officials at the time, however, insisted the warheads arrived in Iran and were disassembled for study using a reverse engineering process the Chinese communists have long used for exploiting stolen American technology.

Iran’s rapidly increasing stockpile of enriched uranium, the confirmed presence of thousands of functioning enrichment centrifuges and nuclear bomb-making know-how convince some experts that Tehran is dangerously close to possessing an atomic weapon.

Shabtai Shavit, an adviser to the Israeli parliament’s defense and foreign affairs committee, believes the worst-case scenario is that Iran may have a nuclear weapon in 2009. Mr. Shavit was deputy director of Mossad, the Jewish nation’s intelligence service, when Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981. He admits that “…working with the worst-case scenario” the only alternative “left is a military action.”

President-elect Obama campaigned on promises of talking to America’s enemies. Now, he faces a real dilemma. He must pursue talks to effectively derail Tehran’s mullahs from their nuclear weapon ambitions or he must choose among launching military operations to destroy Iran’s atomic program, supporting an Israeli attempt to do so, or accepting Tehran as an atomic power and the potential catastrophic events that could bring.

Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army.