some optimism on Iran/Iraq

Here are a couple of good reports which suggest some grounds for optimism in facing down the enemies of freedom in Iran and Iraq. Those who dismiss out of hand the possibility of success from the American liberation of Iraq should, but probably won't, read these. Taken together, they paint a picture which is credible and begins to justify the enormous cost and effort of the US in the region.

From Amir Tahari in the Jan 31 edition of the Washington Post:

"That at least part of the Khomeinist leadership might want ways to defuse the situation is not surprising. The sanctions, though nothing more than a gentle rap on the knuckles, have already started to bite - with a disproportionate psychological impact on some players in the Iranian economy. Iranian businessmen see the measures as a kind of aperitif for a deadlier main course to be served later."

And from Fouad Ajami (John Hopkins University):

"The truth of Iraq will assert itself on the ground, but the age of Sunni monopoly on power has passed. One of Iraq's most respected scholar-diplomats, Hassan al-Alawi, has put the matter in stark terms. It is proper, he said, to speak of an "American Iraq" as one does of a Sumerian, a Babylonian, an Abbasid, an Ottoman, and then a British Iraq. Where Iraq in the age of the Pax Britannica rested on an "Anglo-Sunni" regime, this new Iraq, in the time of the Americans, is by the logic of things an American-Shia regime. The militant preachers railing against the fall of Baghdad to an alliance of the "American crusaders" and the "Shia heretics" are the bearers of a dark, but intensely felt conviction. We should not be apologetic, in Arab lands seething with bigotry and rage, about our expedition into Iraq. We shouldn't fall for Arab rulers who tell us that they would have had the ability to call off the furies had we had in place a "process" for resolving the claims of the Palestinians, and had we been able to "deliver" Israel. Those furies have a life of their own: In truth, they are aided and abetted by these same rulers in the hope of tranquilizing their own domains and buying off the embittered in their midst."

Carolinem Glick makes the case for action against Iran

Caroline Glick is clearheaded as usual in this very good article from the Jerusalem post. The current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel is a foreshadow of the larger conflict that we are engaged in- the conflict between western democracy verses Islamic theocratic totalitarianism.



An excerpt:




This new information means that the time line for Iranian acquisition of
nuclear bombs has been shortened dramatically. If just months ago US
intelligence officials claimed that Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons until
2011, and if just six weeks ago Mossad chief Meir Dagan told the Knesset's
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran needed two years to acquire the
bomb, the report that Iran could test a nuclear weapon by the end of 2007 means
that there is reason to fear that Iran will have the means to launch a nuclear
attack against Israel next year.

Cost of defeat

Few can match Victor David Hason in clairity of insight about the requirement for an American victory in Iraq. This article is a must read.

an excerpt:

In contrast, stabilize Iraq under horrific conditions, and the world is reminded
that there is nothing that a brilliantly led and highly trained American
infantry cannot accomplish. Win in Iraq, and there will be fewer future calls on
the Army and Marines to repeat their victory; lose — and there will be far more
need to do what they cannot.

Kaplans Insight

Here is an important and necessary insight into one of the key issues facing reconstruction and democratic renewal in the Arab world: the failure of current nation states. Robert Kaplan of the Atlantic Monthly explores the background and suggests some dire conclusions. An excerpt:

Indeed, the more artificial the state, the more extreme the secular ideology had
to be to hold it together. To secure unwieldy tribal assemblages, for instance,
an austere state socialism was required in Algeria, and a form of "Dear Leader
Absolutism" in Libya. Because Syria and Iraq were also artificial constructs,
these two states resorted to Baathism — another bastardized form of state
socialism.

full article here.

good start to the new year

This is good news in the fight against terrorism. The Radical Islamic movement has shown itself (again) to be a paper tiger which cannot withstand serious military resistance.

I recommend this article by Ralph Peters in today's NY Post. A quote:

The Ethiopians fought. And won. Could there be a lesson here?
Of course, Somalia won't become the new vacation spot of choice for the mega-rich - Somalis will show up with Kalashnikovs on the Day of Judgment. Yes, the Islamists will default to terror. But, just as it's better to have the Taliban raiding in the boonies rather than ruling Afghanistan, it's vastly preferable to have Somalia's Islamists and their foreign-terrorist allies conniving to regain power than to have them in charge of a strategically located state.
To Americans, Somalia is "Black Hawk Down" country, where our forces won a lopsided military victory only to have President Bill Clinton surrender to our enemies - the greatest single act of encouragement our government ever gave to the Islamist movement. We picture Somalia as a poor, dusty, war-ravaged place (all true) and as small, remote and unimportant (all wrong).