By Patrick J. Buchanan
Impending today are two of the most critical decisions Barack Obama will ever make, which may determine the fate of his presidency, as well as the future of the United States in the Near and Middle East.
The first is whether to approve Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for thousands more U.S. troops he says he needs to prevent “mission failure” — i.e, to stave off a U.S. defeat in Afghanistan.
The second is whether Obama will start up the road of “crippling sanctions” to war with Iran, to prevent Tehran from moving closer to a capacity to produce nuclear weapons.
If Obama approves McChrystal’s request, what will it buy him? Rising costs and casualties, deepening division in his party and his war-weary country, but no light at the end of a seemingly endless tunnel.
Indeed, it seems certain that 45,000 new U.S. troops would be but a down payment on an army of hundreds of thousands, for the years that it would take to build an Afghan army that can defend the government and people against a Taliban embedded in a Pashtun tribe that is half the population. And the odds that our Afghan allies would survive when we left would be no greater than the odds our Cambodian and Vietnamese allies would survive our departure in 1973.
Yet if Obama rejects McChrystal’s request, he risks resignations by generals and Republican savagery for lacking the moxie of Mr. Bush, when he doubled down in Iraq, named Gen. David Petraeus commander and agreed to a surge of 30,000 troops, which prevented a defeat the Baker Commission had all but predicted in 2006.
Obama is facing an awful choice.
Committing 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan will not assure victory, McChrystal is telling the president, but denying him the 45,000 troops may ensure an American defeat.
Being forced to make this Hobbesean choice will surely affect Obama’s decision on Iran. Seeing what a decade of war has done to his country, he cannot want a third war with a nation more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Yet that is where the sanctions regime is inevitably headed.
The dilemma: The regime, backed by the Iranian people, is not going to give up its treaty rights to nuclear power, or the ability to generate it from yellow cake to enriched uranium. However, the knowledge and capability Iran gains from its investment in nuclear power will bring it to the edge of the red zone — the ability to “break out” and, perhaps in a matter of months, produce the highly enriched uranium that is the core of atom bombs.
Other countries that rely on nuclear power, Japan and South Korea, surely have the capability to produce an explosive device. They have preferred life without nuclear weapons.
Will Iran also be content with this, knowing that if it explodes a device, the Saudis, Egyptians and Turks will follow, that Israel would put a hair trigger on its nuclear arsenal, that the United States would retaliate massively against Iran if any nuclear weapon were detonated by Islamic terrorists on American soil?
The sanctions road appears headed for dead end, or war.
“Smart sanctions” that punish Iran’s leaders are not going to persuade them to give up a nuclear program for which they have already suffered and sacrificed greatly. And a cutoff of gasoline to Iran would hit hardest not the Revolutionary Guard but Iran’s middle class, which tends to be anti-regime and pro-Western.
As for an attack on Iran, what would be the purpose of bombing Natanz, when IAEA inspectors says that its thousands of centrifuges are producing only nuclear fuel, which has never left the facility?
When Israel bombed the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad in 1981, which was subject to inspections, Saddam Hussein started a secret program to build bombs. Would not an attack on Iran’s facilities that are under IAEA inspection lead inevitably to a regime decision to go for a bomb as the only deterrent against Israel or the United States?
As one steps back and looks at a decade of U.S. intervention and war in the Middle East, what has it all availed us?
Iraq cost 4,000 U.S. dead, 30,000 wounded and a trillion dollars. It divided our country, alienated the Arab world, and left scores of thousands of Iraqi dead, and hundreds of thousands wounded, widowed and orphaned.
The Shia who now run the country are moving away from us, and closer to Iran, as we depart.
In Afghanistan, after eight years, we face a longer and bloodier war or, says McChrystal, “mission failure.” With Iran, we are heading up a sanctions escalator toward yet another war. And 10 years of involvement has not brought the Palestinian conflict a centimeter closer to resolution.
The killers of 9/11 were over here because we were over there. How has being over there benefited us, to compensate for the cost?
Related posts:
- The Fruits of InterventionBy Patrick J. Buchanan If we had it to do over, would we send an...
- Mideast Peace an Illusion?By Patrick J. Buchanan – October 20, 2001 “Israel controls the Senate,” said J. William...
- VIDEO: Hardball – Pat Buchanan Analyzes The MideastPat Buchanan analyzes what is going on with the Middle East, in particular with Turkey...
- Who’s Behind the Proxy WarsBy Patrick J. Buchanan Iran is conducting a proxy war against the United States in...
- Black Sea Warsby Patrick J. Buchanan In August, the Georgian navy seized a Turkish tanker carrying fuel...
- 2003: A Year of Wars?by Patrick J. Buchanan – December 23, 2002 With the president and Secretary Powell joining...
- VIDEO: China, Russia Fed Up; Don’t Want to Finance America’s Wars swfobject.embedSWF("http://www.youtube.com/v/D7dH4e8HYFA&color1=0x4A0D0D&color2=0x703115&border=1&rel=0&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&hd=1", "vvq-2492-youtube-1", "290", "235", "9", vvqexpressinstall, vvqflashvars, vvqparams, vvqattributes); ...
Vote Average: 4.53 Stars!
Loading ...
Great column, Pat. Course I could say that about all of them. It is good to find a commentator I can agree with so effortlessly. I am really glad you are there and publishing your lucid insights on US and world affairs. Amazing really.
I wish we would get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and start investing in our country here at home, not to mention put a halt to the deaths and crippling of US youth.
Bottom line, I wish–and I mean this–you were our President, because I know we could count on you to do the right thing. And there are many things that need doing.
Orange County, CA
Thanks again for such a great story. I am currently located in Iraq and I thought you might be interested that your web page is blocked on the military internet. Thankfully I am at my home base now where we have our own connection. I am not sure all bases block you but one that I recently was did have you blocked. I requested that it be unblocked but I was never given a reply. Keep up the good work!
When are the E.U. countries going to get off their spineless rears and provide some support to stop Iran's nuclear build up? They will be within the range of this creaton that will soon have the capability to wipe them off the map.
<DIV style="MARGIN: 6px 0px 0px; DISPLAY: block"><A class=a2a_dd href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save"><IMG border=0 alt=Share/Save/Bookmark src="http://static.addtoany.com/buttons/share_save_171_16.png" width=171 height=16>
About half of my relatives live in Europe. I wish the EU would not oppose Iran and I haven't asked my relatives , but I doubt if they consider Iran a threat at all. Iran has stated repeatedly it does not want nuclear weapons and its program is for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Also, it is a member of the NPT (unlike Israel and India) and has not violated the provisions of that treaty (despite the propaganda the media has churning out lately).
The main reason we are threatening Iran is because Israel is their enemy. Iran supports the Palestinians and Hezbollah. Hezbollah receive weapons from Iran so that Lebanon can defend itself when Israel attacks.
The killers of 9/11 were over here because we were over there. How has being over there benefited us, to compensate for the cost?
Pat scores again!
You can't provoke a target if the target isn't there. We got 9/11 for meddling in the very lives of common people abroad. No different than what would happen in the USA if insurgents came to this country and did the same to us.
Radical change can make a Mother Teresa turn into a fighter to protect hearth and home. It's human nature to protect what you love.
The Persians are a proud and resourceful people, a major player in the world for 1700 years. The fact that they have recently been taken over by religious thugs that wield Allah over them like a boot or gun to the head is a condition that will not last forever. Ayatollah Khomeni's selection of Ahmadinejad for re-"election" was a desperate slap in the face not only to his Persian subjects but to the world at large. This regime's days are numbered. Meanwhile, nuclear weapons is the animating issue surrounding the current totalitarian state of Iran. The main reason this is a problem at all is because of the bellicose nature of Ahmadinejad' anti-Israel rhetoric. If Iran were a normal country at peace with the world there would probably be no issue here. The theory is that the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is one of them will use them for their own gain. This theory cannot be supported. North Korea and Pakistan and Israel already have The Bomb yet this has not led to nuclear war. The omitted operative word "yet" was also applied sixty years ago.
Correction: make that 2700+ years.
In his address of September 19th, 1796, given as he prepared to leave office, President George Washington spoke about, among other things, avoiding alliances with foreign governments: “Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
The father of our country speaks from his grave, “It is in no way to the advantage of the United States of America to be in a permanent alliance with the state of Israel.”
It is not only time to rethink our involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, aka the ‘war on terrorism’, but to reevaluate WHY these wars, essentially on behalf of the state of Israel, were commenced in the first place, and realign our thinking in keeping with the advice of the father of our country.
I believe any choice could be very good or very bad. If we send more troops to Afghanistan, that might cause the Taliban to collapse, or it might lead to a prolonged battle of defeat like Vietnam. If we place sanctions or launch war against Iran, it might cause them to abandon any nuclear arms buildup and agree to requested inspecitions, or it might provoke them to increased incentive and activity in the direction of nuclear acquiring nuclear arms. From just reading the news I don't think myself or anybody else similarly informed has strong capability for deciding in these matters. If I had to decide, I would send more troops to Afghanistan and impose sanctions on Iran. Admittedly, those actions could prove to be the opposite of what would be best. James
The term "Islamic terrorism" is invalid. There is nothing Islamic about harming innocent non-combatants. There are better ways to describe this phenomenon.
Obama will send troops in Afghanistan because his big donors and backers are part of the AIPAC crowd. He will do thisin order to keep the main fight in Afghanistan WHILE building up Pakistan into a strong secular powre. US kept the main fight in Indochina while strengthening the rest of Southeast Asia in the 60s and 70s. Though US lost in Indochina, Indonesia and other countries were saved. Also, after the brutally long battle, the communists in Vietnam and Cambodia were too weary to spread communism. So, even if US eventually loses in Afghanistan, it can bloody the insurgents so much that they will have to concentrate on domestic affairs after victory than expanding into Pakistan–which will have been built up militarily in ther meantime. Bush said 'we are fighting ver there so we don't have to fight over here' about the Iraq War. ObamAipac will try to keep the fight in Afghanistan–for the time being–so that they won't have to fight in Pakistan(in the longterm future), which will hopefully have been stabilized and built up militarily over the next several yrs.
With Iran, it will be one long stalemate. Iran will carry on with the nuclear program and we'll do AIPAC's bidding in enforcing sanctions. It really depends on what Russia and China will do in the long run. Russia seems to be onboard with the understanding that US will take a hands off approach on its sphere of influence, but it's a very shaky understanding that could be undermined by any crisis in the region. China… who knows? If Iraq stabilizes and grows close to Iran as US moves out, Iran can rely on Iraq as a defacto bridge to world trade.
Afghanistan is the impossible dream, because it is only a dream. The day the foreign troops leave, the taliban and their ilk come rushing back. Very strange and sad but true. Why waste the time, lives and money? (because "the fear" must be maintained at all times)
And Khoemeni plays right along with it. Fear and loathing is good for him, too!
Afghanistan is NOT impossible if we are willing to ditch the Karzai regime and build up a new power base from scratch. The problem is most Americans just don't have the guts for that kind of long haul thinking.
Afghanistan is not our country to do anything to or with. We have no business meddling there and should get out. We're only there to oppress ourselves in this country, as strange as it sounds. Trying to be social and political architects and engineers in the middle east is a fool's errand. The only other reason we're there, and in Iraq, is because people here are brainwashed to think it's for our safety. Kill the there so they don't come here. This is so oxymoronic and idiotic it makes me want to puke.
Shadow92,…. I agree. Afghanistan is a lost cause. As far as Iran, the people are already in "overthrow" mode. More sanctions could tip the scales for all out , serious revolution this time.
Memel wrote, "I don't want Israel or anyone else to be attacked, but as soon as the USA stops behaving like a colony of Israel, we will have many fewer wars in the future."
This much is very true.
Unless Israel is a 51st state and abeits by the laws and conventions of 50 other states in this wonderful Republic, they will always be a foreign country and should be treated as such. Even the UK doesn't get as much favoritism, and if it wasn't for Great Britain, we wouldn't even have an USA as we know it.
What has Israel, in contrast, has done for the USA? Besides killing our own; spying on us; stealing military secrets and soiling our image? Friends like that, who needs enemies?
There appears to be a large opposition to the leader Ahmadinejad, but most of what the press reports is very misleading or sometimes an outright lie. Ahmadinejad also has a many supporters.
With the hate campaign going on against Iran, keep in mind Iran is one of the most democratic countries in the middle east. Its one of the few countries that has elections, even if they're imperfect. Remember the 2000 election in the USA. A lot of people protested that Bush did not win that too.
The USA and Great Britain over through the Iranian democracy in 1953. I believe Iran's form of government shows it wants to be a democracy and will move closer to being a less faulted one as time goes on. Contrary to the neo-con strategy, if the USA wants Iran to be more democratic it should stop threatening them. When a country feels threatened the government will usually become more authoritarian.
But anybody whose following this thing knows it that the whole hullabaloo is about Israel. Their supporters want the USA to attack Iran (a new poll says 53% of American Jews think the USA should attack Iran) and once again their people surrounding the President are shaping the USA's strategy.
Do you remember just a few weeks ago that Obama was criticizing Israel for its settlements on occupied territories. He wanted them to commit to stop building there and Netanyahu said no. Now all of a sudden that discussion no longer appears in the press. Instead of ratcheting up the pressure (perhaps seeking to cut aid to Israel), Obama is now threatening Israel's enemy. Israel's intransigence gets rewarded. Its easier to go along with what they want.
Pat, you are mis-under-estimating the efficacy of the Washington Killing Machine. The 17 year long Genocide of the Iraqi people has slaughtered about two and half million and counting.
I don't remember if I read it on this site, but Zbignew Brezinski said we should attack Israel if Israel attacks Iran. I hope that kind of thinking spreads. I don't want Israel or anyone else to be attacked, but as soon as the USA stops behaving like a colony of Israel, we will have many fewer wars in the future. <div style="display:block;margin:6px 0 0"><a class="a2a_dd" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save"><img src="http://static.addtoany.com/buttons/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" border="0" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; ">
1. If Israel bombs the Iranian nuclear sites or Iran explodes a bomb, I'll be rich and you won't. My oil stocks will soar as oil returns to $140. And I bet one or the other happens in the next five years.
2. Imagine how President Obama's healthcare address to congress three weeks ago looked to Iran, Israel, China and Russia. The leader of the free world telling outrageous lies to an adoring media. Foreign leader's analysists see this another example of American degeneracy.
Of course, the French loved the speech Obama is just like a Frenchman, except he bathes more often and uses deodorant.
We will be paying for the crime that is Izrael for a long time..