The Latest in Our Ongoing War With Iran

The revelation of an Iranian plot to kill a Saudi diplomat on American soil was not particularly surprising. The U.S. has been engaged in a low-level war with Iran for years, although the war appears to be pretty one-sided, with Iran actively working to kill American soldiers, and doing everything possible to create anti-American proxies in Iraq -- among other things. Iran has been allowed to get away with this, despite its military weakness compared to the United States. Now it is true that there have been covert actions against Iran too, such as the killing and kidnapping of nuclear scientists, and cyberattacks aimed at its nuclear program. The level of U.S. involvement is unclear, but it is likely that U.S. allies such as Israel or Saudi Arabia might be behind them. Overall though, the U.S. has tolerated open hostility and acts of war from a third-rate power.

Some experts are surprised and skeptical about this plot's links to the Iranian government, because it seems reckless and somewhat amateurish. They could be right, and it might have been some sort of rogue operation. But I doubt it. I find it unsurprising that Iran might engage in what seems like a reckless escalation of the war, because it has little reason to fear any sort of significant response. It is well aware that the U.S. is preoccupied with various major issues, and that it is led by an extremely weak president, who has been nothing but spineless toward all enemies other than Al Qaeda and its affiliates. You have only to look at Obama's weak response to this situation. The U.S. government openly accuses Iran of trying to assassinate an allied diplomat on American soil, but then does nothing other than run to the UN and try to get more useless sanctions. Why should the Iranian rulers fear that sort of toothless action?

This situation demonstrates yet again that the Obama administration is incompetent when it comes to foreign policy. You don't accuse a hostile country of an act of war unless you are prepared to respond with force. A strong accusation combined with a weak response does nothing other than increase hostility while making you appear weak. One thing Obama is very good at is making the U.S. look weak.

Romney's Foreign Policy Speech

Mitt Romney gave a major foreign policy speech at The Citadel. Here are my comments on various parts.

America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.

This is an important point and one I want to hear from any presidential candidate. A strong America is not only good for the world in general, but more importantly it is good for America. I don't want a president who thinks the U.S. should fade into the background while some other power rises to dominance. Romney goes on to give a ringing defense of American Exceptionalism and then lists what he sees as specific threats. All of them require American strength.

there is one unifying thread that connects each of these possible threats: when America is strong, the world is safer.

Ronald Reagan called it “Peace through Strength” and he was never more right than today. It is only American power—conceived in the broadest terms—that can provide the foundation of an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies around the world.

American strength rises from a strong economy, a strong defense, and the enduring strength of our values.

He states 4 cores principles on foreign policy: 1. Clarity and resolve on our positions for both friends and enemies. This is something I advocate on a regular basis. 2. Promotion of open markets, representative government and human rights. This is pretty standard stuff, but I'd prefer an emphasis on advancing U.S. interests, and a realization that democracy and the promotion of human rights are not always in our interests depending on the situation. 3. Rapid reaction to events to defuse them before they require military action, and American military supremacy. I like the emphasis on military supremacy, but I'd rather hear that we are going to mind our own business and not feel like we need to interfere all over the world unless it is truly necessary for U.S. interests. 4. U.S. leadership in alliances and international actions/organizations, while retaining the right to act unilaterally. Sounds good.

Romney even lays out some specific actions he would take including strengthening the navy, prioritizing the deployment of a missile defense system, cybersecurity, deterrence against Iran, support for the so-called Arab Spring, a free trade economic policy toward Latin America, a full review of the situation in Afghanistan, greater support for Israel, closer ties with the UK, and talks with Mexico toward cooperation on their drug problems and bilateral security.

I'm in favor of strengthening the navy, our first line of defense and power projection. But as much as I support missile defense, I don't think we can afford it right now. I would not make deployment a priority. I've called for a policy of deterrence vs. Iran, and I'm all for free trade in general. I'd like to hear exactly what he means by supporting the Arab spring. I'm highly skeptical. I strongly support Israel, but don't think we should be increasing foreign aid to anyone any time soon, even allies. In fact, it would have been nice to hear about some cuts in aid, particularly in aid to places with hostile regimes or populations.

Despite my differences, overall this speech reinforces what I already thought about Mitt Romney -- that he is fairly solid on foreign policy.

Foreign Policy Incompetence - Pakistani Edition

The Obama administration gets much well-deserved criticism for its incompetent and ineffective domestic policies. But it is always worth pointing out that administration incompetence also extends to foreign policy. Today we had another reminder.

Last Thursday Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, touched off a major diplomatic crisis with Pakistan when he said the following things:

[He] told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Pakistan’s spy agency was tied to the attack on the U.S. embassy last week as well as the truck bombing on Sept. 10 that wounded 77 American soldiers. ... Mullen told the committee the Haqqani network “acts as a veritable arm” of Pakistan’s intelligence agency.“In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan, and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI, jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but Pakistan’s opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence,” Mullen said. “They may believe that by using these proxies, they are hedging their bets or redressing what they feel is an imbalance in regional power. But in reality, they have already lost that bet.”

These are things that should never have been said unless A) we meant them, and B) we were prepared for the obvious Pakistani reaction and felt that somehow they would produce positive results. Apparently the Obama administration was too clueless to figure that out. Now that the damage has been done, it is trying to backtrack. From the first NYT link,

Asked on Wednesday whether he agreed that the Haqqani network was “a veritable arm” of the ISI, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told reporters, “It’s not language I would use.”

He pivoted quickly to say the Obama administration is united in its assessment that “links” exist between the Haqqani network and the ISI, “and that Pakistan needs to take action to address that.”

If that wasn't the language they wanted used, it shouldn't have been used by the senior military leader of the United States. The damage is already done.

Not So Secret Drone Bases

The Washington Post has a front-page story about a "ring" of supposedly secret drone bases, apparently oblivious to the fact that if they are a featured story in the paper, they are hardly all that secret anymore. These bases, a critical part of our worldwide counterterrorism efforts, have been exposed by our enemy Wikileaks, as part of its release of stolen diplomatic cables.

As I've pointed out before, Wikileaks has already done far more damage to the U.S. than most terrorists can dream of, and this is just the latest example. Al Qaeda doesn't need intelligence operatives in the U.S. conducting espionage to uncover details about U.S. counterterrorism efforts. It has Wikileaks to do it for them. The exposure of these secrets might make for interesting reading, but that damage to U.S. interests is real and significant. The Post covers the situation with Seychelles.

The government of Seychelles agreed to host U.S. drones and to keep their counterterrorism mission secret, using a cover story that they were there for anti-piracy operations. The U.S. told Seychelles that the drones would be unarmed.

During a meeting with Seychelles President James Michel on Sept. 18, 2009, American diplomats said the U.S. government “would seek discrete [sic], specific discussions . . . to gain approval” to arm the Reapers “should the desire to do so ever arise,” according to a cable summarizing the meeting. Michel concurred, but asked U.S. officials to approach him exclusively for permission “and not anyone else” in his government ... Michel’s chief deputy told a U.S. diplomat on a separate occasion that the Seychelles president “was not philosophically against” arming the drones, according to another cable. But the deputy urged the Americans “to be extremely careful in raising the issue with anyone in the Government outside of the President. Such a request would be ‘politically extremely sensitive’ and would have to be handled with ‘the utmost discreet care.’ ”

Here you see that the U.S. made a secret agreement with the president to cut out the rest of his government. In order to conduct these type of operations we need to make agreements with various countries that involve these sorts of back-door dealings, because of domestic political consideration in the states hosting our drones. How much harder will it be to obtain bases now that everyone knows that the U.S. is unable to keep even sensitive diplomatic correspondence secret, and unwilling to take necessary actions to destroy a hostile organization that is stealing and publishing those secrets? If you were the president of some other nation approached by the U.S., would you make a similar agreement, knowing that the U.S. can't keep secrets?

The Libyan Situation

CNN has live updates of the changing situation. The key questions right now are, where is Gaddafi, and will he accept defeat? According to reports his son, a leading spokesman for the regime, was captured Sunday and most resistance in the capital has collapsed. It looks like the rebels have won. But does Gaddafi retain enough military strength and support to continue fighting? Ideally he'll be captured, killed or flee the country and go in to exile.

If we assume that Gaddafi is finished and the rebels will be able to establish a new government, that raises more questions for the U.S. First, when will our involvement end? Will we, as usual, decide that we need to give Libya huge amounts of aid to help rebuild the country? And second, what type of government will emerge? In my opinion our intervention was unnecessary and not in the U.S. interest. However, if a decent friendly or even neutral government takes over, one that removes Libya from the column of nations we need to worry about, the operation will have achieved positive results. Although it isn't hard to do better than Gaddafi, it is unfortunately also possible that the new government will be dominated by Islamists, or be in other ways as bad or worse as the dictator it replaces. Other than just supporting the rebels, I'm not sure what exactly we are doing to try and produce a positive outcome. Right now we are in wait and see mode.

"Smart Power" Isn't Smart or Powerful

Hillary Clinton made the laughable claim that the U.S. is employing "smart power" with regard to Libya and Syria. With all the focus on President Obama's miserable handling of domestic policy, it's always worth reminding people that this administration is almost as clueless when it comes to foreign affairs. Here's Clinton on what she thinks we are doing in Libya.

Libya was a study in the use of "strategic patience," whereby the United States resisted the impulse for immediate intervention and instead helped to build support for the country's nascent opposition, which the U.S. now recognizes as Libya's legitimate government. She said the unprecedented NATO-Arab alliance protecting civilians on the ground was a key result of the tactics of smart power.

Here's what we are actually doing in Libya. Despite already being involved in two wars, fighting Islamist terrorists across the globe, and mired in an economic mess, we decided to intervene in the Libyan civil war. This intervention was completely unnecessary, particularly given that Britain and France were already going to intervene. Not only did we do so anyway, but we created a terrible precedent at the UN by signing on to a resolution that could easily be directed against America in the future. In addition, once in the war, we refused to win it by taking the obvious action of trying to eliminate Gaddafi. We are basically helping prolong a civil war, wasting money, and keeping forces tied down in yet another open-ended commitment. If that's a smart use of American power, I'd hate to see a dumb one.

In Syria, we are doing essentially nothing. In my opinion that's actually pretty smart. But it has nothing to do with exercising some sort of power. We are refusing to employ our power at all. Hillary Clinton even thinks it would be going too far if we called for Assad to step down. And then there's this gem from the Secretary of State that demonstrates yet again how Obama's foreign policy is based primarily on naivete and wishful thinking.

"I think this is smart power, where it is not just brute force, it is not just unilateralism," she said. "It is being smart enough to say you know what we want a bunch of people signing out of the same hymn book and we want them singing a song of universal freedom, human rights, democracy, everything that we have stood for and pioneered over 235 years."

Brute force is an actual application of power. It can be smart or it can be dumb. It depends how and why it is employed. Doing things unilaterally is sometimes necessary and can also be smart, and in American interests -- which aren't exactly a priority for the Obama administration. What is "universal freedom" supposed to be? Maybe it's the same thing as "a universal set of values and interests."

"The United States stands for our values, our interests and our security, but we have a very clear view that others need to be taking the same steps to enforce a universal set of values and interests,"

There is obviously no such thing as universal values or interests. But Clinton wants to "enforce" them somehow. Hopefully we can replace the Obama administration with one that at least grasps the basic fact that different states have different interests, and that values vary wildly across the globe.

Staying in Iraq

I've been saying for years that we aren't leaving Iraq any time soon, despite our supposed withdrawal date, and a report from the Washington Post appears to confirm that assumption.

U.S. officials welcomed on Wednesday Iraq’s decision to negotiate with Washington on keeping some U.S. troops in the country into next year ... Iraq’s top political leaders agreed late Tuesday that the Iraqi military needs to continue training programs with U.S. forces, marking the first step in a process that still could take months to resolve.

On the one hand the U.S. has good reasons for retaining a military presence in Iraq, which are laid out in the article. But the problems lie in the details.

Significant details that remain unresolved include the length and focus of any training program, how many U.S. troops such training might require and how Iraqi leaders would formally request and approve a new partnership. Mullen and his colleagues also want legal immunity for any troops who stay behind.

One huge detail not mentioned is who is going to pay for the continuing U.S. presence. If Iraq wants and needs U.S. troops to remain in its country beyond the agreed upon withdrawal date, it should provide the financial support for that presence. With our fiscal situation as it is, we should not continue to maintain large foreign deployments, plus the aid programs that go with them, at our expense.

Tim Pawlenty's Middle East Speech

My first impression when reading stories about GOP presidential contender Pawlenty's speech was negative, and after reading the whole thing I think it's a mixed bag -- with the bad outweighing the good. First, the good:

• The criticism of Obama's foolish "engagement" policy is on point
• Recognition that strong U.S. support for Israel gives a better chance for peace than a pretense that we are some sort of neutral broker.
• Threat to cut off Palestinian aid.

And the bad:

• a strong fetish for democracy promotion, and a seeming failure to understand that democracy is other countries is not necessarily in the U.S. interest.
• call to pressure friendly nations over human rights issues
• a way too optimistic view of Arab uprisings
  
• offhand dismissal of realpolitik in favor of what I consider unwarranted optimistic idealism

Overall I'm not thrilled with Pawlenty's ideas as advanced in this speech. What he calls isolationism can be better categorized as realistic assessment of American interests. There was some talk of U.S. interests in the speech, but not nearly enough. In purely political terms, the speech appears to indicate that he has knowledge of Middle East policy and coherent, if unconvincing ideas. But in my opinion various portions of his speech could easily have been spoken by George W. Bush or Barack Obama. And that's not a recommendation.

Why Can't We Win Wars?

With the recent spectacle of the Secretary of Defense refusing to say whether or not we are winning in Afghanistan, and our seeming inability to even define what winning means in wars any more, Mark Steyn's article, "Too Big to Win," is a must-read. It's a long column, but it makes numerous excellent points. Here's one example.

An army has to wage war on behalf of something real. For better or worse, “king and country” is real, and so, mostly for worse, are the tribal loyalties of Africa’s blood-drenched civil wars. But it’s hardly surprising that it’s difficult to win wars waged on behalf of something so chimerical as “the international community.” If you’re making war on behalf of an illusory concept, is it even possible to have war aims? What’s ours? “[We] are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people,” General Petraeus said in April. Somewhere generations of old-school imperialists are roaring their heads off, not least at the concept of “the Afghan people.” But when you’re the expeditionary force of the parliament of man, what else is there?

The whole article is worth reading.

h/t The Atheist Conservative

The Latest on Iran & Nuclear Weapons

Over at In From the Cold, there's a look at the latest on Iran's nuclear weapon program. The news isn't good.

Using data released last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles and the operations of its nuclear program, U.S. weapons expert Gregory Jones calculates it could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb in just eight weeks. ... According to Mr. Jones, there is nothing the U.S. or Israel can do to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons--short of a military occupation. Since the odds of that happening are virtually nil, Jones believes an Iranian bomb is a foregone conclusion.

As the post notes, if these recent assessments are correct, it looks like the cyber attacks and various covert actions against Iran have been less successful than originally thought. According to a study by the RAND Corporation, attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability can already be considered a failure. Here's what RAND recommends.

The goal of U.S. foreign policy should now shift to dissuade Iran from taking the next step of making a weapon, the study says, adding if that fails, Washington should have a back-up strategy to deter a nuclear-armed Iran.

If we couldn't talk them into giving up their nuclear aspirations, it is equally unlikely that we can somehow persuade then not to take the final step. Rather than continuing with our official policy of wishful thinking, we should recognize reality and get ready to implement a deterrent strategy. In the meantime we should step up covert action aimed at sabotaging all elements of the Iranian nuclear program.

Obama's Mideast Speech

I found nothing particularly surprising in the president's speech. It was the sort of thing I would expect from someone whose foreign policy ideas are based largely on an exaggerated notion of the power of talking and on wishful thinking. Like some freedom agenda promoters on the right, Obama seems oblivious to the fact that democracy in other states is not necessarily in the U.S. interest. He dismisses such concerns as temporary, and exhibits a sort of childlike faith in democracy. As usual he shows no understanding of the difference between the collapse of regimes favorable to the U.S., and of those who are hostile.

Obama's remark about using the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians has stirred up a hornets' nest. Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic points out that this idea is nothing new to U.S. policy.

This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what's the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn't think that the 1967 border won't serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?

As I wrote in the previous post, I think a Palestinian state is a very bad idea and should not be U.S. policy. But I agree with Goldberg that there has been an overreaction to this particular comment by Obama. The whole so-called "peace process" has been a bad joke for a long time.

Much more disturbing than the comment about the 1967 borders, is Obama's call to spend even more U.S. money in the region -- as if we aren't spending enough already. In Obama's world, there is nothing that can't be improved by more government spending, and this applies externally as well as internally.

We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society

He goes on to give a laundry list of things we are going to be wasting money on, no doubt in many cases to the benefit of people who despise us.

Money Down a Hole

The U.S. continues to pour money into Pakistan with very little to show for it. The Christian Science Monitor has an article up called, "US aid in Pakistan: Where's the money going?" The answer to that question is: we don't know. According to the article, since 2002 the U.S. has given Pakistan $20.7 billion in aid, more than 2/3 of it to the military.

The US reimburses Pakistan for costs associated with the numerous military operations launched following US goading.

But the Defense Department has failed to obtain enough information to judge whether $2 billion in claims were valid, according to the government accountability office. Their 2008 report found evidence of double billing or repayment for unrelated or nonexistent efforts, including $200 million for radar upgrades – even though militants have no air force that would require such radar.

And you can bet that documentation on the rest of the aid is only slightly less shaky. As in Afghanistan, we are simply pouring money down a hole. And for all this money, we get Osama bin Laden living more or less openly a short distance from major Pakistani military facilities. We also get attempts to shoot down NATO helicopters, safe havens for the Taliban, significant Pakistani military & intelligence ties to terrorist groups, and the use of money that is supposed to fight terrorists going instead to beefing up defenses against our friend India. On top of all that we get constant whining about our actions, outrageous demands, and complete refusal to allow us to direct where our own money is going. Lately Pakistan has even attempted to blackmail us, implying that it will cozy up to China if we dare re-evaluate the massive aid that they feel entitled to.

Pakistan is not our friend and is an ally in little more than name only. In our dealings with it, as with many other countries, we have relied far too much on the carrot and not enough on the stick. No further aid to Pakistan should be extended without tight, binding restrictions. Pakistan's demands and blustering should be treated as the bluffs of a weak country and called. There are plenty of threats of our own that could be made to Pakistan, starting with suggestions that the U.S. might draw much closer to India, including supporting Indian territorial claims. The Osama bin Laden situation has given us the opportunity to cut Pakistan down to size. We should take it.

Least Deserving of Statehood

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas wrote an article in the New York Times called, "The Long Overdue Palestinian State." It's about what you'd expect. There's an excellent rewrite at Elder of Ziyon that makes it into something more truthful. One of the stupidest U.S. foreign policy positions is our support for the so-called "two state solution." It is difficult to think of any people that deserve a state less than the Palestinians. What have Palestinians ever done that makes supporting their statehood a good idea? Is a legacy of international terrorism, virulent anti-Semitism, celebration of murders and murderers, endemic violence, corruption, repression, irrational demands and complete intransigence when it comes to peace negotiations a good recipe for statehood? How about rule by murderous factions that are distinguished only by one being more openly murderous and anti-Semitic than the other?

A Palestinian state is not and has never been in the interests of the United States. We have no interest in creating another hostile state. No matter how much we help the Palestinians, we will never get any credit for it, because we support their great enemy Israel -- which makes us ultimately their enemy too. Oh they'll gladly take our money as long as we are stupid enough to give it to them, but it won't make them like us. I have little doubt that many Palestinians probably laugh privately at our foolishness.

Can We Stop Giving Money to Our Enemies?

The revelation that Osama bin Laden had been living in luxury in Pakistan, in a resort town full of military families about a mile away from the nation's military academy, has already spurred some calls to cut, or at least reevaluate the massive aid we give to that country. But Pakistan is far from the only dubious recipient of U.S. money. For years it has been U.S. policy to support the Palestinian Authority, an entity made up of people largely hostile to America, whose greatest enemy is Israel, a major U.S. client state. Now our Palestinian "friends" have signed a unity agreement with the terrorist rulers of Gaza, Hamas. According to the BBC, the agreement "paves the way for a joint interim government ahead of national elections next year." As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu points out,

"When... the head of the Palestinian Authority embraces Hamas, an organisation that two days ago condemned the American action against Bin Laden, praises Bin Laden to the gills as some great martyr for emulation, when he embraces this organisation that is committed to Israel's destruction, fires rockets on our cities... this is a tremendous setback for peace, and a great advance for terror."

If we continue funding the Palestinians, at some point we will not only be providing money for Israeli missile defenses, but for the rockets those defenses are designed to stop -- if we aren't already.

Wikileaks Strikes Again

In its continuing attack on U.S. interests and foreign policy, Wikileaks released more stolen diplomatic cables revealing secret U.S. financing operations in Syria.

The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.

Wikileaks has again shown its callous disregard for the lives of anyone in Syria that might be targeted by the Assad dictatorship, and has contributed to propping up the regime. Assad can make a better case now, supported by these latest revelations, that opposition groups are under the control of hostile foreigners who are meddling in Syrian affairs. It's free propaganda that helps him paint himself as a true Syrian fighting against U.S. influence. None of this apparently matters to Wikileaks, as long as it is able to strike at the U.S.

It's long past time that the U.S. recognized Wikileaks as a dangerous and hostile non-state entity, that has already done more damage to American interests than most terrorist attacks. It should be targeted and destroyed by whatever means might prove most effective.

Foolish Libyan Intervention Gets Even More Idiotic

Maybe you thought the Libyan intervention was a bad idea, that it wasn't in the U.S. interest, and just wasn't necessary. But at least a case could be made that getting rid of Gaddafi would be a positive thing, and that the intervention made his exit more likely. It made some sort of sense if you looked at it in that light. But now we find that instead of supporting the rebels, we might fight against both sides. No this isn't from Onion News Network.

Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians ... the coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime’s forces have been punished.

“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.”

Can this war get any more idiotic? Rather than acting rationally, supporting the rebels -- the side we chose to intervene on -- and helping them overthrow Gaddafi, we are going to pretend that we are really there to protect civilians, and are now threatening to bomb our own side. Seriously. So instead of just killing Gaddafi-supporting civilians, we'll now kill rebel civilians -- all in the name of "protecting civilians." Even the New York Times has to ask, "Who in Libya is a civilian?" The clowns running this country apparently didn't even consider that question when they signed onto a bad UN Resolution. Anyone with the slightest clue about what happens during rebellions and civil wars knows how difficult is is to separate civilians from combatants. I wrote about this issue before.

Why U.S. Intervention in Libya Was Unnecessary

I was going to respond directly to Obama's speech, but it is so long that I thought I'd focus instead on someone who agrees with the president: Marc Lynch at foreignpolicy.com. He has a post up called, "Why Obama Had to Act in Libya."

had the international community not acted when it did, thousands would have been slaughtered as the world watched.

First of all, it is always useful to point out that there never has been, and still isn't an "international community." And this mythical beast did not intervene in Libya. The U.S., Britain, and France did, along with some token support. There are major powers such as China who opposed intervention.

Second, I'm skeptical of the worst case scenario of mass slaughter in Benghazi. Lynch is merely repeating an assertion without much evidence behind it.

The effects of that decision would have been felt across the Middle East, where America would have been deemed to have abandoned the people struggling for freedom in the Arab world.

America is going to be blamed by those who want to blame it for something, regardless of what we do. And it is far from clear exactly what Libyan rebels are fighting for other than getting rid of Gaddafi.

And it would have quite simply been wrong.

Another unfounded assumption. Libya is in no way our responsibility. There would have been nothing wrong with recognizing that and choosing not to intervene in its civil war.

My conversations with administration officials, including but not limited to the one recounted by the indefatigable Laura Rozen, convinced me that they believed that a failure to act when and how they did would have led to a horrific slaughter in Benghazi and then across Libya.

Lynch is easily taken in by administration propaganda. Obviously administration officials are going to stress the absolute worst-case to justify intervention.

There was no mad rush to war, and certainly no master plan to invade Libya to grab its oil.

The only people that think there was are the usual anti-American types. That charge is so ridiculous it isn't even worth a response.

The administration resisted intervening militarily until they had no choice

Of course it had a choice. It chose to intervene in a civil war where no clear American interests were at stake. It there were, why was it so difficult to define them? Why did the president wait so long to even offer up a muddled rationale in his speech last night?

And my conversations with Arab activists and intellectuals, and my monitoring of Arab media and internet traffic, have convinced me that the intervention was both important and desirable.

What Arab activists and intellectuals think should be one of the very last considerations as to why we should commit U.S. forces to intervene in someone's civil war.

The administration understood, better than their critics, that Libya had become a litmus test for American credibility and intentions, with an Arab public riveted to al-Jazeera.

Oh please. Does Lynch really think the U.S. is going to get some sort of credit for its actions in Libya?

This administration is all too aware of the dangers of mission creep, escalation, and the ticking clock on Arab and international support which so many of us have warned against. They don't want another Iraq, as Obama made clear.... even if it is not obvious that they can avoid one.

Don't make me laugh. This administration is clueless and oblivious. They can't even articulate a cohesive message or offer any sort of effective leadership. Why should we believe a foreign policy incompetent like Obama has the slightest idea about the unintended consequences of his actions?

Thanks to al-Jazeera's intense focus on Libya, literally the whole Arab world was watching, dictators and publics alike. Not acting would have been a powerful action which would have haunted America's standing in the region for a decade.

Not acting would have sent a much needed message the U.S. doesn't intervene in areas when its national interests are not at stake. Lynch has a ridiculously naive and misplaced faith in rationality of the Arab world. Again, we aren't going to get any more support because of this action.

many of the same people now denouncing the intervention would have been up in arms at America's indifference to Arab life -- it is all too easy to imagine denunciations such as "the dream of the Cairo speech died in the streets of Benghazi as Barack Obama proved that he does not care about Muslim lives."

Thanks for making my point. The same people saying one thing anti-American, would be saying something else anti-American. Our intervention or lack thereof just changes the focus of their anti-Americanism, not the substance.

The rest of the article partially undermines his own argument. These lines stand out.

The administration hasn't done a great job communicating its position, particularly on the question of whether or not Qaddafi's departure is the goal (I personally think it has to be). While I hope that today's London meeting will produce more clarity on a political path forward, I haven't seen much to suggest one yet.

Yeah, those are some big understatements.

The bottom line is that no one has put forth a convincing argument for why intervening in Libya was necessary for U.S. interests. In my opinion, the weakness of Lynch's arguments, which are based largely on exaggerating the effects of non-intervention, and wishful thinking about its supposedly positive effect on the Arab world, reinforce the case that U.S. involvement was not necessary. This action is a example of typical liberal "do-gooder" policy. It's rooted primarily in emotionalism and the idea that we have to "do something," even if that something isn't well-thought out, sets bad precedents, and risks all sorts of unintended consequences.

Amazing Foreign Policy Incompetence

When Obama was running for president, many pointed out that his qualifications for the office were minimal, that he had no executive experience, and that he clearly knew nothing about foreign policy. In my opinion foreign policy is the most important aspect of the presidency. In domestic affairs, the president can advocate policies and has all sorts of executive power to appoint unelected officials. But ultimately he needs Congress to pass bills.

Since World War II, Congress has surrendered its constitutional power to declare war to the president, essentially giving him the authority to commit the U.S. to war, whether we call the conflict one or not. This great power invested in a single individual should never have been given to a lightweight like Obama. This was evident to anyone who cared to notice before the election. But too many people preferred to go with "hope and change."

I've pointed out Obama's foreign policy cluelessness on numerous occasions, but even I'm surprised at the staggering level of incompetence on display regarding the Libyan situation. It's one thing to make a bad strategic decision. Even someone well-versed in foreign policy can do that. You can make a bad decision on intervening in a war, but handle it in an effective manner. Instead, the Obama administration is projecting incompetence and a lack of leadership. Consider the following from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:

asked on ABC's This Week if the US military might be involved in the fighting through 2011, he said, "I don't think anybody knows the answer to that." ... Gates acknowledged that Libya is “not a vital national interest to the United States.” ... But Gates, Clinton, and Obama in his radio address Saturday insisted that the situation in Libya is important to US interests – including stability in the Middle East and northern Africa.

How is it possible that the administration can't even craft a coherent message? I know it's incompetent in foreign policy, but I thought Obama was at least an effective political operator. How do send you send your defense secretary out to answer questions about an unpopular war -- and unpopular even amongst the base of your own party -- and have him admit that the action isn't in the U.S. vital interest? Why wouldn't you just define U.S. vital interests as whatever your argument is for intervention? You say something like this:

It is in the U.S. vital interest that a brutal dictator hostile to the U.S. not be permitted to reestablish control in Libya. The stability of the Middle East as a whole is crucial to U.S. interests. After carefully evaluating the situation we came to the conclusion that intervening in Libya, in conjunction with European allies, other coalition partners, and under the authority of the U.N. resolution was in the best interests of the United States. In this case we made the judgment that sitting back and doing nothing, allowing Gaddafi to massacre his own people and regain complete control, was unacceptable.

I don't even believe that and I can come up with that sort of typical foreign policy statement. Why can't Obama and his crew? Amazing incompetence.

That Didn't Take Long

Last Friday I wrote a post arguing that we were setting a bad precedent by launching a military intervention based on a UN resolution centered around the notion of protecting civilians.

Is there the slightest doubt that the next time Israel has to launch a major military action there will be calls for international action to protect civilians?

Our nominal ally and now Islamist-led Turkey didn't even wait until the next major Israeli operation. Here's the Deputy Prime-minister.

We wish that the United Nations had made similar resolutions, and countries had taken action, in the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine and other regions,"

I didn't expect to be proven correct quite that fast.

Now What in Libya?

The utter cluelessness and incompetence of Obama in foreign policy is on display for all to see, yet again.

Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the outcome of military action from the air was "very uncertain" and made it clear that Washington did not see the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn as removing the Libyan leader from power.

So we're intevening in a foreign civil war against a long-time enemy of the U.S., but we aren't planning on actually doing anything particularly useful. So why are we there?

"The goals are limited. It's not about seeing him go. It's about supporting the United Nations resolution which talked about eliminating his ability to kill his own people."

Is the administration really that stupid? I have to believe that Admiral Mullen must have been fighting the urge to gag when he repeated that nonsense. He's serving complete fools who think it's a good idea to turn the U.S. military into the air and sea equivalent of UN peacekeepers, who sort of intervene in conflicts, but not too much.

Intervening in this civil war was a bad idea, but what makes a positive outcome the most likely? I can think of one thing and one thing only: the quick death of Moammar Gaddafi. The best case scenario is that the death of Gaddafi will cause the quick collapse of the regime and its supporting forces. A new government will form, and the reason for intervention will no longer exist. I realize this is a best case scenario, and that the death of Gaddafi might not end the war. But it's worth a shot. Instead of continuing to bleat our ridiculous mantra about protecting civilians, and pretending that the UN resolution has any real meaning except as an excuse for intervention, we should direct our efforts at killing Gaddafi, his relatives, and any other potential leaders who might take over in his absence.