By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

Libya’s leader Muammar al-Gaddafi has a bright future with President Obama running America’s foreign policy if the messages to the dictator coming from the White House are trustworthy.

Even the liberal media are attacking Obama’s messages about Libya. The New York Times editorialized, “It’s dangerous to make threats if you’re not prepared to follow through.” The Atlantic Monthly called on Obama to be clear: “But if the U.S. is to stay home, the President should explain why he is willing to accept bloodshed that does not intersect with U.S. interests.”

Consider five Obama messages to Gaddafi that make our President and, by association, America appear feckless.

Obama’s first message to Colonel Gaddafi is leave, then go to jail. The President said, “I am absolutely clear that it is in the interests of the United States … for Mr. Gaddafi to leave.” But then why did Obama support the United Nation’s decision to prosecute Gaddafi and his lieutenants for war crimes?

Obama supported former rulers such as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak giving up power and then heading into exile, not jail. That transition quickly defused a tense situation. But Obama wants Gaddafi turned over to the International Criminal Court to face prosecution. Facing certain prosecution for war crimes may well be the reason Gaddafi chose to battle his own people instead of seeking exile.

Obama’s second message to Gaddafi is that the UN’s arms embargo applies to both the dictator and the rebels alike. Two weeks ago, the UN imposed an arms embargo with Washington’s support designed to weaken Gaddafi by preventing him from acquiring weapons. But then the U.S. State Department realized the same embargo prohibits shipments of defensive arms to the rebels too.

This act has the unintended consequence of guaranteeing Gaddafi’s well-armed forces will win against the ill-equipped rebels. Now Obama is trying to amend the embargo to allow for arming the rebels.

Doesn’t Team Obama remember a similar situation in 1991? At that time the UN imposed an arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia, but that act helped the well-armed President Slobodan Milosevic unleash wars against lightly armed Bosnia and Croatia, leaving a quarter of a million people dead.

Obama’s third message to Gaddafi is the White House staff is divided over the Libyan’s chances of survival. Last week James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, testified that Gaddafi “will prevail” over the opposition, which is contrary to the White House’s promise that Gaddafi’s “days are numbered.”

Obama’s National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, put a contrary spin on Clapper’s testimony. “If you did a static and one-dimensional assessment of just looking at order of battle and mercenaries,” Donilon said, that would lead “to a different conclusion about how this is going to go forward.”

Donilon’s contrary multidimensional assessment places considerable reliance on the impact of UN sanctions and seizing $30 billion in Gaddafi’s assets. But the Libyan has more than enough arms and money to outlast the rebels, which explains Clapper’s assessment.

Gaddafi reportedly has “tens of billions” in cash in Tripoli, allowing him to prolong his fight, according to the New York Times. He also has hidden funds under the names of family members and close associates and continues to pump 400,000 barrels of oil at $100 per barrel each day.

Obama’s fourth message to Gaddafi is the U.S. isn’t likely to become militarily involved in Libya. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned about the dangers of American military involvement, unless it is authorized by the UN. He said “a no-fly zone [something the Libyan rebels, allies such as France, and the Arab League support] begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses,” which would make the U.S. party to the conflict.

Last week Obama muddied the waters regarding possible military intervention. “The bottom line is that I have not taken any options off the table at this point,” Obama said. But his ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, had already dismissed a no-fly zone, according to the Wall Street Journal. “The kinds of capabilities that are being used to attack the rebel forces and, indeed, the population, will be largely unaffected by a no-fly zone,” Daalder said.

NATO is planning to impose a no-fly zone, anticipating that the UN might provide the authority. But NATO, which operates by consensus, lacks the support of member Turkey, which called such an action “unthinkable.”

Even if efforts to launch a no-fly zone mission fail, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is ready to aid the rebels. Clinton plans to meet with Libyan opposition leaders this week in Tunisia, and Donilon said Obama is looking for ways to aid the Libyan leader’s opponents, including providing arms.

Let’s hope Obama won’t arm the rebels with highly trafficable Stinger anti-aircraft missiles that could land in the hands of al-Qaeda or Mexican drug cartels. We are still paying a price for the weapons given the Afghan Taliban during its 1980s war with the former Soviet Union .

Obama’s fifth message to Gaddafi is America’s response to the Libyan crisis depends on UN approval. Back in 1986, then-President Ronald Reagan took action against Gaddafi without asking for the UN’s permission. Reagan bombed Gaddafi’s Tripoli palaces in response to a Libyan terrorist attack at a Berlin discotheque that killed two and wounded 50 American soldiers.

But Obama appears content to let the UN and other nations lead the search for solutions in Libya. He waited for a UN resolution on the embargo and now is waiting on a no-fly zone decision. His dependence on the UN isn’t becoming of the world’s sole superpower and certainly won’t help America’s credibility with anxious allies and adversaries such as Iran.

For now, Tripoli remains under Gaddafi’s iron grip, which presents two choices. Either Obama works with our partners to replace Gaddafi, which could require force and lots of follow-up assistance, and risks seeing someone worse—an Islamist—rise to lead that nation, or we sit back and allow the Libyans to resolve the crisis themselves.

Should Gaddafi survive this crisis, he could end up like Iraq’s former dictator Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam was isolated, faced crippling embargoes that hurt the average Iraqi, and he returned to dangerous habits.

Like Saddam, Gaddafi might renew his support for terrorists and restart his weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. During the 1970s and 1980s, Gaddafi armed terrorist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, and used his agents to bomb Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland. He also developed weapons of mass destruction—biological, and chemical, and he had a nuclear program—which he abandoned in 2004 because of threats from then-President George W. Bush.

There is no guarantee Libya would be any better off if Gaddafi leaves, a risk Obama must take if he decides to intervene. But at least Team Obama should stop sending mixed and conflicted messages that damage our credibility and encourage Libya’s dictator.

Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

Libya’s leader Muammar al-Gaddafi has a bright future with President Obama running America’s foreign policy if the messages to the dictator coming from the White House are trustworthy.

Even the liberal media are attacking Obama’s messages about Libya. The New York Times editorialized, “It’s dangerous to make threats if you’re not prepared to follow through.” The Atlantic Monthly called on Obama to be clear: “But if the U.S. is to stay home, the President should explain why he is willing to accept bloodshed that does not intersect with U.S. interests.”

Consider five Obama messages to Gaddafi that make our President and, by association, America appear feckless.

Obama’s first message to Colonel Gaddafi is leave, then go to jail. The President said, “I am absolutely clear that it is in the interests of the United States … for Mr. Gaddafi to leave.” But then why did Obama support the United Nation’s decision to prosecute Gaddafi and his lieutenants for war crimes?

Obama supported former rulers such as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak giving up power and then heading into exile, not jail. That transition quickly defused a tense situation. But Obama wants Gaddafi turned over to the International Criminal Court to face prosecution. Facing certain prosecution for war crimes may well be the reason Gaddafi chose to battle his own people instead of seeking exile.

Obama’s second message to Gaddafi is that the UN’s arms embargo applies to both the dictator and the rebels alike. Two weeks ago, the UN imposed an arms embargo with Washington’s support designed to weaken Gaddafi by preventing him from acquiring weapons. But then the U.S. State Department realized the same embargo prohibits shipments of defensive arms to the rebels too.

This act has the unintended consequence of guaranteeing Gaddafi’s well-armed forces will win against the ill-equipped rebels. Now Obama is trying to amend the embargo to allow for arming the rebels.

Doesn’t Team Obama remember a similar situation in 1991? At that time the UN imposed an arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia, but that act helped the well-armed President Slobodan Milosevic unleash wars against lightly armed Bosnia and Croatia, leaving a quarter of a million people dead.

Obama’s third message to Gaddafi is the White House staff is divided over the Libyan’s chances of survival. Last week James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, testified that Gaddafi “will prevail” over the opposition, which is contrary to the White House’s promise that Gaddafi’s “days are numbered.”

Obama’s National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, put a contrary spin on Clapper’s testimony. “If you did a static and one-dimensional assessment of just looking at order of battle and mercenaries,” Donilon said, that would lead “to a different conclusion about how this is going to go forward.”

Donilon’s contrary multidimensional assessment places considerable reliance on the impact of UN sanctions and seizing $30 billion in Gaddafi’s assets. But the Libyan has more than enough arms and money to outlast the rebels, which explains Clapper’s assessment.

Gaddafi reportedly has “tens of billions” in cash in Tripoli, allowing him to prolong his fight, according to the New York Times. He also has hidden funds under the names of family members and close associates and continues to pump 400,000 barrels of oil at $100 per barrel each day.

Obama’s fourth message to Gaddafi is the U.S. isn’t likely to become militarily involved in Libya. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned about the dangers of American military involvement, unless it is authorized by the UN. He said “a no-fly zone [something the Libyan rebels, allies such as France, and the Arab League support] begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses,” which would make the U.S. party to the conflict.

Last week Obama muddied the waters regarding possible military intervention. “The bottom line is that I have not taken any options off the table at this point,” Obama said. But his ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, had already dismissed a no-fly zone, according to the Wall Street Journal. “The kinds of capabilities that are being used to attack the rebel forces and, indeed, the population, will be largely unaffected by a no-fly zone,” Daalder said.

NATO is planning to impose a no-fly zone, anticipating that the UN might provide the authority. But NATO, which operates by consensus, lacks the support of member Turkey, which called such an action “unthinkable.”

Even if efforts to launch a no-fly zone mission fail, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is ready to aid the rebels. Clinton plans to meet with Libyan opposition leaders this week in Tunisia, and Donilon said Obama is looking for ways to aid the Libyan leader’s opponents, including providing arms.

Let’s hope Obama won’t arm the rebels with highly trafficable Stinger anti-aircraft missiles that could land in the hands of al-Qaeda or Mexican drug cartels. We are still paying a price for the weapons given the Afghan Taliban during its 1980s war with the former Soviet Union .

Obama’s fifth message to Gaddafi is America’s response to the Libyan crisis depends on UN approval. Back in 1986, then-President Ronald Reagan took action against Gaddafi without asking for the UN’s permission. Reagan bombed Gaddafi’s Tripoli palaces in response to a Libyan terrorist attack at a Berlin discotheque that killed two and wounded 50 American soldiers.

But Obama appears content to let the UN and other nations lead the search for solutions in Libya. He waited for a UN resolution on the embargo and now is waiting on a no-fly zone decision. His dependence on the UN isn’t becoming of the world’s sole superpower and certainly won’t help America’s credibility with anxious allies and adversaries such as Iran.

For now, Tripoli remains under Gaddafi’s iron grip, which presents two choices. Either Obama works with our partners to replace Gaddafi, which could require force and lots of follow-up assistance, and risks seeing someone worse—an Islamist—rise to lead that nation, or we sit back and allow the Libyans to resolve the crisis themselves.

Should Gaddafi survive this crisis, he could end up like Iraq’s former dictator Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam was isolated, faced crippling embargoes that hurt the average Iraqi, and he returned to dangerous habits.

Like Saddam, Gaddafi might renew his support for terrorists and restart his weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. During the 1970s and 1980s, Gaddafi armed terrorist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, and used his agents to bomb Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland. He also developed weapons of mass destruction—biological, and chemical, and he had a nuclear program—which he abandoned in 2004 because of threats from then-President George W. Bush.

There is no guarantee Libya would be any better off if Gaddafi leaves, a risk Obama must take if he decides to intervene. But at least Team Obama should stop sending mixed and conflicted messages that damage our credibility and encourage Libya’s dictator.

Attacks like the one that killed two American airmen at Frankfurt Airport last Wednesday will increase because Islamist terrorism is surging, especially among lone wolfs.  The only solution is to defeat extremists and their hosts, which could take decades if we have the will.

American service members such as those murdered last week will continue to be the Islamists’ primary target.  Our troops symbolize America’s foreign policy, which offends many Islamists, and they are the most visible American government representatives at home and abroad.

That Islamists are targeting our troops more frequently at home is an important fact for the House of Representatives to consider during hearings this week on the radicalization of American Muslims.

The Congress should consider evidence that U.S.-based Islamists are waging an escalating campaign of terror, especially against our war-weary armed forces.  Publicly known Islamist incidents include the murders at an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., and the Fort Hood, Tex., massacre that claimed 13 lives and wounded another 43.

The foiled Islamist cases reported in the press are especially sobering.  Last week, for example, two New Jersey men pleaded guilty to trying to link up with Somali Islamic extremists in an effort to kill American troops abroad.  Other recent cases include the failed Islamist plans to shoot down military aircraft in New York, murder Marines in Virginia, and attack military recruiting stations in Maryland, California, and one in Texas whose perpetrators intended to use weapons of mass destruction.

These incidents combined with the failed Christmas Day 2009 airline bombing and the 2010 attempted Times Square attack should force all Americans to face a stark reality.  The Islamist threat is getting worse, law enforcement can’t stop all the fanatics, and our military—a frequent jihadist target—must do a better job of defending itself.  The final reality is that defeating Islamic extremism is proving to be a very complex, long-term challenge.

First, there is evidence the Islamist threat will get worse at home.  Senior officials including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano confirm as much.  “Home-based terrorism is here.  And, like violent extremism abroad, it will be part of the threat picture that we must now confront,” Napolitano said.

The Internet is a popular and effective tool used to recruit and radicalize jihadists.  The Frankfurt jihadist’s Facebook profile makes plain his Islamist political leanings and approval of jihad.  He told German police he was inspired to kill the airmen after seeing an online video showing American soldiers raiding an Afghan home and raping a girl, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Social-media jihadist promoter Anwar al-Awlaki regularly posts hate-spewing YouTube videos that are wildly popular.  The American-born cleric, now hiding in Yemen, warns Muslims to “never, ever trust a kuffar [non-Muslim],” praises the attempt by the Detroit-bound airline bomber, and explains why American civilians are legitimate targets.  Al-Awlaki is tied to the Fort Hood massacre and helped inspire Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bombing suspect.

Recently, other jihadist leaders harnessed Islamist websites to advocate simpler attacks, as opposed to operations such as the 9/11 assaults.  Specifically, al-Qaeda spokesmen Nasir al-Wahayshi and Adam Gadahn called for numerous simpler attacks against soft targets using improvised explosive devices, guns, or even knives and clubs.  Their call may explain why law enforcement is concerned about more lone wolf-type attacks.

Second, law enforcement leaders such as Mitchell Silber, the director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, warn of another reality.  Silber said the number of foiled cases “indicate that radicalization to violence is taking place in the United States, ” which is a major challenge for law enforcement, and foiling these cases could get tougher if their frequency and sophistication increase.

Fortunately, law enforcement successfully stops most jihadist attacks, but not all.  The attempted Detroit airliner bombing and the Times Square incident failed because of jihadist mistakes, not good law enforcement.  But jihadists are learning from their failures, and so is law enforcement.

Reportedly, lessons learned from the 2004 Madrid, Spain, and 2007 Mumbai, India, attacks helped New York officials stop several plots directed against New York’s subway system.  Federal agents also applied lessons from past attacks to foil a jihadist case involving six ethnic Albanian Muslim men who planned to massacre American soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey .

Federal officials were tipped off by the wannabe killers’ poor terror tradecraft.  The jihadists made a videotape of them calling for “jihad” and practicing with assault weapons and then naively took the tape to a store for copying.  The store owner alerted the authorities who opened the investigation.

The conspirators also insisted on purchasing illegal fully automatic weapons.  Both tradecraft errors were widely publicized and likely won’t be repeated by the next jihadist group.

The third reality is that our military will continue to be a popular jihadist target.  That fact explains the significant increase in security around military installations to include strict procedures for accessing bases, and more barriers and guards.  The Pentagon also requires troops take annual anti-terrorism classes.

But the military’s jihadist problem has an internal component, as illustrated by the Fort Hood massacre.  Army Maj. Gen. Robert Radin, the leader of his service’s Internal Review Team, said, “We must efficiently and effectively transform how we look at protecting the force.”  Unfortunately the Army’s report labels the attack a “tragedy” rather than an Islamist terrorist attack, a fatal flaw.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) rightly faults the Army for failing to explain “that we are threatened by violent Islamist extremism and that an Army major who made public statements supportive of this murderous ideology was not stopped.”  Lieberman called on the Pentagon and the FBI to “deal directly and effectively with the deadly threat that violent Islamist extremism poses to our service members.”

It would also be refreshing if President Obama admitted we have an Islamic problem, but given his track record, that is doubtful.

Finally, the jihadist threat could get worse if the unrest sweeping the Mideast results in more radicalized Islamic governments that harbor terrorists.  That is why defensive measures alone are insufficient to remove the Islamist scourge. 

The only way to stop Islamist terrorism is to defeat it at the core.  The radicals that spew their hatred must be eliminated and regimes that harbor them must stop doing so or be removed.

Congress can help by insisting the Pentagon and law enforcement honestly identify the root cause of much of the terrorist threat—Islamic extremism—and provide public servants the laws and methods to eliminate the radicals and their sponsors.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

Saudi Arabia controls the world’s largest oil reserves, and if that spigot is shut off by Mideast chaos, the global economy could be devastated. That is why the West must encourage the Saudis to mitigate their vulnerabilities, but be prepared to respond if the kingdom falls.

The Saudi monarchy is preparing for the worst case. For the first time last week, a Saudi youth group connected with others by social media to plan a peaceful demonstration in Jeddah expressing solidarity with anti-government protesters in Libya. Fortunately for Riyadh, that demonstration and another among Shiite citizens in the Eastern province weren’t violent like the protests in Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen.

But Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz’s perception of the growing threat of social unrest prompted him to throw money at the problem. Last week he announced a $37 billion benefits package to create 1,200 new jobs, raise cost-of-living allowances, grant interest-free home loans, and more.

The king should be concerned about the spreading unrest because Saudi Arabia has striking similarities with countries already racked by chaos. For example, the king runs Saudi Arabia with the same autocratic style that former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak used, and the Saudi monarchy bases its political system on family and tribal links, as in Yemen.

But these similarities are somewhat mitigated by Saudi differences. Much of the discontent expressed in neighboring countries is attributed to high unemployment and living costs, which the Saudis address by shoveling money at their difficulties.

Saudi Arabia is also different because it is a country of tribes connected by marriage, creating a land unified by family ties. Also, the House of Saud, the ruling family, is not the typical isolated monarchy. Rather, it has 30,000 members, including thousands of princes who are integrated throughout society.

The House of Saud also has a very unique relationship with the country’s religious leaders. The 18th century Saudi ruler Abdallah bin Muhammad bin Saud married his son Abdul Aziz to the daughter of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of the puritanical Wahhabi movement. That union created the First Saudi State and explains the royal family’s advocacy for both Salafi Islam and unification of Saudi Arabia.

But these distinctives may not vaccinate the monarchy from four vulnerabilities.

First, the House of Saud is vulnerable because it hoards wealth and governing power. Saudi citizens are growing angry with their government as the population expands, per capita income drops, and young people lust for more liberty. That discontent is feeding a groundswell of calls for jihad against the royal family.

The rage and regional chaos may collide to form a tipping point for the kingdom. The monarch and his top princes are very old, and new blood must be installed. That reshuffling will remind anxious Saudis of Mubarak, who tried but failed to install his son as president. Saudis will ask themselves, too, why they must tolerate dictators.

Saudi citizens are also understandably impatient after having submitted petitions calling for a constitutional monarchy—a form of government in which the monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution. Calls for a constitutional monarchy and the kingdom’s pending leadership shuffle could become the tipping point that ends the House of Saud’s dynasty.

Second, the regime is vulnerable because it fails to treat political reform seriously. Last week Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, a grandson of the founding king of Saudi Arabia, wrote in the New York Times, “Unless many Arab governments adopt radically different policies, their countries will very likely experience more political and civil unrest.”

He labeled Arab political systems “outmoded and brittle” and said, “Arab governments can no longer afford to take their populations for granted, or to assume that they will remain static and subdued.” But Saudi Arabia’s monarch is only half listening to reformers.

Saudi King Abdullah responded to calls for reform by instituting a “National Dialogue” process, which allegedly provides Saudi citizens the means to criticize their government. But some citizens who used the process to identify grievances were arrested and detained, creating doubt about the royal family’s reform commitment.

Similarly, in 2005 the Saudi monarchy hosted elections for municipal councils, which were granted nominal powers to oversee local governments and make recommendations to national leaders. But as with the National Dialogue process, the municipal councils were ignored or not sufficiently empowered to do their jobs.

Third, the regime is vulnerable because social reform could fracture the stabilizing monarchy-Wahhabi relationship. The Saudi monarchy maintains its legitimacy among conservative constituent groups by carefully managing changes that could affect established religious practices, even though the lack of change stifles democratic reform.

The Congressional Research Service’s 2010 report on Saudi Arabia states, “Since 2006, significant public debates have occurred on social issues such as the powers of religious police, education reform proposals, and the roles and rights of women and the integration of Shiites into Saudi Arabia’s predominantly Sunni society.” Wahhabi clerics oversee these issues, and any challenge to that authority could split the unique state-religion relationship, which might radicalize the Saudi clerics who allegedly support terror groups such as al-Qaeda.

Finally, the rise of Iran and its Arab Shiite allies is a Saudi vulnerability. King Abdullah believes Iran stirs up Saudi’s Shia minority—15% of the population—much as it is said to be doing in next-door Bahrain.

Last week King Abdullah met with the king of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, to discuss the Shia political uprising there. These Sunni leaders accuse their Shiite populations of loyalty to Iran, a charge Shiites say is used to stoke sectarian tensions and justify opposition to democracy.

But Saudis feel threatened because they are encircled by Shia-leaning governments—Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and possibly soon Bahrain. Alireza Nader, an expert in international affairs, told the New York Times, “They worry that the region is ripe for Iranian exploitation. Iran has shown that it is very capable of taking advantage of regional instability.”

There is a history of tensions among Saudi Shiites. Two years ago, Saudi police launched a search for Shiite preacher Nimr al-Nimr, who suggested in a sermon that Shiites could one day form their own separate state. That secessionist threat followed clashes between the Sunni religious police and Shiite pilgrims near the tomb of Prophet Muhammad in Medina.

The Saudi Shia last rose up in mass civil disobedience in the intifada of 1979, inspired by Iran’s Islamic revolution. Recently, Tehran openly endorsed the “rightful demands” of the Arab protest movement, which supports the Saudi view that Iran is attempting to create a Mideast “Shia Crescent” to become the hegemonic force in global oil.

The Saudi royals can avoid collapse by mitigating vulnerabilities. But if the monarchy falls, the West must be prepared to step in, militarily and otherwise, to stabilize the country, keep Iran at bay, and sustain the oil flowing.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

Bahrain, a Persian Gulf island nation, has been swept up in the pro-democracy protests parading across the Mideast. But Bahrain’s protests are different because of Iran’s influence.

A democratic outcome from the current crisis could land Bahrain under the thumb of Shia Islamists aligned with Iran. Tehran would use that influence to close America’s military facilities in Bahrain, expand its reach by instigating rebellion among Saudi Shia, and leverage the global oil market.

This would put Tehran in the catbird seat as the region’s uncontested hegemon.

Bahrain’s pro-democracy crisis started with crowds of Shiite Muslims seeking reforms in a country ruled by a Sunni royal family. The protesters demanded the monarchy give up control over top government posts to allow Shia political representation proportional to their numbers. Bahrain is 70% Shia.

Bahrain’s military responded with brutal force. Last Thursday, Bahraini soldiers used teargas, rubber bullets, and buckshot to clear Shiite protesters from Pearl Square in Manama, the capital city. Shiite protesters retook Pearl Square on Feb. 19 after the military withdrew, but the opposition has yet to accept the monarchy’s plea for dialogue.

This crisis dates back to last summer, when government agents arrested scores of Shiite activists before parliamentary elections. But even with the harassment, the main Shiite faction, an Islamist group called Al Wefaq (Accord), won 18 of the 40 seats in the lower house. Those members walked out of parliament after the government attacked the protesters last week.

Iran’s role in the current crisis is unconfirmed. However, Tehran’s history is intertwined with Bahrain’s, and it has a motive. The nations maintain cultural, religious, and economic ties, and Persian (Farsi) is widely spoken in Bahrain.

For more than a century, Iran and Bahrain disputed over Bahrain’s sovereignty, until a 1970 survey determined that Bahrainis overwhelmingly desired independence. That decision was embraced by Iran’s Shah and ratified by Iran’s parliament, but suspicions still linger.

Bahraini officials suspect Iran wants to reclaim sovereignty. Twice (1981 and 1996) Bahrain accused Iran of trying to organize a coup by pro-Iranian Bahraini Shiites. Also, Iranian media and political leaders consistently claim Bahrain should never have become formally independent of Iran.

Two years ago the former Iranian parliament speaker Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri described as “inspector general” in the office of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei (the Ayatollah), complained that under the Shah, “Bahrain was our 14th province and had a representative at the parliament,” according to the international Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi.

Houda Nonoo, Bahrain’s U.S. ambassador, said, “Iran has had claims in the past on Bahrain.” She said the 2009 claim was “very similar to [Saddam Hussein’s] Iraq mentioning Kuwait as their 19th province,” according to the Washington Times.

There is recent evidence of Iranian involvement from the U.S. intelligence think tank Stratfor. It cites diplomatic sources that claim Lebanese Shia living in the United Arab Emirates entered Bahrain to participate in demonstrations. Also, Bahraini authorities reported arresting Lebanese Hezbollah—read Iranian proxies—in Pearl Square last week, and a different Stratfor source said roughly 100 Hezbollah operatives entered the United Arab Emirates beginning in January.

Whether Iran seeks to reclaim Bahrain and/or is stoking unrest via proxies is unconfirmed. But it is clear Tehran has exercised similar influence in Lebanon and Iraq. And it is also clear Iran would benefit if the current crisis results in a Shia-controlled Bahrain.

First, Iran would use a Bahrain platform to destabilize neighbor Saudi Arabia by instigating unrest among its Shia population. That could disrupt the flow of oil and/or radically alter the kingdom’s government and the region’s balance of power.

Riyadh sees Iran’s hand in Shiite empowerment in Baghdad and Beirut, and anticipates the same potential among its Shiite minority in the kingdom’s oil-rich eastern province. It fears the Saudi Shia, which make up 30% of the kingdom’s population, could rise up to demand reform—or at least share power—much as the Shia in Bahrain.

Last month, Saudi King Abdullah rebuked President Obama for insisting the Egypt crisis was not a homegrown uprising, but the result of Iranian interference. That is why the king will do everything possible to help Bahrain resist the Shia uprising, and should it come to Riyadh, the king won’t hesitate to use force. Stratfor’s sources indicate Saudi special operations forces are already in Bahrain helping put down the unrest.

Second, Iran would boot American forces out of Bahrain and replace them with its Revolutionary Guard forces. Tehran uses the Revolutionary Guard in Lebanon to train terrorist proxy Hezbollah and in Iraq to empower Shia power broker cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s insurgent Mahdi Army.

The 60-year-old U.S.-Bahrain relationship, which is built around defense issues, would end if an Iran-favoring government takes power. For now, Bahrain relies on U.S. security guarantees, and in exchange American forces enjoy access to air and naval facilities for the Fifth Fleet, which controls two carrier battle groups, monitors strategic passages such as the Strait of Hormuz, and tracks Iran’s navies—the Iranian fleet and the Revolutionary Guard’s navy.

Finally, Iran would threaten the flow of Persian Gulf oil if it had its way in Bahrain. Manama is not a major oil producer, but it does share with Saudi Arabia the 300,000 barrels per day exported from the offshore Abu Safa field.

But the real threat is Iran’s aim to leverage all Persian Gulf oil production. Iran already owns the world’s third-largest oil reserves, followed by fourth-place Iraq. Baghdad’s Shia-controlled government is in lockstep with Tehran and will soon be free of American forces, and therefore more vulnerable to Tehran’s influence.

Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest oil reserves, which Iran would like to control as well. A pro-Iran Bahrain would provide Tehran a platform from which to seed Saudi Shia insurrection much as it did in Iraq. No telling what might happen if Saudi Shiites sitting atop the kingdom’s oil fields cooperate with Iranian agents.

Bahrain would also provide Iran access to transit channels for oil tankers leaving Saudi Arabia’s loading facilities. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard navy could use that access to create coastal minefields—a capability it possesses—to control shipments, or soldiers could sabotage ships, as in a terrorist group’s attack on a Japanese oil tanker last summer. Both ways, the effect is to slow exports, making crude oil prices skyrocket, which helps Iran’s economy and its hegemonic leverage.

Couple that capability with an Iranian west coast home port for attack vessels, and Tehran clinches a stranglehold on oil production and transit. Quickly the 29-mile-wide strategic Strait of Hormuz becomes a very dangerous place, through which half of the world’s seaborne oil shipments pass.

The Bahrain crisis is different from the unrest elsewhere, because Iran is likely at its center. For now, America’s best course of action is to be silent, unlike our interference in the Egyptian crisis. Let the affected nations—Bahrain and Saudi Arabia—resolve the situation without our meddling.

Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television.

President Barack Obama’s foray into Egypt’s internal affairs has contributed to the crisis by embracing the wrong policy, launching mixed messages, failing to coordinate across his staff, and displaying a remarkable naiveté about the Mideast.  That performance is just his latest Mideast debacle that drains American influence.

Obama’s Mideast record reads like a Shakespearean tragedy, ending in the death of the major characters.  Every Obama Mideast initiative has failed or is failing:  Israeli-Palestinian peace, Iran’s rush for atomic weapons, terrorist Hezbollah’s Lebanon takeover, Turkey’s joining Iran’s camp, Pakistan’s uncooperative role in the Afghanistan war, the unfettered spread of extremist Islamists to Yemen and the Horn of Africa, and so on.  Now Egypt , one of our best anti-terror allies, is Obama’s latest victim.

Consider the results of Obama’s interference.

President Hosni Mubarak, an elected official, is gone, and Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces—the military dictators—is running the country.  The generals promised the anti-Mubarak protesters nothing, much less a pluralistic political system.

Human rights and opposition groups accuse Egypt’s military of torture, beatings, and arbitrary arrests and disappearances over the past weeks.  Time will tell whether those accusations are true and whether the military is Egypt’s savior, or whether the soft coup that Obama favored is an empty victory for Egyptian pro-democracy dreamers.

On Saturday the military council issued a communiqué that outlines the military’s intentions.  It will preserve the regime—it isn’t dismantling Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party—and it alone will set the state’s agenda, not the protesters.

Egyptians are expected to cooperate with police by clearing the streets, and the council stands by “all regional and international obligations and treaties.’’  That means the 1978 Israeli-Egyptian peace accord remains intact, which keeps U.S. military aid flowing to Egypt ’s military dictators and Israel breathes a momentary sigh of relief.

The communiqué does not declare martial law.  However, martial law remains an option, especially if the generals see Islamists threatening Egypt’s stability.

Egypt has a long history of Islamist militancy that could explode anew, especially after the prison breaks associated with the recent unrest.  Reportedly many jihadists escaped Egyptian prisons during the unrest, and there are reports other extremists are flowing into Egypt from the Gaza Strip.

The past three weeks might have turned out differently if Obama had not jumped into Egypt ’s domestic quarrel.  His interference has hurt our relationship with Egypt, the Arab world’s core country, and tainted our relationship with other regional allies.

The following illustrates some of Team Obama’s inept interference.

First, Obama called for an “immediate” transition to democracy in a country with a questionable democratic history, no truly representative political parties, and a constitution that requires an election within 60 days.  Obama’s call for “immediate” transition was at odds with reality and his call for an “orderly” and “genuine” transition.

A hurried-up election, which Obama says is “What I want,” would create chaos, and besides, a truly democratic election in overwhelmingly Islamic Egypt would result in something like the democratic takeover of the Gaza Strip by the terrorist group Hamas.  That is why the Egyptian military opposes “immediate” elections, and so should Obama.

Second, Team Obama sent mixed messages.  Soon after the protests began, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Mubarak’s government as “stable” and said Mubarak was “looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”

A few days later, Obama sent envoy Frank Wisner, a former U.S. ambassador to Egypt, to deliver a message to Mubarak.  Wisner’s message was “President Mubarak’s continued leadership is critical—it’s his opportunity to write his own legacy,” according to National Review Online.

And last week Team Obama’s message changed twice.  Mubarak promised he would not run for reelection and Obama responded that he favored a gradual change.  But on Wednesday, Obama changed his message again, calling for Mubarak’s “immediate” departure.

A Los Angeles Times article attributes Obama’s morphing message to a split within the administration’s staff.  Senior administration staff favored a long-term transition that avoids instability and reassures other governments, but Obama apparently listened to National Security Council members Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power, who, according to the Times, contended a go-slow approach would make Obama appear to side with Mubarak.

Third, Obama seemed to be blindsided by the crisis, which is evidence of either an intelligence failure and/or an out-of-touch staff.

Obama reportedly sent word to National Intelligence Director James Clapper that he was “disappointed with the intelligence failure to predict the outbreak of demonstrations that ousted Tunisia’s President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.”  A government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Associated Press, said there was also little warning before Egypt’s riots.

But Central Intelligence Agency official Stephanie O’Sullivan told Congress two weeks ago Obama was warned of instability in Egypt “at the end of last year.”  Sen. Saxby Chambliss ( R.- Ga. ) asked for a written record of the timetable of Obama’s intelligence briefings.

Further, CIA Director Leon Panetta testified last week that there was a “strong likelihood” Mubarak would step down on Thursday (Feb. 10).  But according to Fox News, when agency officials were asked about the basis for Panetta’s prediction, they were told the director’s statement was based on media broadcasts, not secret intelligence.

It may be that Mubarak delayed resigning because, as he said on Thursday, he would not be pushed out by foreign powers—read Obama.  Mubarak called Obama’s bluff, and then resigned the following day.

Finally, there is a remarkable naiveté within Obama’s administration about the Mideast.  Specifically, last week, Intelligence Director Clapper testified that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is a “largely secular” group and a peaceful organization, not one disguising an extremist agenda.

The Brotherhood’s slogan is “Islam is the solution,” and its strategic plan calls for Islamic dominance and the application of Sharia law.  And the Brotherhood’s current supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, in sermons delivered in Egypt last year, said, “Waging jihad is mandatory” for all Muslims, and he called for liberating the Muslim world by “all forms of resistance.”

Also, Obama demonstrated poor judgment by humiliating Mubarak, a prominent Mideast ally.  Obama called on Mubarak to “immediately” step down, and then threatened to reconsider America’s annual $1.4 billion in aid to Egypt.  But when Obama spoke with Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah about Egypt, the king said he would replace any funds the U.S. withdrew from Egypt.  The king recognized that if Obama is willing to humiliate Mubarak by pushing him out of office and using aid to leverage that decision, he would do the same to others.

President Obama’s role in Egypt’s coup seriously damaged America’s Mideast influence, and his administration’s fumbling demonstrates why this crisis is yet another one of the President’s parade of Mideast debacles.

By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

Egypt’s 60-year-old order is about to collapse, and the world’s largest Islamic supremist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, will join Cairo’s transitional government and win broad support in future elections. Egypt could then become the Iran of the West thanks in part to President Obama.

An Egyptian government dominated by the Brotherhood would quickly cast aside its democratic and nonviolent facade to establish Egypt as an Islamic state. The Brotherhood, like its terrorist offspring Hamas, would impose radical Sharia law, seek Israel’s annihilation, create a new terrorist sanctuary, and might declare war on the United States.

This dire prediction is not far-fetched if you consider Brotherhood statements and its history, which Obama apparently ignored to advance the Islamists’ inclusion in Egypt’s emerging transitional government.

Obama praised the “passion and dignity” of Egypt’s protesters, which include many Brotherhood supporters, as an “inspiration” to people around the world. He said, “I have an unyielding belief that you [Egyptians] will determine your own destiny.”

The President’s praise for anti-government protesters alienated regional partners such as the Saudis, according to an Arab official quoted in the Wall Street Journal. Arab leaders are rightly concerned that Obama’s push to oust Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak reflects incredible naivete about the strength of Egypt’s Islamists’ opposition. In 2009, Obama demonstrated similar naivete by inviting the Brotherhood to attend his speech at Cairo University.

Then late last week, Obama called for an immediate “orderly transition” to democratic reforms and threw his weight behind a gradual transition with General Omar Suleiman, the new vice president, who promises to broker a compromise with opposition groups such as the Brotherhood.

During the week, Obama’s ambassador in Egypt, Margaret Scobey, met at least twice with Muhamed ElBaradei, the former International Atomic Energy Agency chief, named by the Brotherhood and other protest groups to speak for them.

Although the details of those talks are not public, the results are crystallizing by the hour. Mubarak is leaving, the transitional government is emerging, and talks with the Brotherhood began yesterday. There is little doubt Egypt’s future government will include Islamists and most prominently the Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood is not a legal group, which must change before it can join the transitional government. But in spite of its lack of status, Brotherhood candidates won 88 seats in the 2005 parliamentary elections. This is impressive given the regime’s repressive measures.

The Brotherhood’s election prospects are especially bright because the democratic opposition is fractured and the Brotherhood already commands a third of the vote. Also, Shaykh Qaradawi, the most prestigious Brotherhood cleric, claims that in a Muslim country, secular reformers will never beat those who say “Islam is the solution” [the Brotherhood’s slogan], and according to a recent Pew poll, 95% of Egyptians favor an Islamic-leaning government.

Brotherhood apologists argue the group, which was closely allied with the Nazis in World War II and embraces a theology based on Wahhabism—extremist Islam, does not aim to create an Islamic theocracy in Egypt like the one in Iran. Rather, its spokesmen claim it is a nonviolent charitable and educational organization.

Mohammed Habib, a former deputy leader of the Brotherhood, told Radio Liberty he rejects the suggestion that the organization aims to create an Iranian-like Islamic theocracy. “We want a democratic government based on genuine political plurality.”

But Habib’s claim of “political plurality” does not agree with the Brotherhood’s strategic plan used by franchises in 70 countries. That plan calls for Islamic dominance through subtle integration, becoming part of the national social and political life, and the application of Sharia law. That strategy could soon become a reality in Egypt.

The Brotherhood’s new supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, is not a pluralist, but does advocate violence. Both Badie and al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden are devoted followers of Sayyid Qutb, a fundamentalist scholar who advocated Islamic holy war and was the chief developer of doctrines that legitimate violent Muslim resistance.

Last year, Badie demonstrated his radicalism in a series of sermons. He said “Waging jihad is mandatory” for all Muslims, especially against Israel and the United States. He called for “all forms of resistance for the sake of liberating every occupied piece of land in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all [other] parts of our Muslim world.” He also said the United States can be defeated through violence because it is “experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading toward its demise.”

Both Badie and his predecessor outlined their political plans for Egypt. Badie said the Koran should “become our constitution,” and in 2007 then-supreme guide Mohammed Mahdi Akef drafted the Brotherhood’s political platform.

That platform states Islam will be the state religion and that Islamic Sharia “is the main source for legislation.” The Supreme Council of Clerics—similar to Iran’s all-powerful Guardian Council—will exercise veto power over the legislature. Non-Muslims and women are barred from the presidency, and the 1979 Camp David Peace Accords with Israel would be put to referendum, which means certain defeat in the Muslim majority country. And tourists visiting Egypt must “be in line with Islamic principles, values, and laws,” which would put a serious damper on Western tourism.

There are at least five worst-case consequences should the Brotherhood or a coalition of Islamists govern Egypt.

First, the Islamists could adopt a political platform similar to the one outlined above. That would radically transform Egypt’s and the region’s security and trade. Keep in mind regional trade depends on Egypt’s Suez Canal, and vacating the Camp David Peace Accords would return the region to a war footing.

Second, an Islamist Egypt would realign partnerships. Cairo would grow closer to the Palestinians, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, while becoming hostile to oil-rich Arab totalitarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia, and most of the West, especially the United States.

Third, an Islamist-controlled Egypt woud eventually purge its American trained and equipped military much like the transition that is now happening with Turkey’s armed forces. Egyptian guns could soon be pointing at Americans.

Fourth, terrorist groups would find safe harbor in Egypt. That would radicalize the region and could turn Egypt into another terrorist haven like Pakistan or Yemen.

Finally, Hamas could be emboldened to expand its influence over the Palestinian Authority before reigniting a new war with Israel. That war could become a replay of the 1973 regional conflict, but this time it would include a Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon supported by a soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran.

These dire consequences just might take place if Islamists rule the roost in Cairo. A similar thing happened 32 years ago this week in Tehran, Iran, which caught then-President Jimmy Carter by surprise. Let’s hope Obama has learned from Carter’s foreign policy fumbling and avoids making more tragic Mideast history.

Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

The Mideast presents a chaotic quagmire of unforgiving choices for Obama. The turmoil in Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, and Tunisia is piled atop wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the civil war with Islamists in Pakistan. Add to these woes the concerns over Islamist Iran’s emerging atomic threat, the re-emergent neo-Ottoman Turkey, the mischievous Syria, the ever-present Israeli-Palestinian standoff, and the global Islamic terror campaign.

This collection of Mideast challenges threatens our national security interests and totally befuddles President Obama. That shouldn’t surprise anyone after Obama began his administration by naively promising to talk Tehran out of its nukes and to resolve the age-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Now he must face reality and pragmatically protect our key security interests. These include minimizing the threat posed by Islamic terrorists, protecting Mideast oil, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and protecting democratic ally Israel, which stands in the Islamic Arab world’s crosshairs.

Obama has already begun wrestling the latest batch of Mideast crises using a bait-and-switch approach. He praised “the courage and dignity” of Tunisians who toppled their repressive president, and last Friday he called on Egypt’s president to stand down from violence against protesters bent on toppling that government. Then Obama threatened to reconsider our $1.5 billion in annual aid to Egypt.

These new challenges may force Obama to make an ugly Hobson’s choice—endorse secular totalitarian-like regimes that support America’s security interests. The non-choice is the emergence of new Islamist regimes such as the one in Iran, a radical Islamic version of totalitarianism that opposes American security interests.

Obama has limited time to influence the latest crises before the affected countries fall into the clutches of radical Islamists.

Egypt is the latest country to fall into chaos and be threatened by an Islamist overtake. Since the republic’s founding in 1952, the country’s army has been the guarantor of stability and will likely support President Hosni Mubarak, 82, and save the regime, especially now that Omar Suleiman, the country’s head of intelligence, is to become vice president and heir-apparent to the presidency. That appointment pleases the military, which strongly opposed Mubarak’s intent to make his son, a man without military experience, the next president.

But Egypt may still fall to Islamists. The man that wants to replace Mubarak is the former United Nations nuclear inspector Muhammad el-Baradei, who shielded the Iranian nuclear weapons programs for years and says as president he would recognize Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group in Gaza, and end all sanctions.

Last week the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), Egypt’s only organized opposition to Mubarak, connected with Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi, suppliers of the 9/11 terrorists, joined the street protests, and is now calling for elections that would politically enable the group. MB members in Egypt’s parliament favor an Islamist state, ruled by Sharia law and at war with Israel and the U.S.

It is important to note that Egypt already has a significant Islamist proclivity that suggests widespread receptiveness to a future fundamentalist regime that the MB could leverage. Also, an Islamist strand exists among the military’s ranks that could prove influential if the revolution gets the upper hand.

The latest Pew poll finds considerable favor for Islamists among Egyptians (30% Hezbollah, 49% Hamas, and 20% al Qaeda). Egyptians, according to Pew, overwhelmingly (95%) welcome Islamic influence over their country’s politics, including 82% support for severe laws such as stoning for those who commit adultery, while 77% support whippings and hands cut off for robbery and 84% favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.

Tunisia could fall to Islamists if it delays forming a new government. On Jan. 14, Tunisians ousted president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali after 23 years as the region’s most repressive leader. The Jasmine Revolution, which led to Ben Ali’s ouster, began in December after a college-educated street vendor burned himself to death in protest over Tunisia’s repression and poverty—and massive demonstrations ensued.

The interim government purged almost all of Ben Ali’s cabinet ministers and eradicated his ruling party. But no coherent opposition force has emerged to drive events because outlawed parties such as the once powerful Islamist groups are still barred from participating.

But protests continue in the center of Tunis demanding the interim government be broken up. Meanwhile, there are reports that Rachid Ghannouchi, the founder of the Tunisian Islamist party, is returning to the country to reenter the fray.

The ongoing chaos has created a vacuum that will inevitably be filled either by the military, emerging leaders such as Ghannouchi, or a known figure via a hurried election. Tunisia’s constitution calls for elections by March 15, but the interim government wants a six-month delay for the parties to engage the electorate, which will play into the Islamists’ hands.

Yemen is a prime candidate for an Islamist takeover because it is the Arab world’s most impoverished nation, and it has become a haven for al Qaeda militants. It was the site of the Islamist attack on the USS Cole in October 2000 in which 17 sailors were killed.

Last week tens of thousands of Yemenis joined demonstrations calling for President Ali Abdullah Saleh, 64, in power for 23 years, to step down. Their complaints include lack of jobs, outrage over abusive security forces, corrupt leaders, and a repressive political system. Saleh’s government is corrupt and exercises little control, and its main source of income—oil—will run dry in a decade.

Yemen is already host to many conflicts and radicals. There is a rebellion in the north with Iran-sponsored Shia radicals, and a Marxist succession movement in the south. Part of the country is also controlled by an al Qaeda affiliate in the southwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula.

But Yemen is strategically important to the U.S. as an ally because al Qaeda has made it a base of operations. That organization and its leader, Anwar al-Awlaki, use the country to train, equip, and launch terrorists such as Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, who is accused of trying to detonate a bomb in his underwear during a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day 2009.

Lebanon’s new prime minister was installed by Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy terror group, which suggests that country is on the path to becoming an Islamist state. Najib Miqati, a billionaire and former prime minister, calls himself a consensus candidate in a badly divided country. His selection demonstrates a shift of power in the region away from the U.S. and its Arab allies and closer to Iran and Syria.

Antoine Zahra, a Lebanese lawmaker, said, “They [Hezbollah] will turn it into an isolated country, ostracized by the Arab world and the international community.”

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom described the Hezbollah appointment as effectively “an Iranian government on Israel’s northern border.” Israel and Hezbollah fought a war in 2006.

Hezbollah, which the U.S. State Department identifies as a terrorist group, was forged with Iranian support in 1982 and is blamed for two attacks on the American embassy and the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beruit that killed 240.

Obama should do everything possible to help distressed Mideast countries avoid becoming radical Islamist states. That may require him to accept governments that are less than liberal democracies, which would earn him criticism, but such governments would more likely than not support our security interests.

President Barack Obama should use his 2011 State of the Union address to provide substantive long-range strategic direction regarding our most critical national security challenges.

This time America deserves a speech that sets clear strategies and priorities to secure the nation without driving our economy deeper in the red.  Here are six national security challenges which Obama should address.

First, Obama should indicate how much defense America can afford.  America’s armed forces are overstretched trying to finish two wars while operating in 166 countries with thousands of fixed facilities, 1.4 million active-duty troops, thousands of aircraft and hundreds of ships.  In FY11 our defense will cost $750 billion not counting other costs such as $125 billion in veterans’ programs.

Evidently Obama is pressuring Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to cut defense spending.  Defense cuts are appropriate in these fiscally tough times, but they must be accompanied by fewer missions which Obama must also direct and hopefully without accepting too much risk.
The Pentagon’s big ticket discretionary items are personnel and weapon systems.  Obama must right-size our armed forces based on our long-term security requirements, such as whether we will need large numbers of ground forces for future troop-intensive counter-insurgencies like Afghanistan.  

Weapons systems are always targets for defense savings but keeping a ready, modern force requires long-term thinking.  Last year the administration ceased placing new orders for our F-22 Raptor stealth fighter because Gates saw no near-term threat.  But on January 11, 2011 the Chinese introduced a stealth fighter that challenges Gates’ analysis.

Second, Obama must outline his strategy for hemispheric security threats.  The 2010 Times Square bomber incident reminds us how vulnerable we are to transnational-supported terrorism.  But arguably our largest hemispheric vulnerability is what Obama promised to fix in 2010 – our “broken immigration system – to secure our borders.”

Our southern border remains porous to those seeking a better life in this country but also to those who threaten our security.  The level of violence in Northern Mexico, which pours across the border, is staggering – 11,000 drug-related homicides in 2010, a 70 percent increase from 2009.  That violence and agents with terrorist agendas illegally cross the border to threaten our security and violate our sovereignty.  It is past time our military do more to secure the entire border.

There are emerging hemispheric security issues that warrant attention.  Two days’ drive down the Pan American Highway is a close Iranian ally and a rabid U.S. antagonist, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez.  He runs a totalitarian and militarized state with the help of Cuban intelligence agents and hosts Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah and, according to the German magazine Die Welt, Iran plans to establish a ballistic missile base in Venezuela equipped with long-range Shabab 3 missiles capable of reaching the U.S.

Third, Obama must outline a strategy to address the threat posed by Iran and North Korea.  Western intelligence agencies agree Iran is pursuing atomic weapons.  They conclude it is only a matter of time before Tehran’s atomic-tipped ballistic missiles threaten American economic and security interests.  

Last week former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is the European Union’s Mideast envoy, said Iran poses a “looming, coming challenge” to world peace which the West must tackle by force if necessary.   But for the past two years Obama’s strategy was to cajole Tehran with tough talk and sanctions to no avail.

North Korea is an aggressive rogue which twice-tested atomic devices, improving its long-range ballistic missiles and a global weapons proliferator.  But so far Obama’s bait and switch strategy for dealing with Pyongyang has not worked and neither has his efforts to pressure North Korea’s mentor, communist China, to rein-in its communist partner.  Must we wait for the Hermit kingdom to successfully explode an atomic bomb on Los Angeles or Seoul before getting serious?

Fourth, Obama must establish a China strategy that counters the communists’ rapidly expanding military threat.  Beijing already owns a significant part of our national debt, manipulates its currency to favor Chinese companies and is growing a sophisticated, large and expeditionary military that exceeds any reasonable regional requirements.  And it keeps its military intentions secret, fueling our concerns.  Worse, these developments are especially disturbing when coupled with evidence that China’s next generation of military leaders are nationalistic, independent and aggressive as evidenced by escalating regional confrontations and published military views about China’s new “core interests” which claim sovereignty over disputed territories and entire seas. 

Fifth, Obama’s Afghan strategy is in trouble in spite of $5.7 billion in direct war costs per month.  Obama’s strategy of focusing troops on high-density populations is beginning to show promise, but other critical facets such as recruiting the Afghan government away from corruption and preparing Afghan security forces to take-over the mission by 2014 lag.  But the most daunting of Obama’s war problems is with Pakistan.

Obama’s strategy will not succeed without Islamabad’s full cooperation which is doubtful because that atomic-armed country won’t do what is necessary to deny our enemies sanctuary.  Besides, even though America provides billions in arms and economic aid, Pakistan is trending toward Islamist extremism as evidenced by the recent assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer.

Governor Taseer was allegedly killed by a man who saw him as an apostate for opposing Pakistan’s Islamic blasphemy law.  This incident, which earned widespread public support, exposes Pakistan’s rising Islamic fundamentalism that is radicalizing the nation, undermining that country’s dysfunctional national government and turning the people against America, especially the war in Afghanistan.

Finally, Obama must address the radicalization of the Arab street.  This issue is far more complex than the Israeli-Palestinian stand-off, a common excuse for Arab discontent, which Obama failed to mention in his 2010 speech.  Rather, the recent uprising in Tunisia illustrates the problem.

Tunisia’s unrest is blamed on anger over poverty, unemployment and repression.  The growing fear is these problems are widespread across the Arab world and could lead to popular revolt among disenfranchised young populations which could overthrow their totalitarian governments in favor of radical, Islamist regimes that might host transnational terrorism.

President Obama’s most important constitutional responsibility is providing for America’s national security.  That is why he must use his State of the Union address to outline strategies and priorities for at least these six security challenges and then vigorously follow-through in 2011.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

This week President Barack Obama hosts a summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao to discuss pressing issues, but they will likely side-step the most important – why the communist regime needs a sophisticated, assertive and global military.

The leaders will discuss economic and political issues, including tensions on the Korean peninsula and Beijing’s support for Iran. These issues contribute to escalating bilateral tensions but none more than China’s emergence as a security threat across Asia with a significant and growing global power projection capability.

Policy experts like Henry Kissinger, former U.S. secretary of state, caution China’s growing armed capabilities and its assertiveness need not start a cold war. Rather, Kissinger warns in the Washington Post “…globalization and the reach of modern technology oblige the U.S. and China to interact around the world” and he advises the countries to develop an “overarching concept for their interaction.”

That is sound advice but at this point Beijing isn’t cooperative. Rather China is ravenously soaking up resources, manipulating its currency to favor Chinese companies, intimidating its neighbors over territorial disputes and growing its armed forces far beyond what it needs for regional security.

That is why Obama should use his summit to discern China’s true military intentions and then adjust our policy.

Last week China’s military alarmed the world. On January 11th, hours before U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sat down with President Hu in Beijing, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducted a test flight of its secret fifth generation fighter. Gates, who previously predicted China was at least a decade away from such a test, mentioned the test to Hu and, according to Gates, Hu acted surprised by the news.

If Hu really did not know about the test, it suggests the regime’s grip on the military is slipping. After two decades of military modernization it appears the PLA is pushing a hard-line agenda and becoming more willing to voice its opinion on foreign policy issues. This is a worrisome development especially as the Chinese leadership, which includes new nationalistic-minded military commanders, takes command in 2012.

This leadership change accompanies China’s eye-popping military transformation. The fifth generation combat aircraft, dubbed the J-20, is the latest in a long series of sophisticated weapon system developments.

Last year Admiral Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, testified “China’s rapid and comprehensive transformation of its armed forces is affecting regional military balances and holds implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region.”

Willard cited China’s submarine force which is now virtually equal in number to the U.S. fleet and rapidly closing the technology gaps. This includes the newest Jin-class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine which can roam the globe with nuclear-tipped weapons.

The admiral was especially concerned about China’s anti-ship ballistic missile capable of targeting large ships, such as U.S. aircraft carriers. This weapon, the “D” version of China’s DF-21 medium-range missile, combined with China’s new integrated air-defense systems and new power-projection capabilities threaten “archipelagos” in Asia, such as Japan, the Philippines and beyond.

Admiral Willard expressed concern “that elements of China’s military modernization appear designed to challenge our freedom of action” such as its new aircraft carrier program. Beijing’s first aircraft carrier, the Shi Lang (a refurbished Russian Kuznetsov-class), is expected to begin operations this year. The Pentagon anticipates Beijing will build two more aircraft carriers by 2017 to patrol the South China Sea, Western Pacific and Indian Ocean.

The PLA’s air force is the third-largest in the world with over 1,600 combat capable aircraft which includes bombers armed with long-range cruise missiles able to strike targets in Guam. It is also developing airborne early warning and control aircraft for expeditionary operations and has deployed several types of unmanned aerial vehicles.

China’s ground forces include 1.25 million soldiers augmented by 500,000 reservists and a large militia. Its expeditionary forces include three airborne divisions, two amphibious infantry divisions and seven special operations groups – equipped with the latest hardware.

China’s space and cyber capabilities are sophisticated. It is rapidly expanding its space-based systems including a proven anti-satellite capability to prevent the use of space-based assets by potential adversaries. Its cyberwarfare systems already effectively targeted U.S. government computer systems.

How does Beijing intend to use its modern military? The PLA’s white papers, the only official indication of its intentions, suggest its priorities include securing China’s status as a great power, which is not explained.

But the PLA’s menu of current operations may suggest future action. It will continue to conduct internal stability tasks and address natural disasters and accept more international roles. Since 2002 China assumed 22 United Nations missions beyond its borders to include peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief operations.

But perhaps the most troubling missions are those it identifies with its “core” national interests. China uses its military to intimidate its neighbors as well as U.S. warships operating throughout the region. In particular, Chinese warships staged confrontations in the South China Sea with U.S. vessels and over the Spratly and Paracel island groups and more recently it acted aggressive with Japan near the disputed Senkaku islands.

China continues preparing for Taiwan Strait contingencies and vigorously objects to U.S. arms sales to that democratic nation. Beijing’s military build-up opposite Taiwan includes 1,150 short-range ballistic missiles, amphibious forces, air wings and warships.

China, the world’s leading merchant, uses its forces to defend supply lines. That explains its desire to pursue the “string of pearls” strategy by securing forward bases along the sea lines of communication from China to the Middle East. Currently, China has facilities at Hainan Island, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and others in the Gulf of Aden and Iran are under consideration.

Beijing’s arms build-up appears to be intended for missions beyond disputed islands and supply lines. Perhaps that is why the Pentagon’s 2010 report states “The limited transparency in China’s military and security affairs enhances uncertainty and increases the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation.”

China’s rapid militarization, its growing assertiveness, the questionable civil control of its military and the emergence of a nationalistic military leadership present a serious challenge for America. That is why Obama should use his summit with President Hu to clarify Beijing’s intentions and then prepare for the worst – the emergence of a militarized global peer competitor and bully.