A recent post of mine entitled “Why Wouldn’t Iran Want Nukes?” received the following comment from “Hass” that should be addressed at length:

Ummm….Iran’s nuclear program started under the Shah, with the encouragement and support of the United States, because it makes economic sense for them to be able to continue exporting their oil and gas instead of consuming it at home. Stop the meaningless scaremongering.

I have no interest in scaremongering, so let’s discuss it.  A brief synopsis of the history of Iran’s nuclear program from the Council on Foreign Relations (hardly an outfit known for scaremongering) confirms that Hass’s facts are correct (emphasis mine):

Iran’s leaders have worked to pursue nuclear energy technology since the 1950s, spurred by the launch of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. It made steady progress, with Western help, through the early 1970s.

So, does that end the conversation as Hass implies that it should?  Hardly, for two reasons:

1. “Outside assistance” slowed in 1974 when “a U.S. special national intelligence estimate (PDF) declared that while ‘Iran’s much publicized nuclear power intentions are entirely in the planning stage,’ the ambitions of the shah could lead Iran to pursue nuclear weapons…”
2. The shah, whose nuclear program the U.S. had assisted in the 1950s, was violently overthrown in 1979 by Islamic radicals, “effectively ending outside assistance.”

So, there’s a clear breaking point between the era of U.S. assistance and today’s Islamic regime, whom the U.S. has not aided in its pursuit of nuclear energy.

So, did the Islamic regime immediately pursue a nuclear weapon?  No:

The withdrawal of Western support after the Islamic Revolution slowed Iran’s nuclear progress. And a confluence of factors—opposition to nuclear technology by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the exodus of nuclear scientists, and the destruction of Iraq’s nuclear facility by Israel in 1981, which removed an immediate threat—sent Iran’s nuclear program into a tailspin.

Then when did it restart its nuclear program?  :

Iran was known to be reviving its civilian nuclear programs during the 1990s…

Then how are you sure Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon?  In short, I am not sure, but I am not the only one with suspicions:

…revelations in 2002 and 2003 of clandestine research into fuel enrichment and conversion raised international concern that Iran’s ambitions had metastasized beyond peaceful intent.

It stands to reason that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon based on the following facts:

1. Iran has a clear enemy in Israel
2. Iran has stated its desire to eliminate Israel
3. Iran is pursuing a nuclear program

Back to my original question:  Why wouldn’t Iran want nukes?   Based on the evidence, one really has to want to believe that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon in order to believe that its nuclear program is peaceful.  Quite simply, Iran has no right to the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

Over at the Weekly Standard, “Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) unloads on President Obama” (emphasis mine):

 “President Obama’s recent comment in support of Iranian nuclear power is both shocking and reckless. Supporting Iran’s “legitimate [nuclear] aspirations” ignores all recent history and smacks of the same naive and misguided approach that allowed for North Korea to gain nuclear power – and now possess nuclear weapons. In a bow to our worst enemies, the President is showing a striking ability to imitate former President Jimmy Carter.

“In just recent memory, Iran has funded terrorist activities against U.S. troops and our allies, called for the destruction of both the U.S. and our strong ally Israel, and sought to systematically destabilize the Middle East and world. Does the President believe Iran wants nuclear power to do their part in combating climate change? Iran has made it abundantly clear what sinister plans they have with nuclear power – and both the U.S. and our allies have great reason to worry.

“There are few scenarios worse than Iran gaining nuclear power – and subsequently nuclear weapons – to threaten and potentially attack the U.S. and our closest allies. The President should immediately recant his support for Iranian nuclear power and consider better options to protect our nation, not endanger it.”

Why don’t we ever believe that our enemies will do exactly what they say they will do when they threaten us or our allies?  Is it that we simply cannot fully comprehend evil?  Hitler outlined his final solution to the “Jewish problem” in Mein Kampf yet all were shocked by the Holocaust.  He wrote out what he wanted to do.  Why wouldn’t he attempt to make good on that mission statement?

Iran has stated many times its desire to wipe Israel off the map and yet some peaceniks (apparently our President) believe that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.  Why wouldn’t it want a nuclear weapon when it would help them achieve its stated goals?  Considering its stated goals, it’d be foolish of Iran not to want a nuclear weapon.  It’d be pretty tough to ”wipe Israel off the map” with conventional weapons and suicide bombers.  But with a nuclear weapon?  Problem solved.  As they’d say in the legal/law enforcement profession:  there’s a motive! 

If a friend keeps mentioning casually that he wants to lose twenty pounds, yet continues to eat bad foods and never works out, you casually brush off his comments as wishful thinking.  As his actions do not reflect his desires, his desire to pursue stated goals is not credible.  But if your friend tells you that he wants to lose twenty pounds, then eliminates sweets, fast food and beer from his diet, eats smaller portions and more fruit, begins running and lifting weights three times a week, hires a trainer, and remains disciplined for months, you’d have to conclude that he is serious about losing twenty pounds.

Why don’t we believe Iran is serious about wiping Israel off the map?  Is it too much for us to comprehend?

At least North Korea doesn’t really have any natural, sworn enemies and isn’t driven by an apocalyptic, fully-developed ideology with millions of devout followers (and millions more fellow travelers).  Kim Jong-Il is certainly a loon on some levels, but he’s pretty good at trotting out his nukes every two years to get things - respect, money, concessions - from the West.  Iran has all of the above and a specific, stated reason for nuclear weapons: the elimination of Israel.  How can some still believe that he doesn’t want nuclear weapons?

A new Weekly Standard article discusses the growing number of agnostics in the United States and their general political affiliations:

… data shows the two areas of the country where the percent of “Nones” [those with no religious affiliation] has topped 20%–New England and the West Coast–are also regions where Democrats have made substantial political gains in the past two decades.

This is not surprising to me at all.  When you eliminate God,  naturally, the state becomes the number one candidate to fill the vacancy.  To borrow from a hymn:  the state becomes your help in ages past, your hope for years to come, your shelter in the thorny blast and your eternal home.  What is surprising and even more troubling to me are those “believers” (about 25% nationwide) who, despite claiming faith in God, look to the state first for all of the above.

For the non-religious, faith in the state also acts like a moral compass, allowing them to act like a good person burdened by the plight of the poor, the horrors of war, the tragedy of human injustice and the travesty of wasting our earthly resources, without requiring them to accept a worldview that would “burden” other, less socially en vogue, areas of their life (such as submission to God in all things, sexual purity before and during marriage and tithing).  In some cases, it also shields one from having to put their faith into action by causing a sort of ”I gave at the office” mentality where voting for the Democratic Party (the party for the “oppressed”) becomes one’s good works.  (In fairness, this is true for some conservative Christians with respect to Republicans as well).

But do not be fooled:  agnosticism and atheism are still very much their own versions of faith complete with dotrines, creeds and saints, albeit unofficial in most cases.  Put simply:  choosing not to choose is still choosing.  And that choice directs one’s life.  In short:  It becomes one’s religion.

“We will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test “supercilious and jejune,” leading some in diplomatic circles to worry that the U.S. might be running out of appropriate adjectives with which to craft its response.

President Obama attempted to calm those fears, saying that the United States was prepared to “scour the thesaurus” to come up with additional adjectives and was “prepared to use adverbs” if necessary.

There’s no problem a well-placed adverb can’t solve.

Wall St. Journal editorial on the leap of faith required in nearly all of Obama’s policies.  I haven’t seen the particular South Park episode to which he is referring, but the point is rather obvious nonetheless:

This more or less sums up Mr. Obama’s speech last week on Guantanamo, in which the president explained how he intended to dispose of the remaining detainees after both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly against bringing them to the U.S.

The president’s plan can briefly be described as follows. Phase One: Order Guantanamo closed. Phase Two: ? Phase Three: Close Gitmo!

As described, the same principle can be applied in every area of Obama’s domestic and foreign agenda:  education, healthcare, energy indepedence, Iran, Israel/Palestine, etc.  As implied in the article, it’s phase 2 that’s the most difficult.  Yet, that’s the phase that Obama never seems to explain (either because he doesn’t know how to do it - i.e. relocate Guantanamo Bay’s prisoners - or because he knows that it’s not a politically viable message - i.e. raise taxes on the middle class.) 

Life certainly sounds a whole lot easier when you skip phase 2.  Phase 1:  Get a job.  Phase 2:  ?  Phase 3:  Retire a millionaire.  If it were only that easy.

Now, let’s deal with the other primary claims of the NY Times Editorial board:

• The Bush administration fed the furies of anti-Americanism by not adhering to democratic values.

Surely, some of the symbols of Bush’s War on Terror (Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay in particular) were used as propaganda in the Muslim world and further flamed the fire against the US; however, this had nothing to do with the US not holding to its democratic values.  Those who hate us hate us because of our democratic values (as stated by Cheney).  In all likelihood, they hate Liberals - generally more supportive of lax moral behavior resulting in the social debauchery abhorred in the Muslim world - more than they hate conservatives.  (Although conservatives generally support Israel more than Liberals do, so maybe its a toss-up).  Assuredly, our enemies in this particular fight hate all strands of Americans, but it’s because we don’t force our women to walk around in burkas, we don’t execute homosexuals and we don’t consider non-Muslims as, at best, second-class citizens.  It is certainly not because we poured water in the noses of three individuals plotting against our country.

• The Bush administration strengthened our enemies

The toppling of Saddam certainly strengthened Iran’s position in the Middle East, but who else has been strengthened because of policies espoused by the Bush administration?  By all accounts, al Qaeda has been decimated by losses in Iraq and elsewhere.  Saddam?  Dead.  Taliban?  Not dead, but certainly not ”strengthened” in their position as compared to pre-2001.

One could certainly argue that our traditional nation-state rivals, such as Russia, China, North Korea (and perhaps Venezuela), have enjoyed this period where the US has been pre-occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, but I do not believe this is what the NY Times Editorial Board is arguing.  (I doubt that the NY Times would refer to those countries as enemies in the first place.)  So, who, exactly, has been strengthened during Bush’s reign of terror?

• The Bush administration has made the nation more vulnerable

How so?  More vulnerable to a terrorist attack?  I don’t think anyone could argue that we are more vulnerable now than we were on September 10, 2001.  We are still - and will always be - vulnerable to some extent due to the nature of terrorism and the openness of our society; however, we are certainly not more vulnerable to that form of strike after George W. Bush.

More vulnerable to a traditional attack?  Perhaps.  As previously stated, with the Bush administration’s focus on Iraq & Afghanistan, our state rivals have certainly had time to achieve military and geopolitical gains while the US focused its attention elsewhere.  And with the toppling of Saddam, Iran has certainly strengthened its position in the Middle East; however, they are not able to directly attack the U.S. and, while I am sure that the NY Times would abhor an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel from a humanitarian perspective, from a strategic perspective, I doubt it would shed any tears over its demise.  If anything, for the Far Left conspiracy theorists who believe that all US foreign policy is controlled by Israel, such new found freedom of movement would no doubt be championed as making America more safe.  So, I repeat, how is the nation more vulnerable now than it was before?

I presume that the NY Times Editorial Board is (as always) putting forth the Liberal talking point that America is less safe because Bush’s policies inflamed the world against us and created terrorists that would otherwise have been happy owning a small business somewhere in Baghdad or Kabul.  I believe this is the main point that undergirds the reasoning of the Left and specifically of the Times’ article at hand.  But where is the proof that it’s true?  Are there enlistment records that show that al Qaeda has increased because of Bush’s policies?

Logically, I understand the argument: if US bombs fall on Afghan villages and kill a large number of civilians, then many of those civilians will become embittered against the US and will actively or passively support terrorism against it; some will even join in the fight directly and join terrorist groups.  However, Clinton bombed various locations in the Muslim world.  Is he guilty of inflaming the world against us and making us less safe?  Or is it simply the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan that has made us less safe?

I am sure that those in the Muslim world already predisposed to committing terrorism find it easier to strike at the US - albeit indirectly - now that the arm of the US military is in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But has this really caused anyone who wasn’t a terrorist to become a terrorist?

Many in the Muslim world have despised the US for some time now and it’s not because of policy disagreements, legitimate or otherwise.  The Iranian Revolution occurred during a time when Carter, an appeasement-first, diplomacy-only President, was in office.  Numerous attacks against US installations at home and abroad took place in the 1990s when Clinton was President and the US was engaged in conflict (Bosnia and Kosovo) on behalf of Muslims.  If Muslim angst against the US is not tied to our specific policies, then, how will repudiating Bush’s policies lead to our increased safety?

Frankly, I think the NY Times Editorial Board is more upset because the Bush policies run counter to the Liberal establishment, with its capital city in Paris, rather than any firm conviction (or proof) that it has made the nation less safe.

Don’t misunderstand me.  I value diplomacy, soft power and to some degree whether or not we are loved around the world.  But being loved is not as important as being respected, particularly in the Muslim world where respect is the only real currency of power.

Further analysis at Powerline and the Weekly Standard.

Traveling recently in Iraq, Pelosi noted, “If we’re going to have a diminished military presence, we’ll have to have an increased intelligence presence.” This has been the main Democratic argument against the whole idea of the war on terror — that guns and bombs are no substitute for timely information. “This war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement operation,” Sen. John Kerry once claimed.

But this object of praise — intelligence-gathering — is again the object of liberal assault.

To what techniques are Democrats referring when they praise intelligence gathering?  It’s certainly not enhanced interrogation.  As we’ve seen with their outrage during the Bush administration, It’s definitely not electronic intercepts.  Presumably that leaves the more direct forms of human intelligence (relying on agents and informants) and imagery intelligence as the only viable options.

But human intelligence is incredibly messy, involving waves of illegalities of which I doubt Democrats would openly endorse should such methods become public.  Furthermore, the CIA - the American agency charged with human intelligence responsibilities - is routinely vilified (unless, of course, your last name is Wilson or Plame and you’re sticking your finger in the eye of the Bush administration), humiliated, and subjected to budget cuts whenever Democrats come to power.  Essentially, Democrats value an incredibly naive approach to human intelligence:  You’ll find out all you need to know if you just go out and talk to reputable people.

Imagery intelligence has its own problems.  1.)  It’s incredibly expensive (and thus affected by Democratic distate for spending money on things other than socialism), 2.)  It’s most effective when used in coordination with other forms of intelligence (human, signals, etc.).  3.)  It only measures capabilities and cannot easily discern intentions.

Ironically, the faulty intelligence assessment in 2003 that Iraq had WMD - the blunt object repeatedly used by the Democratic Party to disfigure the Bush administration - relied on the two forms of intelligence that Democrats herald as the solutions to our problems:  imagery intelligence and legally obtained human intelligence.

In the real world (where Jason Bourne does not live) there’s never a reliable, high-ranking defector with intimate knowledge of all of the enemies’ plans.  Cear, convincing, irrefutable evidence is never gathered from one series of photographs.  The evidence is always convoluted, rarely complete and commonly dependent on sources of ill-repute.

The tools of intelligence are dependent upon one another.  Democrats say that they want to focus on intelligence gathering, but then they condemn the use of tools that makes intelligence gathering actually possible.  (And that’s not even addressing the pervasive attitude on the Left that ”law enforcement”  and “intelligence operations” are one in the same.)

I’m not a fan of the Daily Show.  From my perspective, a sane, reasonable and intelligent world would not designate former D-List actor Jon Stewart as a moderator for any semi-serious discussion.  However, he and a conservative guest, Cliff May, recently engaged in a short debate about “torture.”  It’s worth watching.

The Weekly Standard blog sums it up best:

It comes at about the 5:50 mark. Cliff May asks Stewart whether Truman’s use of the atomic bomb was a war crime, Stewart ruminates and then responds with an unequivocal “yes.” He’s certainly not the only American who would take that view, but it’s a useful reminder that the most vocal and popular criticism of the Bush administration’s war on terror policies comes from people who, if they were being as honest as Stewart, would also judge Lincoln (suspension of habeas), FDR (internment), and Truman (use of nuclear weapons) as war criminals or tyrants or worse.

Stewart repeats the charge again later in the interview, but you have to wonder whether this was one of the rare times that he just got outmaneuvered on his own show. Serious people have debated Truman’s decision for 60 years, but even those who disagree with that decision rarely describe it as “criminal.” And if it was criminal, whatever crimes the left alleges of President Bush seem pretty trivial in comparison.

And for the record, under the Geneva Convention non-uniformed enemy combatants do not qualify as prisoners of war and thus, are not entitled to the provisions laid out in the treaty.  Thus, if you can cut through all the Democratic Party goose-stepping going on in the media, you’ll realize that the Bush Administration bent over backwards to ensure that all of these methods followed the proper, internationally-recognized and morally acceptable (to many at least) avenues on this issue.

Should we still treat terrorists in a moral fashion?  Absolutely!  They are God’s creation, just as much as I am.  But as their tactics are beneath the international standard of what is deemed acceptable in war, then they are not entitled, legally, to the specific protections outlined for prisoners of war in treaties such as the Geneva Convention.  Jon Stewart - and his adoring audience - doesn’t seem to realize that.

Here’s an article in the Economist discussing America’s opinion of Obama’s foreign policy.  This is a great example of liberal media bias and why, in particular, I do not read/trust the Economist.

The article’s implied reasoning:

1. Conservatives don’t want to improve relations with the Middle East
2. Conservatives only want to blacklist enemies
3. Conservatives love nuclear weapons, presumably because they love to use them, and;
4. Hawks are scary, a lunatic fringe; whereas doves are normal (as they are nowhere mentioned)

First, political parties do not always disagree with the ends of foreign policy, it’s the means over which they fight.  The means of the Democratic Party are, generally, to kowtow, talk, encourage the UN and unilaterally disarm (and hope for a better world).  Conservatives simply disagree, not because they hate talking or are even mean-spirited, but because it’s ineffective at best and catastrophically dangerous at worst.

A more close-to-home example:  A gunman absolutely dedicated to running into a crowded mall and killing people cannot be “talked” out of doing that.  Armed guards must be posted at the entrances.  If the police discover beforehand that a person in their area is planning such actions, it will dedicate itself to identifying the criminal and stopping him beforehand, by force if necessary.  The same is true in foreign policy.  Committed gunmen - Hamas, Iran, etc. - cannot simply be “talked” out of achieving their ends.  To the point where talking is effective, it should be done knowing full-well that the mall is protected, should talks “break-down.”

Because the Economist gives no effort to exploring what conservatives want in foreign policy, here is a concise list.  Conservatives want:

1. Effective dialogue:  trust but verify – the purpose of signing agreements and negotiating is not for its own end, but so that U.S. national security objectives are furthered. 
2. Strong defense:  not because we are hawks and warmongers who want to blow up the world, but because we believe that there are people just like that running around out there whom we do not trust.  It’s the same concept as keeping a firearm in the home, another thing liberals do not understand.  You don’t keep the firearm because you want to hurt someone, but because you don’t want someone to hurt your loved ones.  A firearm in the hands of a responsible, able, trained citizen is as much to be feared by society as a rotary saw in the hands of a carpenter.
3. Effective use of all the instruments of power:  economy, public diplomacy, political warfare, etc.

The argument should not be between diplomacy alone or military force alone.  Both are necessary, but even those two alone are inadequate.  The effective use of the other instruments of power must also be pushed.

Here’s a NYT op-ed on the report from the Department of Homeland Security that ring-wing groups, including veterans, constitute an emerging threat to national security.  His main argument:

[The conservative] argument seeks to suppress and subjugate two rather unfortunate facts: while only a tiny number of conservatives and veterans are members of hate groups, nearly all hate groups do indeed follow far-right ideology. And they covet members with military experience.

His first presumption is absolutely false.  The far right wing does not have a monopoly on hate (see the left wing during presidency of Bush, George W. as exhibit A and the left wing during the candidacy of Palin, Sarah as exhibit B.). This presupposes that:

1. Communism, the extreme left, is intrinsically benevolent, and;
   
2. Fascism (supposedly the extreme right) and communism (the extreme left) are polar opposites.

History has adequately disproven the first point.  However, the second has not received enough attention and still leads to much confusion/disinformation.  The idea that communism and fascism are polar opposites was a lie perpetrated by the Soviets when they were competing (politically) with Hitler in the 1930s, made all the more intense when Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941.  How best to get the sons of the fatherland to fight then to paint the enemy as enemies of the revolution.

Communism and fascism (along with Social Democracy) are all members of the Left.  In the case of the more extreme versions (fascism and communism), they use the same tactics to similar results, albeit for different goals.  In the case of communism, all human action, economic, religious or political, is subjugated to the authority of the revolution.  In the case of fascism, most human action is subjugated to the authority of the “master” race or the desired national empire (eg. the Third Reich, the New Roman Empire or Imperial Japan).  The modern fascism embodied by radical Muslims is still a part of the extreme left wing as it wants to subjugate all human action to the authority of Sharia Law and usher in the worldwide caliphate. Tell me, what’s the difference between that and communism?  Both are political-religious-economic worldviews intent on worldwide subjugation.  Perhaps the Iranians and terrorists worldwide are more worried about producing moral behavior in the end, but that was a large part of Communism as well (thus homosexuals and other moral undesirables were routinely executed).

The extreme right-wing is not fascism, but anarchy – which also produces lots of hate – where the state has absolutely no control over the individual.  The extreme left-wing is communism or authoritarianism where the state has absolute control over the individual.  There’s certainly plenty of hate to go around on all sides of the political spectrum.  It’s quite obvious which side the New York Times is on when it believes that hate is only espoused on the Right.

(Note:  The left-wing/right-wing debate isn’t exactly ideal to begin with because it relies on the linear political spectrum, which is somewhat inaccurate.  More reflective of reality is the political quadrant, explained here.)