So what's happened?

Now that President Obama, and his administration, have kicked the tires and taken the USA around the block, what stands out in foreign policy and national security? Here's my take:

The foreign policy method of the current administration is becoming increasingly dangerous. Changing policy and attitude is one thing, putting America second, is wrong. Also, the Executive is focusing on the wrong problems, to wit:

1) The Taliban has taken control of the Swat region of Pakistan, and is 60 miles from Islamabad. Should the Taliban obtain control of Pakistan, they will now have access to nuclear weapons. The Taliban's actions over the past decade indicate they have no regard for anyone who does not subscribe to their bizarre interpretation of Islam. Additionally, they have the inclination to strike at their neighbors, whether India, Iran, or perhaps to create a single country out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately, the US is putting more troops in Afghanistan.

2) North Korea is re-starting its nuclear program. While the North Koreans only pose a regional threat, their continued research and development efforts are in high demand on the world market. Perhaps China might see fit to restrain NK; however, Kim Jong Il is acting more to poke Obama in the eye, than in most other self-interests.

3) Apparently, the administration's p.c. buzzword for the area south of Lebanon, northeast of Egypt, and west of Jordan is Palestine. Two senior bureaucrats, in two separates sessions, described "the events happening in Palestine" and "the human rights issues in Palestine" to a class of senior Marines. If the Executive has issued a mandate to name a region that has not existed in over 60 years, then Israel should be on notice (which it likely is), that this administration is NOT committed to its security, and perhaps not even to Israel's existence. Frankly, words, speeches, and reassurances, are insignificant tripe compared to actual actions.

4) The vapid accusations and accompanying statements of the Department of Homeland Security regarding "right-wing extremism" have been discussed to a point of near nausea. Secretary Napolitano netiher understands her job, the security situation in North America, or who might be involved in a plot to overthrow America. The calls for her resignation are well-founded and the correct thing for her to do is step down. She is out of her league and it shows.

Hopefully, these are just cases of Executive naivete. Perhaps the next 100 days (though I do think this is an unfair standard) will be better.

Anti-Goverment Wacko

According to the recent report from the Department of Homeland Security, veterans, particularly those returning from combat tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, represent the some of the most attractive recruits to right-wing extremists. As if vilifying veterans wasn't enough, the report suggests that both federal and state law enforcement target people who sport bumper stickers supporting third-party candidates such as Bob Barr and Ron Paul.

Based on my veteran status (though not of OIF or OEF) and my belief in the text of the Constitution and its Amendments, I am possibly a "person of interest" to the DHS. Lovely.

Apparently, the policies of President Obama and the legislation getting forced down the throat of ordinary Americans has little to do with the perceived "increased threat" to the Homeland.

What's next? A bilateral exercise with the Civilian National Security Force (proposed by Senator Obama during the '08 Presidential campaign) and the Iranian Religious Police? Perhaps the President does in fact have a way to bring the Iranians to the negotiation table...

On a brighter note, hats off to Texas governor Rick Perry for endorsing a State Resolution affirming the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. By the way, no implementing legislation is needed for the 10th Amendment. Constitutional law scholars - gird thy loins, the war is coming, the battlefield will be the Federal Courts and Legislatures.

Iran's Nuclear Program - Who Knows What?

The recent United States National Intelligence Estimate stated Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Interestingly, the current estimate contradicts the 2005 NIE, which stated Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Supposedly, Iran canceled its program in response to international pressure. However, Iran staked out an anti-Western agenda long ago; therefore, are we expected to believe Iran no longer intends to build a nuclear arsenal?

United States - The NIE assessed with high confidence that Iran suspended its pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003. Up until then, Iran was focused on procuring these weapons. However, the NIE then states:

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

Even if Iran did not restart its internal weapons program, nothing rules out their possible purchase, or trade, for a nuclear weapon. In all likelihood, if Iran did not buy a nuke, they probably would not use the publicly known enrichment locations such as Bushehr and Natanz. Back to the NIE:

We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities rather than its declared nuclear sites for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.

Immediately after the release of the NIE, Israel argued the United States' assessment was at least flawed. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen was dispatched to Tel Aviv to meet with senior Israeli military, intelligence, and political officials to discuss the differences in the two countries' opinion of Iran's nuclear intentions. So what does Israel know?

Israel - Although there is no "smoking gun" piece of Israeli intelligence to counter the NIE, the two countries differ on the interpretation of current indicators. Israel points out that if Iran truly dismantled its weapons program in 2003, why did it not proclaim this to the world? While Israel may or may not have additional intelligence on Iran's intentions, the Israelis certainly have legitimate reason to remain vigilant on Iran.

Russia - Nuclear fuel has been shipped to Iran. An additional 80 tons of nuclear fuel are to be delivered in the next two months. Russia has also stated an attack on Iran is an attack on Russia. The probable Russian business interest outweighs any concern over whether or not Iran actually produces nuclear weapons. Of course, the Russians can always fall back on "they told us it was for peaceful purposes only!!"

Iran - Only the Iranians know what the status of their nuclear weapons program is. Since their nuclear energy program is moving forward, they announced they will build a second plant in Darkhovein. And, the delivery of nuclear fuel from Russia would not stop enrichment activity in Natanz.

What are we to make of this?

The moderate confidence of the NIE suggests there are many things we do not know. In one sense, Iran perceives the West to be wearing egg on its face because of the constant statements, prior to the NIE's release, that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The NIE recognizes that any Iranian nuclear weapon program would likely be secret, underground (literally and figuratively), and not near any currently known nuclear locations.

To paraphrase a European diplomat, who has experience as a foreign service officer in Tehran, "We know they lie about everything, the question is what do we about it?"

Iran may have abandoned its nuclear weapons program for its own use. But, Iran has already shown it will act through proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq insurgent groups) to accomplish its anti-West goals. Perhaps the Iranians have put aside their own ambitions for a nuclear arsenal in favor of packaging a nuclear product for proxy use. If so, the threat is as palpable as ever.

Words That Annoy Me

Redeployment - Most recently used by any number of politicians who are calling for American troops to exit Iraq. A vocal Iraq critic, Representative John Murtha (D.-Pa.) stated: (from The Politico)

On Friday, Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, clarified his remarks. The surge, he said, “has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,’’ which he added has “failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.”

“The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable,” Murtha said.

According to The Free Dictionary, redeployed means:

1. To move (military forces) from one combat zone to another.

2. To shift (something) from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness.

Arguably, most politicians are probably referring to the first definition, as opposed to the second. If so, where do they propose to redeploy U.S. forces? Last I checked, there's no combat zone in the United States. Should U.S. forces be loaded on transports and sent to the Horn of Africa, or Afghanistan, or perhaps to support a notional peacekeeping operation in Pakistan? Accordingly, where does Representative Murtha intend on redeploying our forces?

He must be referring to the second definition of redeployment and intends to move our troops back to the U.S., so they can be more effective. But, use of this definition would make Representative Murtha a hypocrite because he opined the additional "surge" troops have been effective in fulfilling their mission.

[Representative Murtha] returned from a trip to Iraq and told reporters Thursday that “the surge is working” to improve security, even though the central government in Baghdad remains “dysfunctional.”

Redeploying the troops to the United States would probably make them much less effective in helping to rebuild Iraq.

So what does redeployment actually mean? Probably, it's politically correct speech for withdrawal, exit, abdication, or heaven forbid - retreat.

Unfortunately, Representative Murtha, like many other vocal war critics, are missing the correct political points, which are the surge continues to work, Iraq is safer, businesses are reopening, citizens are returning, and sectarian violences continues to be reduced. Instead of redeploying our forces, how about we repeat the things that have brought so many rewards?