By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

Hohenfels, Germany — Last year’s Israeli air force strike on an alleged Syrian plutonium reactor appears to have had two unintended consequences. It spurred Damascus to redouble its efforts to continue its atomic program, and it has drawn attention away from the Iranian and North Korean atomic weapons programs — thus making the world more dangerous.

The London-based Asharq Alawsat newspaper reported on October 2nd that Syrian President Bashar Assad has redoubled his efforts to develop a nuclear program. The paper reports that, following the Israeli airstrike, Syria changed course and began a nuclear program based on the Iranian model of simultaneously building multiple facilities in various sites throughout the country to make any effort to destroy its atomic facilities more difficult.

Further, the addition of Syria to the list of rogue nations seeking atomic weapons demonstrates the failure of ongoing efforts by the international community to denuclearize North Korea and Iran. Rather than cooperating in those efforts, Pyongyang and Tehran are each involved heavily (either on their own or in partnership) in developing Damascus’ atomic program.

Syria’s nuclear ambitions are an open secret. In 1986, then Syrian chief of staff, Gen. Hihmet al-Siabi, said his country seeks nuclear parity with arch rival Israel. Israel is believed to have at least 180 nuclear warheads.

But Syria denies that it has a covert nuclear weapons program. It says that its atomic ambitions are focused exclusively on energy production, which is supported by official statements. In August, President Assad visited Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Tehran, where the Syrian gave his support for the Iranian nuclear program, claiming that every state has the right to acquire atomic technology.

Of course, that is the same façade used by North Korea and Iran to give their atomic weapons program deniability. The Central Intelligence Agency director Michael Hayden warned Congress against naivete when he said Syria will act like its rogue partners “to delay and deceive” outsiders regarding its true nuclear intentions. Remember, North Korea successfully used these tactics for many years before testing a plutonium device in 2006. Iran is perhaps less than two years from a similar milestone.

There is plenty of evidence that Syria has gone well beyond rhetoric in its bid to secure a nuclear arsenal. This spring, Hayden told Congress “Do not assume that al Kibar [the Syrian reactor destroyed by Israel] exhausted our knowledge of Syrian efforts with regard to nuclear weapons.” Hayden said the agency had the “highest confidence level” that al Kibar housed a plutonium reactor designed to produce weapon grade fissile material.

What’s shrouded in uncertainty is the accuracy of America’s information regarding other aspects of Syria’s nuclear program. However, the information in the public domain is very compelling.

Apparently, the U.S. has information about a number of suspected Syrian nuclear sites. American officials have been pressing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog group, to demand access to three Syrian sites to look for evidence of nuclear activity, but Damascus has denied admittance, citing concerns over its “security.”

Certainly the U.S. is aware that Syria has accumulated nuclear technology which aids its secret weapons efforts. Syria likely received assistance from the nuclear trafficking network run by Pakistani nuclear official Abdul Qadeer Khan, the same man who proliferated atomic technologies to Iran and North Korea. Even the IAEA has helped Syria with numerous atomic projects, including uranium extraction from phosphoric acid, isotope production and the construction of a cyclotron facility.

A 2004 CIA report to Congress on weapons proliferation is revealing. The report observes that Syria “… continued to develop civilian nuclear capabilities, including uranium extraction technology and hot cell facilities.” These are critical technologies potentially applicable to a weapons program.

Syria has also solicited nuclear assistance from a variety of countries, including Russia. That country, which has provided Iran and North Korea with nuclear assistance, is now seeking to renew its influence in the Mideast through the sale of sophisticated weapons, defense agreements and perhaps atomic energy knowhow. Broader access by Syria to Russian atomic expertise could provide opportunities for Syria to expand it indigenous weapons development capabilities.

Syria’s nuclear program has also been helped by the Iraq war. There is evidence that Iraqi nuclear scientists escaped to Syria and are working for Assad’s regime. A group of about 12 Iraqi nuclear technicians fled to Syria before the fall of Saddam’s regime. These experts allegedly brought considerable nuclear technology with them.

The second consequence of Israel’s destruction of the al Kibar site is the attention it takes away from the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. This is exacerbated by Tehran and Pyongyang, which are doing their best to accelerate Syria’s nuclear program.

Specifically, Syria has developed a very close relationship with North Korea. Moshe Arens, Israel’s three time minister of defense, told this writer that North Korea has been “peddling technology” in the Mideast for “20 to 30 years.” Recently, North Korean nuclear officials have been very busy in Syria helping to “Iranize” that atomic program.

The Syria-North Korea nuclear cooperation began “probably as early as 1997,” said a US intelligence official. The Syrian reactor destroyed by Israel was a North Korean designed reactor being built with assistance from Pyongyang. It was configured similarly to North Korea’s five megawatt reactor at Yongbyon, which was used to produce the plutonium for North Korea’s 2006 nuclear weapon test.

The Asharq Alawsat report which broke the Syrian nuclear story indicated that the new Iranian model is being built with experts from Pyongyang and that just last month Iranian experts arrived in Syria to join the project.

The al Kabir incident which spawned these consequences recently became even darker. The “point man” for Syria’s nuclear weapons program, Brig. Gen. Muhammad Suleiman, was assassinated at a beach resort near Tartus, Syria. The immediate impact of his death is that the IAEA’s investigation of the al Kabir site will be slowed. But the likely long-term implication is that Syria will use the incident to stiff-arm the IAEA, as Iran and North Korea have done for the past couple decades.

It’s clear that Syria has joined a growing club of atomic weapons rogues that threaten their neighbors and could lead to the proliferation of nuclear technologies to terrorist groups and other dangerous regimes.

It’s unfortunate that Israel’s strike on the al Kibar reactor created undesirable geopolitical consequences. But lack of action by the West will have vastly more undesirable consequences if inaction results in Syria and Iran achieving their nuclear weapons ambitions.

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

Last week, Russia’s president declared a new world order, rejecting the primacy of America in the international system, justifying the invasion of former Soviet Union satellites and condemning outside intrusion in its “sphere of influence.”

Russian president Dmitri Medvedev’s declaration of a new strategic doctrine comes at a time when the Kremlin believes the U.S. is vulnerable because it is tied down in the Islamic world and lacks the means to strike back. Moscow will try to exploit this vulnerability to reduce America’s influence and elevate itself to its former superpower status.

Whether Moscow can pull this off depends on whether the U.S. decisively counters the Kremlin’s bold move. But America’s options are limited. Recent diplomatic efforts haven’t worked and applying economic pressure would be difficult because Russian markets tend to be European-based and Moscow will leverage them to make the European Union squirm.

Moscow’s tool for leveraging global power come primarily from its manipulation of energy resources. Russia has all but locked up most Central Asian energy production on which our European allies depend, making them vulnerable to the threat of politically-motivated energy cut-offs. The Kremlin has used this economic tool to good effect at least six times over the last decade, and Europe is becoming more dependent on Russia every day. Such manipulation potentially leaves America with too few European allies to counter Russia’s new strategy.

The U.S. could accept the risk that Russia lacks the means to reach its goal, but that would be foolhardy, because the contrary is obviously true. Therefore, military options — direct and indirect — must be considered.

The U.S. could abandon its wars in the Islamic world to free up military resources to counter Moscow’s actions, but this is unlikely because America has too much at risk in those wars to abandon them. Alternatively, the U.S. could hit back at Russia by hurting a Russian ally, much as Moscow hurt the West by attacking the Republic of Georgia which threatens the spread of democracy across the other former Soviet Republics.

If such action were to be taken, America could choose to combine the two objectives. Russian allies — especially Iran and Syria — are the principal fomenters of Islamic radicalism and terrorism. Action against either of them — economic, diplomatic or military — that was clearly labeled as retaliation for the Georgia invasion — would damage Russian influence in the Middle East enormously.

And — given its current muscle-flexing mindset — Russia might continue to raise the stakes.

Russia will — whether we act or not — seek to keep the U.S. strategically vulnerable by providing weapons and military support to America’s foes. Shortly after invading Georgia Medvedev met with Syrian president Bashar al Assad, an American foe that supports insurgents in Iraq, to discuss weapons sales. A week later Russia’s sole aircraft carrier made a port call at Tarsus, Syria’s largest port.

Moscow could sell weapons to anti-American factions in Iraq to further destabilize that country and keep the U.S. tied down. Russian-made weapons have passed from Iranian and other hands to the Taliban in Pakistan’s enclave to feed the insurgency against the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan. It has also reportedly promised to sell the S-300, a sophisticated anti-aircraft missile system, to Tehran to bolster the Islamic Republic’s capability to defend itself from a possible Israeli-American attack.

Russia will try to re-establish its “sphere of influence” by modernizing its military and intelligence services to provide the Kremlin with a credible, invasion and enforcement tool. The invasion of Georgia demonstrated a quick acting and sophisticated expeditionary capability not seen in Russia since the Cold War. The Kremlin’s ability to rapidly move soldiers and equipment across that massive country, to crush Georgia’s telecommunications systems by computer network attacks and then simultaneously conduct air-land-sea operations was impressive. What’s not impressive is the West’s apparent failure to alert Georgia to the Kremlin’s moves.

The Russians have also reorganized and strengthened their intelligence agencies to help regain internal control and for external operational and intelligence gathering activities. The Federal Security Bureau (FSB) is being reconfigured to operate more like the KGB, its predecessor. Not surprisingly, many former KGB and current FSB members fill positions in Russian businesses, political offices and foreign posts.

A modernized military and intelligence force provide Russia the means to replicate the Georgia invasion model to rebuild country-by-country the Kremlin’s “regions of privileged interest.” Once those former satellites crumble, Moscow will act to re-absorb them. Medvedev has already announced that Russia intends to absorb Georgia’s breakaway province of South Ossetia “in several years.”

How should America respond to Russia’s new world order agenda?

The West should stop trying to remake Russia into a western democracy, or pretend it is anything other than what it is: an aggressive autarchy. We have encouraged Moscow’s transformation with membership in a host of international programs, but after two decades of rebuilding efforts, Russia remains unintegrated.

But there are some things America and her allies could do to help persuade Moscow to change course. The most frequently recommended actions include suspending agreements and weakening its standing in international bodies. Likely, these will have minimal impact because the Kremlin has virtually ignored international pressure.

We could work inside the global economic system to go after Russian financial interests here and in Europe. Russian leaders have made large investments in the U.S. which are vulnerable. Hurting these investors could cause them to put pressure on the Kremlin to constrain its actions.

Probably the most effective measure to derail Moscow’s new course would be to dramatically lower oil prices, which would force Russia to either integrate or regress. Dramatically reduced oil revenues would starve Russia’s re-investment in its military and intelligence services and constrain resources for invading its neighbors. However, oil price reduction would require perhaps more international cooperation than could be mustered.

What should the West do to help Russia’s neighbors?

Probably the most important thing the West can do for Russia’s neighbors is to treat Moscow differently. This begins by soberly recognizing that despite the West’s best efforts the former Soviets are still at heart, Russians — imperialistic, authoritarian bullies. Our intelligence, security and economic tools must adjust to this reality.

The West also needs to use every possible alliance and economic tool to encourage those countries. Most of those nations seek economic ties and military alliances with the West. NATO and the European Union might offer some help but because of Moscow’s corrupting energy leverage these tools may prove to be insufficient.

America may have to band together with a few likeminded countries to build meaningful alliances with security guarantees for these threatened countries. For example, we could station our armed forces in those lands either as peacekeepers in Georgia, as a precaution against more Russian incursions, or as forward defenders of freedom as an insurance policy against Moscow’s intimidation.

Russia’s new doctrine is at minimum a bold attempt to dictate its vision of a new world order to its neighbors and the West by pursuing a strategy of a “new world disorder.” The gathering winter clouds on the horizon evidence the commencement of Cold War II.

By: – Robert Maginnis

Last week, President Bush wishfully declared that “the Cold War is over” when he condemned Russia for invading the Republic of Georgia. But those of us who knew the former Soviet Union see the new Russia acting like the old bear and can feel the chill of a new Cold War coming on. It’s time for America to rewrite its Russia strategy.

Our strategy realignment must abandon America’s flawed premise that Russia has put its Soviet past behind it and is committed to full integration into the West. The Russians may have welcomed western assistance in the past but Russia is still motivated by one principle: the pursuit of its own authoritarian interests and restore its hegemony over its former domain. Russia means to fight, as necessary, to regain its regional dominance, and pressure Western Europe.

Even before the crisis in Georgia, tensions between Washington and Moscow had been rising over disputes such as independence for Kosovo, NATO’s eastward expansion to Russia’s borders, and the US ballistic missile defense in Eastern Europe.

Georgia presented Russia an opportunity to react to these tensions. Moscow created the crisis and orchestrated a response to bring down the democratically elected government in Tbilisi. That action warned other former Soviet satellites about the consequences of getting too cozy with the West — threatening those considering NATO membership — and challenged America’s credibility if it didn’t (as expected) stand-up to Moscow.

Preparing to fight back has required Moscow to hone its means to influence others. One of those means is military force. Invading Georgia has re-established the credibility of the Russian army which had lagged since the end of the Cold War. Oil money and Kremlin emphasis have given the former Red Army new life. Russia’s military demonstrated that new life using key expeditionary capabilities in Georgia: an impressive long-range airlift capability, effective close air support to advancing ground forces, and rapid swarming of armored forces.

Moscow’s other means to influence is its vast energy program. Russia has and will in the future use energy to get its way and the Georgia invasion has helped.

The Georgia invasion served Russia’s energy interests because it provides Moscow access to the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline which crosses Georgia and is the only non-Russian pipeline to the Caspian Sea oil fields. Controlling that pipeline will give Moscow dominance over those oil fields and guarantee the Kremlin remains an energy superpower for many decades.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates believes Russia will use these power levers — military and energy — to regain its traditional spheres of influence and superpower status.

Moscow’s desire to regain its regional spheres of influence would be understandable to the late George Kennan, an American Cold War diplomat and historian. He said “Russia can have at its borders only vassals or enemies.” Georgia became an enemy.

Once Georgia started to become democratic, Russia targeted the country with economic sanctions hoping to sway it back to vassal status. Only when sanctions failed because of western help did Moscow turn to military might. Now that Georgia has been “punished,” as Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said, the Kremlin will turn its attention to other former satellites.

The Ukraine is likely next in the Kremlin’s queue to be “punished.” In January, Ukraine’s leaders signed a joint, open letter to NATO asking the alliance to accept its Membership Action Plan, a precursor to full membership. A month later Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin threatened that Russia might aim nuclear missiles at Ukraine if it joined NATO.

In April, Ukraine and Georgia were not granted NATO membership due to Russian pressure and European acquiescence but NATO did promise that “These countries will become members of NATO.” That promise probably sealed Georgia’s fate and put the Ukraine in the Kremlin’s crosshairs.

Moscow opposes NATO membership for the Ukraine for more than democratic and western security angst. It covets the Crimea and wants to continue to base its Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol. However, in the wake of the Georgia invasion Kiev figuratively poked the bear in the eyes when it announced that it would prohibit Russian ships in its ports.

Expect the Kremlin to use energy to leverage Kiev’s actions before reverting to military force. Russia’s Gazprom, the world’s largest natural gas producer, which is half-owned by the Russian government, halted supplies to the Ukraine in the winter of 2006. That was a year after the Orange Revolution which installed Viktor Yushchenko’s pro-western government. Gazprom denied the suspension was politically motivated.

Besides turning off the natural gas taps to Ukraine, Russia has done so with Belarus, Georgia, and NATO-member Lithuania. Last month, the Czech Republic saw oil shipments from Russia briefly drop nearly 50 percent after it incurred Moscow’s ire by agreeing to host elements of the US missile-defense system.

Russia’s nuclear arsenal continues to be a tool for bullying and intimidation as well. Last week, the US and Poland sealed a deal to station American missile interceptors on Polish soil intended to shoot down Iranian missiles. That deal included an American promise to defend Poland in case of an attack. Within hours of that announcement a Russian general threatened “Poland, by deploying (the anti-missile system) is exposing itself to a (nuclear) strike — 100 percent.”

So what should be America’s new Russia strategy?

America’s strategy must address consequences for bad behavior. Secretary Gates believes there “… needs to be some consequences for the actions that Russia has taken against a sovereign state (Georgia)” or might take in the future.

There are a broad range of consequences available, but the challenge is to garner international support and then make the consequences stick. We can try to limit the flow of technology and investment to Russia, but we’ve seen, with countries such as Iran, how difficult it can be to gain support from Europe. Other consequences might include barring Russia from the World Trade Organization, dissolve the Group of Eight which includes Russia or boycott the 2012 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. None of those moves is likely to succeed in changing Russia’s direction.

America should form new alliances with democratic Eastern European partners like Poland and have the strategic reserves ready to act in their defense. The Georgia invasion dealt a big blow to US credibility because Tbilisi was Washington’s democratic darling but it was left unsupported in its hour of need. That causes other allies to question the value of our relationship.

Finally, America’s military is stretched thin because it has too many missions and too few reliable allies with militaries that can and will fight. An authoritarian and dangerous Russia will demand that the US have allies that pull their own weight. Clearly, most of our NATO allies who spend about one percent of their GDP on defense are not ready for prime time. It’s past time the US reconsider its commitment to NATO and then favor alliances with partners that are serious about security.

Secretary Gates says Russia’s invasion of Georgia has “… profound implications for our security relationship going forward, both bilaterally (with Russia) and with NATO.” That’s why our strategy needs to treat Russia as an enemy with all that is involved diplomatically, economically and militarily and our alliances need to be made only with nations serious about our collective security. It would be naive to do otherwise.

By: – Robert Maginnis

Russia’s invasion of the Republic of Georgia has become a tipping point for East-West relations because it indicates that Moscow will now use military force to protect its sphere of influence and test the West’s commitment to its new allies.

On Friday, Russian armored forces invaded South Ossetia after Georgia, a staunch American ally, launched an attack to crush separatists. Elsewhere, Russian fighters bombed strategic facilities such as Georgian military bases; the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which connects an oil field in the Caspian Sea to a Turkish port on the Mediterranean Sea; and the Black Sea port city of Poti, an oil shipment facility to Western countries.

Georgian authorities said its troops entered South Ossetia in response to attacks which have been taking place for years but had been intensifying for a week. Russia, however, alleged Georgian forces were involved in ethnic cleansing, thus justifying Russia’s assault.

In 1920, South Ossetia attempted to declare its independence from Georgia. At the time, the Red Army invaded Georgia to declare the region autonomous. Then Moscow granted citizenship to the Ossetians and provided economic support and autonomy over matters of language and education.

In the late 1980s, the South Ossetian Popular Front was created in response to growing nationalist sentiments in Georgia. The popular front demanded autonomy from Georgia. This precipitated six months of armed conflict that ended with the signing of the Sochi Agreement. That document established a cease-fire and a security corridor policed by “peacekeeping” forces under Russian command.

The conflict reheated after Georgia’s so-called Rose Revolution in 2003 replaced the pro-Moscow government with one favoring western democracy. Although Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s new president and a US-educated lawyer, offered South Ossetia significant autonomy and economic development, the offer was rejected. Saakashvili then pledged to restore Tbilisi’s rule over South Ossetia and another breakaway province, Abkhazia.

The timing of Russia’s invasion is curious. The Georgia-South Ossetia conflict has been “frozen” since 1992 and, as Saakashvili said at the time of the attack, “most decision makers have gone for the holidays.” He told CNN that it was a “…brilliant moment to attack a small country” and a “well-planned invasion.”

A source just back from Tbilisi told this writer that foreigners in South Ossetia started to evacuate a month ago on word that something big was going to happen. That information, juxtaposed with Russia’s lightning advance into South Ossetia, leads to the conclusion that the invasion was orchestrated to provoke the desired reaction. Additionally, it coincided with the opening of the Olympics in Beijing, which limited world media attention.

Whether the invasion was planned in advance or spontaneous, the operation has implications far beyond Georgia and the Caucasus. Three elements associated with this crisis indicate Moscow is using this event to create a foreign policy tipping point for East-West relations.

First, Russia’s deployment of such a large and carefully prepared force into South Ossetia (as well as the rest of Georgia) is significant. This is the Kremlin’s first use of military force outside of its homeland since the end of the Cold War and demonstrates that Moscow has the confidence and resolve to back up its increasingly confrontational rhetoric.

A Russian expert told me that Moscow’s bullish ways are driven by two factors. It now has abundant oil money to fund its adventures, and the Kremlin cares not what others think. That dangerous combination signals trouble for the East-West relationship.

Second, the invasion defines Russia’s sphere of influence: the former 15 Soviet-era satellite states. President Saakashvili surmises that the “people in the Kremlin” don’t like a democratic neighbor. So, he suggests the rumble of Russian tanks across the Georgian countryside is Moscow’s wake-up call to other former satellites that might be entertaining thoughts of a western orientation. Moscow hopes those states will understand its message, but ultimately their reaction will depend on the West’s response to Moscow’s aggression.

Since Georgia’s Rose Revolution, Tbilisi has formed a close relationship with America, and Saakashvili has positioned himself as a spokesman for democracy and alignment with the West. Georgia has shown its support for America by sending thousands of troops to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and NATO has had almost a constant presence in Georgia either for training Tbilisi’s armed forces or for joint exercises. Russian fighters bombed a Georgia air base where a major NATO exercise was completed just last week.

In February, Georgia’s breakaway regions took on new significance for Russia because of the political embarassment Moscow suffered over Kosovo’s declaration of independence from its Balkan client state Serbia. Moscow had objected to the Kosovars’ move, but the international community — including the US — snubbed Russia’s protests and celebrated the province’s new autonomy. Russia was humiliated and vowed to respond.

The invasion into Georgia is likely a response to the Kosovo humiliation as well as to Georgia’s cozy relationship with the West. Moscow’s message to the former Soviet satellites is unmistakable: fall in line or risk the same fate Georgia is now suffering.

The third element in the tipping point equation depends on the West. What can Washington and/or NATO do about Russia’s aggression? Georgia is a NATO member candidate in good standing and a reliable ally in the war on terrorism. Can it be abandoned?

Moscow’s invasion and its cozy ties to Georgia’s secessionist regions may scuttle any NATO membership chances for Tbilisi. Keeping Georgia in a constant state of conflict is intended to show Washington and Brussels that the small republic is too unstable for membership and to force Tbilisi back under the Kremlin’s heel. Unless NATO acts to defend Georgia, no more former satellites will ask to join.

On Friday, President Saakashvili called on the US to live up to its principles and defend Georgia’s democracy. So far, the US has only sent a diplomat to Tbilisi, and savvy observers ought to ask why the US didn’t share with the Georgians the intelligence it must have had about the Russian buildup and Moscow’s intentions.

President Bush has spoken with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. But Medvedev insists Moscow’s actions in Georgia are justified. “We won’t allow the death of our compatriots to go unpunished,” Medvedev said. That includes Russian citizens Moscow claims are being killed by Georgian troops in South Ossetia.

On Saturday evening, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin arrived in Vladikavkaz, a city in southern Russia, where he met with the generals running the Georgian operation. Putin dismissed calls for Moscow to withdraw its forces. “There is almost no way we can imagine a return to the status quo,” Putin told Russian state television.

At this point, it appears that the U.S. is between a rock and a hard spot. NATO has committed what few fighters it has to the war in Afghanistan, and the US is stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, Russia holds a trump card — Iran.

Russia can easily make Tehran more dangerous for Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan by giving the radical Islamic government more and better weapons. The US is already in a dispute with Russia over Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threat, and Moscow is positioned to make that situation into a real nightmare by giving Tehran more technical data.
The timing of Russia’s invasion of Georgia signals an ominous new dawn for East-West relations. If Moscow defeats the democratic forces in Georgia and the West remains stymied on the sidelines, the rest of the former Soviet satellites could again become the Kremlin’s puppets, and Moscow could become more provocative with its words and its armed forces.

Read more….

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

MUNICH, GERMANY. Barack Obama’s recent trip to Europe was like an episode from the television series “Fantasy Island.” There was “de plane” rented by Obama’s campaign to fly to Europe, his hosts played by Europe’s political chieftains, and the guest (Obama) who came to get his wish. The tv series always was plotted around the idea of helping the “guests” learn something about themselves or the host taught his guests the error of their ways. This was not the case for presidential wannabe Obama. Neither did he learn, nor did his hosts try to teach.

Senator Obama’s fantasy was to burnish his foreign policy credentials in the eyes of American voters because his rapid rise to the pinnacle of American politics revealed important national security gaps in his resume. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that 80 percent of Americans say Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican candidate for president, could handle the responsibilities of commander in chief; only 55 percent said that of Obama.

Each stop on Obama’s three country European fantasy trip served a different purpose. Germany was the main actor while France and Great Britain played supporting roles.

Germany’s media set the stage for Obama by billing him as a superstar. One German newspaper anointed the senator “Der Schwarze JFK” — the black John F. Kennedy. The German news magazine Der Spiegel splashed the leadline “Germany Meets the Superstar” over a photo of Obama on its cover. German television offered uninterrupted broadcasts of “Obama in Berlin” during his day-long visit.

Obama’s media profile was matched by his mass appeal. A recent poll showed that 72 percent of Germans say Obama would be a better president than McCain. Such “Obamamania” explained Josef Braml, an America expert with the German Council on Foreign Relations, exists because “He’s not Bush.”

The Germans gave Obama a presidential-like welcome. He was met at Berlin’s Tegel airport and ferried by a column of black BMW and Mercedes-Benz cars to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office. Merkel and Obama reportedly discussed heady issues like climate change, economic issues, and Iran’s nuclear program. The chancellor’s spokesman said the talks were “…very open and deep discussion in a very good atmosphere.”

Hours later, Obama appeared at a rally in Berlin’s Tiergarten park where he was enthusiastically welcomed to the stage by 200,000 fans chanting “Obama, Obama, Obama” and waving banners that read “Obama for Kanzler [chancellor].” Andrea Loehr, an American in the crowd, attributed the enthusiasm to “A lot of Germans think he can save us.”

The senator spoke in vague terms like “remake the world” free of nuclear weapons and war, and together fighting global warming. He called on Europeans to tear down “…the walls between old allies” and “…the walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand.” Clearly, Obama was trying to capture the popularity President Kennedy earned from his 1963 “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech.

Obama drew applause when he admitted that America “…made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.” Loannis Loannidis, a 27-year-old Swede who was in the crowd, explained that Obama is appealing because he is “…different from other politicians. He represents minorities and he’s down to earth and smart.”

The most substantive part of his speech came when he called on Europe to “take more responsibility” for solving global problems. He urged them to take more of the financial and military burden in combating terrorism in the Middle East. But Merkel said there were clear “limits” to German troop numbers which stand at 3,500 in Afghanistan.

Even the best planned “fantasy” can sour. Some of the fawning media turned critical after Obama’s speech. The daily Handelsblatt editorialized that Obama’s message was “cooler than expected” and Die Welt called Obama’s speech a “trick” because the candidate linked the 1948 Berlin airlift with “…the battle against all evil in the world – terrorism, pollution and inequality.” The Suedeeutsche Zeitung carried a cartoon of a beaming Obama at the Tiergarten speech surrounded by a sea of blind-folded people chanting “O-bam-ma!”

Episodes of “Fantasy Island” always end by identifying lessons learned or errors made.

Obama’s choice of Germany as a foreign policy litmus was an understandable choice because Germans tend to favor the senator’s socialist views and widely dislike President Bush and McCain by association. But, it was a mistake.

American voters should skeptically view the German reaction to Obama because that country has a history of embracing socialists who promise change but deliver disaster.

Then there was the snub. Obama’s campaign scrapped a side trip to visit wounded Americans at Landstuhl Medical Center, Germany. An Obama aid said the campaign thought the senator could visit the hospital without involving them in the campaign controversy but said the stop was canceled after the Pentagon raised concerns.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Obama was cleared to visit Landstuhl but was told he would have to conform to Defense Department guidelines that restrict political activity on military installations. That meant campaign staff and reporters would have been barred from accompanying him.

Visiting wounded American soldiers is always an appropriate act for a presidential candidate. However, it appears that Obama canceled that visit because he couldn’t take his campaign cameras into hospital wards. If true — and by most reports it is — Obama’s conduct was disgraceful.

Obama’s European foreign credentials-seeking trip may have little consequence for the election because Americans don’t listen to what foreigners say before voting anyway. They can also see the phoniness of Obama’s Berlin speech and the utter emptiness of his words. Worst, they should be offended that a man aspiring to be commander in chief would shun wounded Americans so he could spend more time with fawning socialists and their media.

By: – Robert Maginnis

Whether America withdraws from Iraq and the timing of that withdrawal may be decided by Iraqi politics and Iranian mullahs rather than by the next US president. If so, the Iraq issue might be taken off the presidential campaign’s front burner.

On July 7, Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, told Arab leaders in Abu Dhabi that his government was “…looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty.” His words were driven by shifting domestic politics that demand the pending US troop deal have a withdrawal timetable.

America’s continued presence in Iraq is a hot political issue for Maliki who hopes to remain in power, perhaps by restoring at least the appearance of Iraqi sovereignty. With provincial elections scheduled for this October, it’s possible that disenfranchised Iraqis, particularly minority Sunnis, will join the political process and grab power from the ruling Shia. That possibility has compelled Maliki to assert his leadership and get tough with Washington.

For six months, American and Iraqi officials have been negotiating an agreement to provide the legal authority for US troops to remain in Iraq once the United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year. The Maliki government is insisting on a narrow and short-term agreement rather than the longer-term security arrangement sought by Washington.

Most significantly, Baghdad now demands that the pact indicate when the Americans will leave.

On July 8, Iraq’s national security adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie stated, “We will not accept a memorandum of understanding without having timeline horizons for the cessation of combat operations as well as the departure of all the combat brigades.” His government has not announced how quickly it wants the US to withdraw. US ground commanders indicated (for the first time publicly last week) that the US position continues to be that setting dates is unwise and that events should drive the withdrawal.

The Bush administration’s policy is that it would honor Iraq’s wishes. “It’s their government’s choice,” President Bush said in May 2007. “If they were to say, leave, we would leave.” But Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, denied that withdrawal dates are part of the current talks and added, “We have great confidence that the political leadership in Iraq would not take an action that would destabilize the country.”

The key to Iraqi stability is the country’s ability to secure itself. “As the Iraqi security forces get stronger and get better, then we will be able to continue drawing down our troops in the future,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said recently. The US has 146,000 troops in Iraq, down from a peak last year of nearly 170,000.

But Gates’ timeline may not correspond with Iraq’s, just as Gates’ confidence in Iraq’s stability may not correspond with Maliki’s. The prime minister has reason to be confident because Iraq’s security forces have improved and his nation’s troops are assuming more responsibility in that process.

The number of attacks in Baghdad has fallen from 740 in April to 116 in June, according to the US military command. This is attributable to three factors: improved Iraqi security forces, the apparent defeat of al Qaeda, and the suppression of militia groups.

Baghdad has security control for nine of eighteen provinces and Iraq’s military and police forces have grown in the past year from 444,000 to 566,000. Even so, US officers estimate that only 10 percent of Iraqi security forces can operate independent of American assistance.

Al Qaeda terrorists, the heart of the five year insurgency, have been virtually defeated across the country and that is good news. Iraqi forces have also been effective against militia groups in Basra and Baghdad.

In spite of Maliki’s optimism and some security successes, Iraq has a long way to go before it is prepared to assume full responsibility for its security. US Army Lt. Gen James Dubik who led the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq believes the Iraqis may not be self-sufficient until 2012.

Security aside, domestic politics have become the primary motivator for Maliki’s call for America to accept a withdrawal timetable. His withdrawal demand has two political objectives: demonstrate that he is independent from the US – not an American puppet – and second, to undercut his chief rival, the rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who successfully fostered anti-American sentiment.

Maliki may achieve both objectives by acting tough with the Americans, especially as the nation elects provincial leaders this fall. Demanding that any agreement with the US include a withdrawal plan should satisfy the 72 percent of Iraqis who, according to a March 2008 poll, oppose the presence of US forces.

The prime minister must also be responsive to the very powerful clergy because politics and religion are inseparable in the Shia-dominated country. On October 8, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most senior Shiite religious leader, said his country will not accept a security deal which may justify the illegal presence of US troops.

Finally, Iranian meddling in Iraqi politics may affect the longevity of the US presence.
Tehran has enlisted two contrary proxies to help remove the Americans, while keeping Maliki and the Shiites in power: the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and al-Sadr’s movement. The ISCI, the former Badr Brigade, was exiled to Tehran during Saddam Hussein’s rule but today it has returned to Iraq, where it represents that country’s well-heeled, Iraqi political mainstream.

The ISCI is part of the Maliki government and a powerful minority in the Council of Representatives (parliament). Its leaders, some of whom are government ministers, maintain close associations with the clerical and elected leaders who hold most of the power in Tehran. They are the antithesis of Sadr’s movement.

Sadr’s Mehdi (messiah) Army represents the poor, disenfranchised Shia. But with Tehran’s help the organization is evolving into an Iraqi Hizballah-like organization that will allegedly shun violence and focus on politics and social service. The Mehdi’s fighting arm has supposedly become a separate organization.

Tehran’s influence over the ISCI and the Sadrites means it wields considerable power inside Iraq. While the groups may battle each other for control of the Shia majority, at the end of the day they will accomplish Tehran’s objectives – Shia control and Americans kicked out.

Whatever Maliki’s motivation for insisting on a withdrawal date, it’s Iraq’s sovereign right to decline further outside help. Except for the looming threat of Iranian meddling, America should celebrate that the democratic process within Iraq appears to be working.
An agreement that requires the US to leave Iraq might put this contentious issue on the presidential campaign’s back burner and force the candidates to debate emerging, rather than resolved crises.

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.

Read more….

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

On Tuesday, “Darth Vader” Vice President Dick Cheney explained that to make the Democrats’ 3 a.m. presidential crisis calls unnecessary, we need to move forward with President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 plan to neutralize the threat of ballistic missiles.

At a Heritage Foundation dinner celebrating the 25th anniversary of President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (then labeled derisively as “Star Wars” by Sen. Ted Kennedy) keynote speaker Vice President Cheney began by saying, “Well, if we’re going to talk about Star Wars, we might as well invite Darth Vader.”

Last fall, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said, “You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the vice president’s motorcade pulls into the capitol, and Darth Vader emerges.” Darth Vader, a fictional character from the movie Star Wars Universe, is the brutal head enforcer of the Galactic Empire’s rule.

Cheney used the opportunity to jab at the Democrats’ recent television campaign ads concerning who voters would want to answer the White House phone if a crisis occurs in the middle of the night. “In the ongoing political campaign, there’s been discussion recently about 3 a.m. phone calls,” Cheney said. “We all hope that a commander in chief never has to pick up the line and be told that a ballistic missile is headed toward the United States.”

That was also one of Reagan’s nightmares which explains the ballistic missile defense proposal. On March 23, 1983, President Reagan asked the American people “Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability?”

Reagan was referring to the strategic calculus of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), the nuclear strategic doctrine that prevailed at the time between the United States and the Soviet Union. He called such thinking a “… sad commentary on the human condition.” Rather than rest our security on“… instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack,” the president rightly suggested we ought to have the means to “… intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil.”

That evening the president challenged the scientific community to “… turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

Predictably, the New York Times labeled SDI a “pipe dream” while others criticized Reagan’s vision as potentially disrupting the MAD strategic doctrine. Complicating this argument was the fact that MAD only covered intentional nuclear attacks not accidental launches, rogue launches or launches by non-state entities.

The Reagan proposal’s impact was far reaching and positive, however, confounding the Soviets and accelerating our victory in the Cold War. When President Reagan met Soviet Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, “Gorbachev demanded that the United States commit to never deploying SDI. Reagan refused,” Cheney said.

The vice president explained that there was “simply no way the Soviet Union was going to defeat an America so confident in its purposes, and so determined to defend itself against nuclear terror.” Cheney believes Reagan’s SDI vision places him “among our greatest presidents.”

Since 1983, SDI has morphed through a variety of technologically challenging ground-based and space-based approaches to protect the U.S. from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles.

Reagan’s SDI vision of “… ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war” remains the central thrust of the Bush administration’s anti-ballistic missile effort. The threat from ballistic missiles is growing. The vice president explained that in 1972 only nine countries had ballistic missiles. Today, at least 27 countries have missile arsenals. These include some that are hostile and actively support terrorist groups.

He specifically cited three that threaten America. North Korea is “… developing an intercontinental ballistic missile [ICBM] with the potential of striking American mainland with a nuclear warhead,” Cheney said. Iran “continues to develop technologies that could lead to its building an ICBM capable of striking the U.S. in the next decade.” Syria receives “assistance from North Korea in building up its missile forces” and Iran has used Syria to build-up the terror group Hezbollah’s “sizable rocket force” which threatens Israel.

This backdrop bolster’s the Bush administration’s urgent effort to defend America against credible ballistic missile threats. Those efforts began in 2000 with then-candidate Bush’s promise to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

President Bush followed through on that promise by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and unleashing our scientists in 2001 to protect America. One of the signatories — the Soviet Union — no longer existed. Bush like Reagan rebuffed his protesting Russian counterpart saying America would “… reduce the danger of nuclear war,” as Reagan promised.

Vice President Cheney told the Heritage audience that the Bush administration has lived up to its promise to provide a missile defense. The Patriot anti-missile system which was first successfully used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War has been radically improved and today it is deployed across the world defending both US and allied interests. Our Aegis combat system, an integrated single ship weapons system, has proven effective in tests and recently succeeded in bringing down a dying satellite, the National Reconnaissance Office’s NROL-21 Radarsat.

In 2004, the Bush administration deployed 10 interceptors to launch sites at Vandenberg AFB, California and Fort Greely, Alaska. These missiles are linked to a rapidly growing network of ground and space-based sensors.

Cheney explained that the administration is pushing for the deployment of a limited interceptor and radar system in Europe to counter the growing Iranian threat. This effort, predictably, has run into Russian resistance.

Russian President Vladimir Putin denies the existence of an Iranian threat and protests that our proposed system threatens Moscow’s own deterrent. The US, to no avail, has tried to accommodate Russian sensitivities by offering to work with Moscow’s military on missile defense and to share an early-warning center as well as various technologies.

Next week, Russian leaders will host top US officials seeking to ease Moscow’s concerns. That meeting will pave the way for next month’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Bucharest, Romania, where Bush and Putin are expected to discuss the issue. In preparation, Bush should re-read the transcript of Reagan’s 1986 meeting with Gorbachev.

“It’s plain to see that the world around us gives ample reason to continue working on missile defense,” Cheney explained. “We all hope that a commander in chief never has to pick up the line and be told that a ballistic missile is heading toward the United States.” The Bush administration must continue its missile defense effort to include one in Europe and as “Darth Vader” Cheney said, so the next president has the best tool to “blow that missile out of the sky.”

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

Think of the downing of the US satellite as an episode of Fox’s award winning television series 24. In the series the apparent objective changes as the terrorists are discovered to be pawns in a larger, more insidious scheme.

Like 24, the operation that downed the National Reconnaissance Office’s NROL-21 Radarsat is more complicated than simply protecting earthlings from a wayward spy satellite.

Last Wednesday at 10:26 PM Pacific time, the USS Lake Erie, an Aegis cruiser, launched a three-staged Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) from northwest of Hawaii. Three minutes later the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California confirmed the interceptor and the satellite collided at a combined velocity of 22,000 mph. The satellite’s titanium tank which was loaded with 1,000 pounds of hydrazine rocket fuel was fractured dispersing the toxic material harmlessly in near-space.

The officials who convinced the President to bring down the satellite must have gone through an exhaustive process of risk analysis. The selected course of action was apparently successful and now we are seeing the gains and losses resulting play out.

The risk assessment would have considered the political and human toll had an intact tank of hydrazine hit a populated area. On the other hand, it also would have assessed the implications of missing the satellite for the US’s anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program and the possible compromise of the satellite’s secret payload.

The ABM people were confident in their interceptor or they would have handled the situation more discreetly. Instead of seeking an enemy warhead as it arcs on a relatively short ballistic path, like hitting a bullet with a bullet, General James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the satellite was an easier target because it was “… much larger than a warhead, almost the size of a school bus … circling Earth predictably about 16 times a day.”

Even though the satellite’s orbit was over populated areas, the risk to humans was low according to research scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). “It certainly would seem that protecting people against a hazardous fuel was not what this was really about,” said Geoffrey Forden, a MIT researcher. Forden and his colleagues calculated there was a 3-in-100 chance that the fuel tank would land within 100 yards of someone and there was virtually no chance it would remain intact.

So why did the president go ahead with the estimated $40 million operation if the risk was so low? Apparently, the unspoken advantages tipped the scales on the disadvantages.

The key advantage appears to be keeping the satellite’s debris out of the hands of hostile intelligence agencies and/or avoiding an international incident trying to retrieve surviving parts. The NROL-21 spacecraft included a highly classified Enhanced Imaging System which represents the next generation of raw source material for exploitation within the US Imagery and Geospatial Information System.

This mission was also an easy test for our ABM interceptor which showed that our capability works and can be rapidly modified. But as General Cartwright said, “The technical degree of difficulty was significant here” and this was a “low flying” satellite and the Aegis and SM-3 could unlikely be modified to intercept anything at much greater altitudes.

Another advantage is that the successful operation virtually guarantees future ABM funding even in a Democratic administration. Both Democratic presidential contenders have stated their opposition to ABM but if either becomes president it will be politically difficult to cancel funds for a “proven” system. Republican front-runner Senator John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses.

The US is a prime target for ballistic missiles that are proliferating. The advantage earned from the satellite operation is that it demonstrates to our adversaries a capability to deploy a sea-based ABM system that can reach three-quarters of the globe to thwart ballistic missiles from rogues like Iran or North Korea or even ballistic-missile-carrying submarines deployed by China.

Washington may have intended this operation to respond to China’s January 2007 anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon test. Although this operation does not demonstrate that capability, especially against communications satellites which typically hover 22,300 miles above the Earth, it does demonstrate the dual-use advantage of our BMD technology for offensive ASAT which could be used against “low flying” spy satellites.

One geopolitical disadvantage is the chance that the shoot-down will encourage further proliferation of ballistic missiles, ASAT and ABM systems. “It solved a short-term problem, but it may cause us long-term headaches in terms of emerging test programs in other countries,” said Clay Moltz, a professor of nuclear and space policy at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. The Carnegie Foundation’s non-proliferation project counts 35 nations as fielding some type of ballistic missile.

There is also the disadvantage that the effort further complicates our troubled relations with China and Russia. At a news conference in Beijing, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao called on the US to provide “necessary information and relevant data in a timely and prompt way so that relevant countries can take precautions.” Disturbingly, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agreed to provide ”appropriate” data from the operation to the Chinese.

Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that any US use of its ABM system against satellites would bring an unspecified response. The US and Russia are already in a tug-of-war over the US-proposed Europe-based BMD to counter Iran’s missile threat. Putin contends our system will marginalize Russia’s missile capability and promises to counter it by retargeting Russian missiles at Europe as it did during the Cold War.

The Russians and Chinese also accuse the US of weaponizing space. The fact is that space has been militarized for decades because most of the modern world depends upon space for navigation, intelligence gathering, and targeting.

Sharing responsibility for weaponizing space hasn’t stopped China and Russia from rushing to the United Nations to leverage America’s BMD advantage. Early last week, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and China’s UN representative Li Baodong introduced a treaty aimed at banning weapons in space. The treaty was necessary because “… weapons deployment in space by one state will inevitably result in . . . a new spiral in the arms race both in space and on the earth,” Mr. Lavrov said. But the proposed treaty is hollow because it bans non-existent space weapons while ignoring counter-space systems like China’s ASAT.

The downing of NROL-21 Radarsat was about protecting American technology and showcasing anti-missile capabilities as a warning to our enemies. This incident should be a wake-up to our presidential wannabees that our security challenges are becoming very complicated and the nation’s high office is not for amateurs.

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

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.