Obama's Big Decision
In "It's A Dick Cheney World," American Thinker October 16th 2011
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/its_a_dick_cheney_world.html
James G. Wiles sums up exactly what about the thwarted Iranian attack seaks poorly of the effects of three years of Obama diplomacy:
To personalize it (as politicians always do), Teheran has so little respect for (or fear of) this president that they're willing to commit an act of war only blocks from the White House to strike at foreign enemies.
Stop and consider this. The Iranians apparently considered it a realistic part of their strategy to commit an act of war in Washington DC. And not a particularly-subtle act of war, either. They were going to set off a bomb that would have killed around 100 American civilians on American soil -- and rich, well-connected American citizens, in the American capital. The only safety for Iran in this plan came from the hope that we wouldn't figure out who had done it, and the only safety for Iran if we did figure out who had done it came from the obvious belief that Obama is such a wimp that he would not respond to such an extreme provocation with any action that would actually do material harm to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
By contrast, as Ronald Reagan was being sworn in as President in 1981, Mr. Reagan interrupted his Inaugural Address to announce that the Iranian Government had just released the American hostages.
And that is what a reputation for toughness -- or wimpiness, can bring. Consider that, in 1981, no one really knew that Ronald Reagan would prove to be one of the the tougher American Presidents. All the Iranians had to go on was his speeches. That, and the fact that he wasn't Jimmy Carter.
Which is to say that America is strong enough -- and was strong enough, even in 1981 (which was around the nadir of American power during the Cold War), that the Iranians had to assume that given any president who hadn't demonstrated himself to be a total wimp (as Carter had amply, amply demonstrated by 1980-91), being at war with America would be a very, very bad thing for America's enemy.
(they didn't yield fast enough: at least half a million Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq War, against weapons in part provided by us to Iraq. Let's hope the Iranians got a lot of joy out of holding those hostages: the price for it was a lot of young Iranian men who never returned home).
That comparison should wake up every American. So should the seriousness of what was afoot. What else are America's enemies attempting to bring about on this President's watch?
In particular, consider that the exact same Iranian regime which was going to bomb Washington DC is the regime whom we are implicitly expecting to be deterrable from using nuclear weapons against us. Bombing our capital is on the face of it close to the ultimate provocation as it is: if they were willing to do this, why do we assume that they would quail from using nuclear weapons in such an attack?
President Obama has a decision to make. It is a question which two other Progressive Democratic presidents (Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter) faced when the world disappointed them. It's also the decision confronted by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- another idealist -- when Hitler's Germany invaded Poland in September, 1939.
Peace or war? As commended here and elsewhere, Mr. Obama has repeatedly shown a willingness to find and kill America's enemies. He should do so again.
And understand, Obama, if you choose "peace" -- even if you try to do it by voting "present" -- you no longer have any credible threat against any Terrorist State. Or, for that matter, Great Power -- Russia and China are also watching.
Yes, I know that Russia and China are probably making veiled (and not-so-veiled) war threats against America should we move against of Iran. It's all part of the Great Game, the Game Obama ran an electoral campaign in 2008 to get the chance to play now. What you do, Obama, is figure out what minor concessions you can afford to give Russia and China in return for a free hand in Iran (my suggestion: acquiesce in whatever they do in Chechnya and Tibet, respectively).
Yes, I know that there's a chance that Russia and China are doing more than just yanking your chain by making these threats, that if you make the wrong decision it could lead to a major world war. That's also part of the Great Game, and guess what? Your past shows of weakness and naivete, such as your famous "reset button" statement, make it more likely that the Great Powers might stumble into war in 2011-12, perhaps making the decision of Mayan calendar-makers seem brilliant in hindsight.
This is the Great Game you signed up for, Mr. President. What's the matter? Not enjoying your wishes?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/its_a_dick_cheney_world.html
James G. Wiles sums up exactly what about the thwarted Iranian attack seaks poorly of the effects of three years of Obama diplomacy:
To personalize it (as politicians always do), Teheran has so little respect for (or fear of) this president that they're willing to commit an act of war only blocks from the White House to strike at foreign enemies.
Stop and consider this. The Iranians apparently considered it a realistic part of their strategy to commit an act of war in Washington DC. And not a particularly-subtle act of war, either. They were going to set off a bomb that would have killed around 100 American civilians on American soil -- and rich, well-connected American citizens, in the American capital. The only safety for Iran in this plan came from the hope that we wouldn't figure out who had done it, and the only safety for Iran if we did figure out who had done it came from the obvious belief that Obama is such a wimp that he would not respond to such an extreme provocation with any action that would actually do material harm to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
By contrast, as Ronald Reagan was being sworn in as President in 1981, Mr. Reagan interrupted his Inaugural Address to announce that the Iranian Government had just released the American hostages.
And that is what a reputation for toughness -- or wimpiness, can bring. Consider that, in 1981, no one really knew that Ronald Reagan would prove to be one of the the tougher American Presidents. All the Iranians had to go on was his speeches. That, and the fact that he wasn't Jimmy Carter.
Which is to say that America is strong enough -- and was strong enough, even in 1981 (which was around the nadir of American power during the Cold War), that the Iranians had to assume that given any president who hadn't demonstrated himself to be a total wimp (as Carter had amply, amply demonstrated by 1980-91), being at war with America would be a very, very bad thing for America's enemy.
(they didn't yield fast enough: at least half a million Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq War, against weapons in part provided by us to Iraq. Let's hope the Iranians got a lot of joy out of holding those hostages: the price for it was a lot of young Iranian men who never returned home).
That comparison should wake up every American. So should the seriousness of what was afoot. What else are America's enemies attempting to bring about on this President's watch?
In particular, consider that the exact same Iranian regime which was going to bomb Washington DC is the regime whom we are implicitly expecting to be deterrable from using nuclear weapons against us. Bombing our capital is on the face of it close to the ultimate provocation as it is: if they were willing to do this, why do we assume that they would quail from using nuclear weapons in such an attack?
President Obama has a decision to make. It is a question which two other Progressive Democratic presidents (Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter) faced when the world disappointed them. It's also the decision confronted by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- another idealist -- when Hitler's Germany invaded Poland in September, 1939.
Peace or war? As commended here and elsewhere, Mr. Obama has repeatedly shown a willingness to find and kill America's enemies. He should do so again.
And understand, Obama, if you choose "peace" -- even if you try to do it by voting "present" -- you no longer have any credible threat against any Terrorist State. Or, for that matter, Great Power -- Russia and China are also watching.
Yes, I know that Russia and China are probably making veiled (and not-so-veiled) war threats against America should we move against of Iran. It's all part of the Great Game, the Game Obama ran an electoral campaign in 2008 to get the chance to play now. What you do, Obama, is figure out what minor concessions you can afford to give Russia and China in return for a free hand in Iran (my suggestion: acquiesce in whatever they do in Chechnya and Tibet, respectively).
Yes, I know that there's a chance that Russia and China are doing more than just yanking your chain by making these threats, that if you make the wrong decision it could lead to a major world war. That's also part of the Great Game, and guess what? Your past shows of weakness and naivete, such as your famous "reset button" statement, make it more likely that the Great Powers might stumble into war in 2011-12, perhaps making the decision of Mayan calendar-makers seem brilliant in hindsight.
This is the Great Game you signed up for, Mr. President. What's the matter? Not enjoying your wishes?