Review of Bolton's last few chapters _"Defeat Is Not An Option."

I consider the Wall Street Editorial; page an antidote to the poison that drips from the pens of the editorial staff of the New York Times.

In Saturday's WSJ there was an interview by David Rifkin, Jr. of former Sec of State , Henry Kissinger. Frankly I did not get a lot out of it because it was more wordy than concrete but I am sure there are those who might challenge that view. Mr. Kissinger believes diplomacy in the new era will be more difficult because of technology and the breaking down of nation states.

As for unilateralism he believes, as John Bolton pointed out by quoting George Washington (see my previous memo,) national interests remain paramount but that we have to be more empathetic to the demands of our allies even though they are less capable of doing for themselves because they cannot call on their citizens as in former years.

Kissinger also raised the question whether Americans have the patience for long term solutions. As I said in my speech, which I made at a local University recently, we are a "come on something" people.

Rifkin closed by stating the future appears uncertain.

Perhaps Rifkin was limited in space and thus unable to expand more fully on the depth of Kissinger's thinking or perhaps Kissinger's thinking has no more depth.

I never was enamored with Kissinger's talents and believe he really never understood the soul of America as say, in my opinion, Newt Gingrich does. Kissinger's willingness to negotiate our defeat in Viet Nam will, forever, leave a bad taste in my mouth and will forever be a sad legacy for our nation. Bolton is correct when he writes "Defeat is Not an Option" nor should it ever become one. However, Kissinger validated our defeat and it continues to hang as an albatross around our neck so I am not sure Bolton's view will obtain.

The lead editorial praised Bob Zoellick for kicking out a few inflated personnel at The World Bank and the editorial reminded me that it would be nice if Zoellick could do the same at the U.N. Bolton urged U.N. reform but his efforts were eclipsed by Annan. Both The World Bank and the U.N. are bloated with self-serving egos. Both organizations waste billions in pursuit of projects that create more despair than fulfillment, and conclude in more corruption than effective accomplishment.

The second editorial highlighted the fiscal practices of the Democrats as being no better than the Republicans they replaced notwithstanding their initial high sounding platitudes and promises of responsibility. As I have said repeatedly, Congress is The Best Little Whorehouse in America.

Bolton's chapter on Israel and Lebanon forces the reader to recognize how the conflicting goals of the Perm 5 and a weak Secretariat in the name of Annan, has led to a dead end investigation of the Hariri assassination. Yet, all fingers point to the highest levels of Syria which has now been invited by Sec. Rice to participate in Annapolis so Assad can make claim on The Golan. Reward the murderer, bury the victim and avoid offending seems to be the West's prescription for world peace because that is what consistently oozes from the auditorium of that august debating body.

In the case of Israel's "disproportionate" response to Hezballah's unprovoked attack against Israel, Bolton serves the reader up another dish of "trash talk" by U.N. members led by Annan. They complained, since Hezballah only captured a few Israelis and killed a few others, Israel's response was deemed "excessive." "Amoral equivalency" is the steady porridge served in the U.N debate cafeteria. Bolton posed to the media, which was quick to pick up on Annan's biased claims, whether killing a few thousand Japanese and sinking some of their ships, after Pearl Harbor, would have been considered a proper response and we should have ended then and there. The media seemed speechless but that did not deter them from their constant badgering of Israel with "over the top" accusations. The fact that Israel rightfully acted in self-defense seemed to escape the prejudices of the U.N. and their media midget compatriots. Israel,in Bolton's mind, was simply used as a surrogate because the media and Annan's intended target, all along, was the U.S.

With respect to GW's support of Israel's retaliatory efforts, Bolton writes GW was unequivocally unflappable.

Bolton served as an interim appointment and when it came to an end Senator Chafee, in an act of outright selfishness and cupidity, held Bolton's re-momination hostage to his own re-election efforts, which Chafee subsequently lost. After the Democrats captured the House and Senate, though they appeared willing to vote in favor of Bolton prior to their political victory, it was obvious they would not now do so. Bolton told GW he did not wish to serve any longer.

Also motivating Bolton was his disappointment that after the famous Florida vote which at the behest of former Sec. of State James Baker, Bolton assisted in, it was evident the administration had drifted far away from its pronounced foreign policy moorings. Though Bolton never comes out and writes it, no doubt his respect for Powell, Rice, the way the president dumped on Rumsfeld the day after the mid-term election, and the purposeless and futile machinations of the U.N. had completely turned him off and left him dispirited.

In his concluding chapter, Bolton focuses predominantly on the failure of former secretaries of state to reform The State Department so that the department runs itself with the consequence our ability to advocate our interests in foreign affairs has been impaired. Too much of the State's permanent bureaucracy thinks it is responsible for both setting as well as implementing policy but it has no constitutional authority to engage in the former.Only the president, and the vice president as an adjunct of the president, does. In Bolton's view the prototypical State Department professionals and civil-service are an endangered species because of the self-selection process and dominance of and uncontested nature of State's liberal bias. Second, they yearn to operate as in Europe where the "mandarins of Whitehall" hail forth with little interference and third, presidential ineptitude, cannot be ignored.

These factors morph into a State Department rife with "clientitis", ie. an inability to distinguish whose interests should be served. Furthermore, the "High Minded", as Bolton calls them, succumb to the "moral equivalency" disease whereby they ten to equate Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli defensive responses as contributing to the "circle of violence." Another version of State a long list of afflictions is "blame America first" which is based on the confused premise if America behaved or changed the world would become benign. Then Bolton comes to the "mirror image" problem which is rooted in the fact that State, all too often, concludes failure to reach agreement is our fault so we concede more and more and come across appearing wimps.

Bolton proffers State careerists are schooled in accommodation and compromise as opposed to aggressive advocacy of U.S.interests.Adversarial violation becomes non-compliance for fear of offending sensibilities. Straight talk is subordinated to accommodation. By giving adversaries the benefit of doubt gratuitously we wind up watering down our own negotiation strategy before we even begin. We have allowed ourselves to be played like a musical instrument. Our diplomatic concept of negotiation eventually boils down to supremacy of process over substantive results - again N Korea, Iran, Lebanon, UNFIL comes to mind and the list is unending. The State Department operates in a manner that self-perpetuates its own culture of failure prone behavior. It is as if the alternative to diplomatic talk carries an unthinkable cost but legitimizing outlaw regimes also carries an enormous cost - increased opportunities for propaganda and disinformation among others. Lastly, time and consequently delay become ever more costly, particularly when WMD are the issue.

Bolton's other most pressing concern is the spread of WMD undertaken predominantly by Russia and China. He submits nations engaging in this practice have not fully internalized the long term threats because of the perceived near term rewards. He explains the US position as one of foregoing "profits" from such endeavors as an investment in future security. As for the "EUroids," they too are myopic and overly focused on mercantilism, disregarding the threats over the horizon. Having placed their faith in global governance they have misread their own history.

Returning to Russia, Bolton argues the Bush Administration thought Putin would be equally concerned about the threat of terrorist possession of WMD. However, for a variety of reasons (great power aspirations,economic incentives, feelings of being slighted and basic distrust)Putin has pursued a different course. The Bush Administration has lost all illusions about Putin, according to Bolton. Russia's support of Iran and N Korea in the Security Council reaches Cold War proportions.

Bolton laments the "watered down" versions of meaningless policies that emanate from the EU -3 and their wrong headed advice that we also must tread softly in order to bring Russia aboard. The consequence being weak signals sent to rogue regimes with nuclear intentions.

The case of China is somewhat more mixed in that, when we have challenged their commercial interests, they have taken notice. There is strong divergence over N Korea which China feels less threatened by, according to Bolton, although they fear the eventual collapse of Jung-il's regime. China's concerns are based on fear of an influx of immigrants and the political instability such would create and fear of the re-uniting of N and S Korea. Bolton views their first concern transitory and the second, inevitable, ie re-unification will eventually occur. In the final analysis China's foreign policy will continue to be driven by securing reliable and expansible energy sources.

Japan, Bolton sees, is at a crossroad in terms of deciding to build up its own military and , for the moment, appears content to remain positioned under our own nuclear umbrella but that means we must demonstrate to Japan we are reliable and thus how the N Korea and Iran nuclear situation evolves is critical. Bolton then discusses India's growing desire to expand its naval force and nuclear capabilities as it sees China's regional influence spreading.

What GW did regarding Iraq comes into play because if we are unwilling to stop a regime that threatens our long term interests, as Bolton believes Sadaam did, then it sends a signal to more rogue regimes they are free to "nuclearize." This is not to say how we handled Iraq post the war was correct but taking Sadaam down, in Bolton's view was. Regime change and post overthrow are not, in Bolton's view, equatable and it is dangerous to do so. Nor does he argue regime change by force is preferable but in the case of N Korea , Iran , Sadaam etc. we probably have little rational choice or options. Possession of nuclear weapon status is something these nations are not likely to renounce willingly.

Again, returning to the issue of our pressing discussions and/or peace overtures on with Paletinians by Israel; Bolton, like myself, points to Hezballah and Syria's desire to control Labanon, Hamas' split with Fatah, and Iran's continued financing of all three as evidence that were Israel to disappear the problems presented Iran's voracious appetite to fund Islamic terrorism and fascism would not disappear.

Pakistan also remains a cause of concern, and remember Bolton wrote his book before recent events. Bolton also believes we should eliminate remaining remanants of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan because of the collateral political and propaganda benefits that would accrue by destroying this theological Fuhrer. Most particularly for Musharraf.

Finally, the U.S. must continue to avoid the trap of laundering our efforts thru the U.N. when such does not serve out national interests. Bolton points out all 192 member nations use the U.N. as an instrument of their national foreign policy but only we are criticized. He acknowledges the "High Minded" elites would have us worship at the altar of the "Secular Pope" and he cautions against this repeatedly.

Bolton enumerates such issues as family planning. abortion, right to keep and bear arms, environmental policy, death penalty, even taxation as items once exclusively within the purview of nation states is now actively being dragged into the international arena - often by the members of the U.S. Left.

Bolton states emphatically the U.N. needs to be made transparent in the distant hope it will become more effective. Here again Bolton offers voluntary must replace assessed contributions as the best approach. This approach will be resisted but it should begin with Congress forcing the initiative. Meanwhile, the new SG - Ban-moon, should be given support in his reform efforts, such as they have been to date. Furthermore, we should withhold contributions to UN activities we consider illegitimate like the Human Rights Council.

Bolton further cautions against our propensity to allow the EU to become an increasing U.N. broker where our interests are involved and points out the fallacy of such calling to mind their failed and time wasted Iranian diplomatic initiatives and, beyond, our own pleading with China to host Six-Party Talks on N Korea.

Speaking of the State Department. (See 1 below.)

Dick

1) Washington announces a Middle East conference “later this fall” amid reports of a tendency to postpone the event for a year: Rice still believes she can pull it off.

In an communique released to the media Sunday, Nov. 18, the US President and Secretary of State announced they would host a Middle East conference with the support of prime minister of Israel Ehud Olmert and President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas later this fall. There was no mention of invitations or when they would be sent out. The date and the time of the meeting will be announced subsequently. Therefore, the state department would like the accreditation process to begin. When the date is finalized, arrangements for collecting accreditation will be announced. A senior US official stated, even if the meeting does take place - on Tues. Nov. 27 as presumed in the Middle East - it will be no better than a “Potiomkin village-type” façade behind which a sham peace conference performs.

Our Washington sources report that in recent conversations, Rice confessed to overrating the chances of bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together on joint statements and that, at best, they would agree to carry on talking.

The Secretary had no solution for the Gaza situation and the Hamas takeover of government there. The administration would try and put the Bush two-state vision to the test in the course of 2008, but she already understands that the process will pass to the next US president as a vision rather than reality.

Rice said she would try and persuade some Arab governments to make token gestures towards Israel. But she could not explain how Mahmoud Abbas’ flat opposition to any such Arab gestures could be overcome.

All the Secretary of State was able to extract from the two parties, she said, was their consent for the first time to implement the first clause of the Road Map independently and irrespective of whether the other side carried out its part.

The Palestinians accordingly agreed to disband terrorist structures on the West Bank, while Israel agreed to freeze settlement activity.

Prime minister Olmert also said Israel’s military would withdraw to the positions it held on Sept. 28, 2000, prior to the Palestinian uprising, although this step was contingent on security.

Palestinian interior minister Abd Razzak Yihye vowed Sunday to go ahead and dismantle all the armed militias, i.e. Hamas, Jihad Islami and the radical Fronts. Abbas’ Fatah-Tanzim leadership declared Hamas on the West Bank “a cancer to be rooted out.”

Hamas and Jihad Islami fought back on the instant by establishing a joint command for their West Bank forces, calling it “Guardians of the Walls.” The Popular Front joined the terrorist coalition after its gunmen were attacked by Palestinian security forces in the Al Ain district of Nablus. All three announced they would forcibly resist any attempt to disband them.

Washington sources reported earlier:

The growing tendency to postpone the event was further spurred last week by urgent private messages from Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They warned the administration that, if the Annapolis conference were to be staged as a photo-op lasting a few hours and sidestepped the core issues of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Jerusalem, borders and refugees, as Olmert plans, serious damage would blow back on the Muslim governments which backed the US against Iran.

State Department officials advised Rice to reply that calling off the conference would reflect badly on the US government, showing it to be short of the clout for convening a meeting of anti-Iran Sunni Arab rulers.