Michelle Meant Every Word - Camelot 2!

Mughniyeh's assassination attributed to Palestinians who tipped off Mossad by Hezballah report. (See 1 below.)

Illegals claiming they are seeking work could bring about the end of secure borders for all nations with strong economies and reshape the politics and security of those nations and eventually the world. (See 2 below.)

Olmert tells those under attack to wait til 2010. (See 3 below.)

Livni wants to add a third leg to Israel's diplomatic and economic stool - closer ties with the EU. Livni also believes as Europe becomes more "Muslimized" it will also be critical for Israel to seek greater understanding and contacts within Europe's Muslim community.

I believe Livni raises some important issues and the most important is the one of elevating contact between radically different societies and whether accommodations between the two can be achieved without significant directional concessions. In other words, can a Westernized nation with political institutions based on individual freedoms achieved and maintained through the ballot box accommodate relations with societies opposed to the same and bent on their destruction or radically altering them. Can there be peace without trying, can their be peace through trying, what is lost in the process and is it worth the effort?

The basic "what if" is whether Muslims are so radicalized or fearful they are incapable of accommodating the philosophy, religion, life style of others? As the radical Islamists are now it is impossible because more "moderate" Muslims amongst them seem totally cowered. Where are the "moderate voices" is a legitimate question. Ask Solomon Rushdie - in hiding! Ask the young Dutch Legislator who fled to our nation, the Danish cartoonists living under police protection, those living in Sderot or the families of 9/11 victims.

If you cannot meet radical Islamists on some common ground, then what is the solution? I have begun reading Martin Van Creveld's: " The Transformation of War." Perhaps he has some answers as to how to eliminate the more radical Islamists so the more enlightened among them can breathe and allow those in the West to do so as well.

Does the fuzzy thinking of Sderot's Mayor point the way or is it a signal of what is to come? (See 4 and 5 below.)

There has been a lot of controversy over Michelle Obama's remarks about not being proud of her country and her own efforts at back tracking. In my opinion she meant every word of it and it fits the mentality of so many Democrats , Left Wing elites in academia and the media who find nothing good about our nation and feel compelled to be apologists for our "expansive" foreign policy. Their hatred of GW, Gingrich and the Far Right reaches pathological proportions and like the New York Times will over-reach to prove their petty points.

Perhaps Obama's empty message of hope will transcend and those who are caught up in its messianic thrust will not realize how apart they really are from the Obama philosophy of Socialism until they have anointed him king of Camelot 2. Perhaps, being the rookie candidate that he is, Obama's true feelings and views will be smoked out by a hard charging, tough and grizzled McCain, and people will come to a clearer understanding of where the Obama train plans to carry our nation and begin to exit its various cars. Time will tell.

Krauthammer has his thoughts. (See 6 below.)

Tony Cordesman sees both sides having just returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. (See 7 below.)

Dick


1) Hizballah probe claims Israel used Palestinian contacts for Mughniyeh hit

Intelligence report discloses findings of a special inquiry launched by Hizballah to solve the mystery of who killed the master terrorist Imad Mughniyeh and how.

Counter-terror sources stress, above all, Hizballah was keen to clear itself of suspicion that Mughniyeh was betrayed by an insider planted by Mossad, and this report points at Palestinians who are accused of giving him away.

Their investigators claim Israeli Mossad tracked him down through Palestinian operatives with whom he recently rendezvoused in Beirut and Damascus to coordinate a new wave of terror against Israel.

The Palestinians he met did not know his real identity, they claim. He posed as a senior Iranian intelligence officer called Hajj Radwan, based inside the Hizballah command.

This information was leaked to the Mossad networks said to be working under cover in Beirut and Damascus, who then tipped Mossad HQ in Tel Aviv. They too did not immediately identify Mughniyeh, say the Hizballah investigators – until a description was built up of his habits and connections. One of these was Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal. The Israeli agents then put two and two together and came up with the dangerous terrorist Israel and the US had been hunting for two and a half decades.

Two pieces of information clinched the fix, says the Hizballah report.

One was the type of terror operations he discussed with his Palestinian colleagues: “Hajj Radwan” laid before Palestinian terror planners mass high-quality attacks inside Israel in conjunction with Iran and Hizballah. They talked about scale, targets, funding, weapons and manpower.

No one but Imad Mughniyeh was believed to have the breadth and skill to put together a complex Palestinian operation of this type and its detailed cooperation with Tehran and Beirut.

The other clincher was the fact that the “Iranian officer” turned up for all his meetings without bodyguards. In this Mughniyeh was unique. No other Middle East terror chief moves without bodyguards, but the Lebanese terror mastermind trusted nothing and no one but total secrecy. For the Mossad, his lone wolf habits were a telltale trademark.

The Shiite group’s investigators went on to claim when Mossad realized Mughniyeh was within their grasp, they ordered two hit teams waiting in West Europe to set out for Damascus and Beirut.

The Hizballah finds support for its conclusion in the resemblance between the alleged Mossad modus operandi for killing Mughniyeh and the way Ali Hassan Daib in 1999, Ali Hussein Salah in 2003 and Ghalb Alawi in 2004, were killed. All three were Hizballah liaison men who collaborated with Palestinian terror groups on joint attacks against Israel.

2) Barak opposes PM bid to step up measures against infiltrators
By Barak Ravid

Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Sunday spoke out against the prime minister's instructions to relax Israel's policy on attempted infiltrators to make it easier for border troops to open fire on people trying to cross into Israel illegally.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday ordered the defense establishment to step up efforts to prevent the illegal infiltration of job-seeking Africans into Israel through the border with Egypt.

"Wake up," Olmert reprimanded Defense Ministry officials and Israel Defense Forces representatives, "We can no longer continue in this way, not stopping the border infiltrators," he said.

Israel estimates that 7,400 people - mostly from Africa - have entered the country illegally through its border with Egypt in recent years, searching for jobs. The number shot up last summer, apparently as word spread of job opportunities in Israel and a more lenient policy toward refugees.

As many as 50 people arrived each day in June, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The prime minister instructed all the different defense bodies to act in a more decisive and aggressive way to both prevent the entry of African job seekers, as well as their deportation in case of illegal entry.

He also proposed that weapons normally used to disperse large crowds be used to deter refugees from crossing the border into Israel.

Olmert told the Foreign Ministry to set up immediate contacts with various African governments to coordinate the Africans' deportation back to their home countries.

Finally, the prime minister instructed the Public Security Ministry and the Interior Ministry to make the deportation process more efficient, and to that end he ordered the appointment of 30 additional officials to determine among the infiltrators which is a legitimate refugee and which is only looking for work.

The Israel Prisons Service was instructed to jail all infiltrators not classified as refugees. "We mustn't agree to a situation in which they remain free," Olmert said.

During the discussion, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter said that the problem stems for inaction by the IDF and that it is the military's responsibility to stop the infiltrators at the border. "Our problem is that we deal with them once they're already inside, and then an immediate return becomes impossible," Dichter said.

Dichter said that 5,000 infiltrators were caught in 2007.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that "a distinction must be made between refugees and job seekers. Against the latter we must employ harsh measures at the border initially, and later at the detention facilities. We mustn't provide solutions for people who come here seeking work."

3) PM: We absolutely won't fortify every building in Gaza area
By Barak Ravid

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday during the weekly cabinet meeting that Israel will not undertake a fortification project that will protect all Gaza-area homes from Qassam rocket attacks.

Olmert stressed that Israel had "absolutely no intention of fortifying every building in the Gaza-area or in Sderot."

Later in the meeting, the cabinet approved a previously proposed plan to build a 'safe room' measuring 9 square meters in each residential building within 4.5 kilometers from the Gaza border. The plan had already been approved by a special ministerial committee last week.

The Cabinet allotted a NIS 327 million budget to the fortification project.

The prime minister added that by the year 2010 Israel will be in possession of a multi-layer anti-missile defense system.

Olmert said the protection of Gaza-area communities will include a combination of solutions such as the Iron Dome defense system, an early-warning system, new school buildings in addition to the partial fortification of homes.

Hundreds of projectiles have been launched this year at Israeli towns and villages adjacent to the Strip. Residents of the southern city of Sderot, which lies about two kilometers east of Gaza and has borne the brunt of the rocket attacks, have demonstrated in Jerusalem, and set up a protest tent in a central Tel Aviv square, to draw attention to their plight.

4) Israel begins overhaul of EU relations
By AMIR MIZROCH


The Foreign Ministry has begun a strategic overhaul of relations with the EU and its member nations, increasingly "plugging into" EU institutions and, in turn, allowing Europe to play a greater role in Israeli diplomatic and economic processes, The Jerusalem Post has learned.


So central has Europe become to Israel's well-being, diplomatic officials have told the Post, that the Foreign Ministry believes it is time to reassess the Jewish state's traditional reliance on "two pillars" for Israeli survival: a strong IDF and an unbreakable alliance with America. Given the growing importance of the European Union in world events, and in the Middle East particularly, the officials said, a third pillar has become necessary: deepening ties to Europe.

"Increasingly, Europe is involved in everything that touches us: trade, the Palestinians, Iran, UNIFIL in Lebanon," said a senior Israeli diplomatic source. "They are in the [Middle East] Quartet, and central in many other areas. Developing a strong relationship with Europe is becoming the third pillar safeguarding Israel's survival."

Jerusalem's new strategy is to enhance cooperation with Europe in a variety of fields and to demonstrate that Israel can help with some of the EU's many interests in the region. To that end, Israel has in the past few weeks sent a detailed proposal to the European Union for negotiations on "significant" Israeli involvement with Europe in nine fields, including finance, education, environment, youth development, law enforcement, security cooperation and scientific research collaboration.

The plan comes on top of existing Israel-EU cooperation forums such as the Barcelona Process (established in 1995 to foster dialogue among EU member-states and countries on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean), the European Neighborhood Policy (which aims to offer deeper political relationships and economic integration between EU members and their immediate neighbors), the Galileo space program, and bilateral ties.

The EU is studying the new Israeli proposal and has promised to give Israel a preliminary answer by mid-March. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is expected to meet with her European counterparts in June to try to finalize an agreement on the enhanced partnerships, the Post has learned.

Jerusalem is also seeking to deepen contact with Europe's growing Muslim communities - a source of hostility to Israel, but also, the Foreign Ministry believes, a potential bridge to better Jewish-Islamic relations and understanding. "Europe is becoming more and more Muslim, and we have identified a need to reach out to these populations," the diplomatic official said.

Israeli officials cite a change in relations with Europe following the 9/11 attacks, which "opened European eyes to the threats emanating from this region. They realized they had vital interests in this region, which is essentially their backyard."

Traditionally, Israel has relied overwhelmingly on its alliance with the US on questions of security and diplomacy, and officials stressed that the centrality of this relationship had not changed. Traditionally, too, Israel had been wary of over-involving Europe in fundamental survival issues. The relative marginalization of the EU, for instance, is emblemized by the fact that no serving Israeli prime minister has ever visited EU headquarters in Brussels on a formal diplomatic mission. "It's just never worked out," the diplomatic source said.

The reliance on Washington, indeed, has always been a strategic imperative, and has only grown more manifest as Israel and the Palestinians try to advance on the Annapolis-road map path to a permanent accord. Currently, as first reported by the Post, America, Israel and the Palestinians are working to formulate a plan under which NATO peacekeepers could be deployed in the West Bank if an agreement is reached and an Israeli withdrawal cannot otherwise be facilitated because of the inadequacy of the Palestinian Authority's security apparatus.

But Europe's role would be vital here, too: With NATO forces already deployed in areas such as Kosovo and Afghanistan, and with the bulk of US armed forces concentrated in Iraq, Europe would likely be asked to fill the ranks should a NATO-West Bank deployment materialize.

European troops are already deployed in the post-Second Lebanon War beefed-up UNIFIL force in southern Lebanon and have no immediate plans to end their mission. Last week, Spain dismissed a report in the Post in which Israeli defense officials expressed concern over Spain's commitment to UNIFIL ahead of the Spanish elections, pointing to the precedent of the withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq following the Madrid train bombings in 2004 and the subsequent change of government there. Nevertheless, there remains a widespread sense within the Israeli diplomatic establishment that UNIFIL's strength and commitment would not withstand a serious challenge from Hizbullah.

Europe is also playing a role in efforts to bolster the PA's security capabilities. Alongside US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton's military advisers, who are playing the primary training role, 33 Canadian and European police advisers have recently started training their Palestinian counterparts in the West Bank.

This new batch of advisers follows the European border monitors who were deployed at the Rafah crossing between Sinai and Gaza, but who retired to an Ashkelon hotel after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in June. The monitors' mandate has not officially been repealed and they could be recalled to duty should Hamas allow their deployment in a deal between the PA and the Quartet. Their withdrawal when the situation deteriorated, however, underlined Israel's concerns about placing its security in the hands of international forces.

Jerusalem also believes stronger ties with Europe are important in mobilizing economic and diplomatic pressure on Teheran to thwart its nuclear drive. European politicians, especially those in Germany, Austria and Italy, were having a hard time convincing their businessmen and industrialists to sever or downgrade their economic ties with Teheran, the diplomatic source said, and Israel was consistently monitoring these efforts and pushing for their intensification.


"Many in those countries are still doing business with Iran, as evidenced by the latest OMV deal. Despite this, we are seeing some successes," the source said, adding that lobbying European politicians to pressure their industrialists to sanction Iran was "Israel's daily work." France and Britain were leading the diplomatic campaign against Iran, the official added. OMV is a large Austrian oil company, partially state-owned, which has entered into a $32 billion oil-rights deal with Iran.

Part of Israel's strategy to strengthen relations with Europe involves de-linking those ties from the vicissitudes of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Israeli-European ties have tended to fluctuate parallel to progress, or the lack thereof, in negotiations with the Palestinians.

"The Europeans are, in general, not pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli; they are pro-peace process. Progress with the Palestinians has meant better relations with Europe," the Israeli diplomatic source said.

Finally, Israeli officials are upbeat about the prospects for economic and environmental reforms here should the country reach agreement on deepened cooperation with European agencies. "Important reform programs tied to increased global access are easier to sell than homegrown reforms, which are always mired in local political considerations," the source said.

5)Are you crazy? Sderot mayor’s willingness to talk to Hamas compromises our firm stance.
By Iki Elner


The thought of granting legitimacy to a terror organization that has no other intention except for eliminating Israel contradicts the position of the government, the Israeli public, and even the international system.


Israel has undertaken great efforts in order to convince the international community to boycott Hamas. The Jewish state works tirelessly in order to reinforce this commitment, even when occasional calls to end the siege on Gaza are made. Yet Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal, who expressed his willingness to negotiate with Hamas, undermines our stubborn stance vis-à-vis the terrorists.



Imagine the mayor of Haifa, in the midst of the Lebanon war, declaring that he is willing to immediately travel to Damascus for talks with terrorist leader Nasrallah in order to end the rocket fire on his city and save lives. I find it hard to imagine any public reaction to this that would be short of immediate expulsion from Haifa.


Fortunately, Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav does not only possess great wisdom, but also genuine commitment to his post. Instead of providing the government with a plethora of strategic and security tips, he dedicated his energy to boosting the spirits of city residents, preparing bomb shelters, maintaining restraint, and encouraging a firm stance under fire.


One clear thing emerges from the comparison: Moyal must not talk to Hamas. He should learn from Yahav about the issues a mayor should be dealing with. If the mayor wishes to save lives in Sderot, there are many things he could do before he volunteers to hold talks with Hamas, such as demanding to fortify town homes and boost other defense means.


I’m not known as a follower of the Greater Israel vision, and I still believe that one of these days it would be proper to grant the Palestinians political independence. Yet when it comes to standing firm against our worst enemies, I am unwilling to recognize even a trace of justification for their existence or to talk to them. In my view, a terrorist who wishes to kill us should be pursued mercilessly until he is eliminated.


Any attempt to justify talks with Hamas may also lead to justifying talks with the patron that arms them, Ahmadinejad, with Islamic Jihad, and ultimately with al-Qaeda. That would be a grave blow to the righteousness of our path and the demand to recognize our right to live safely in our own country.


I also object to Moyal’s mad proposal for reasons of supporting a future peace deal. Dividing the country and the establishment of a Palestinian state would only become possible when the Palestinians are led by a stable, peace-seeking government. As long as the Hamas organization exists, and heaven forbid if it should enjoy political recognition because of the eagerness of an Israeli mayor, such government cannot be formed among the Palestinians.


I cannot trust a peace treaty where a neighboring country is home to a murderous terror group that operates in broad daylight and may eliminate the regime (as it has done in Gaza) and fire from its independent territory at Israel’s citizens.



We must not talk with Hamas – nobody is allowed to do it, and certainly not someone who himself claims that “he was not elected to manage Israel’s security policy.”


Hamas deserves death: It is the source of regional instability, an obstacle to peace, and the true reason for the Palestinian disaster. Those who are willing to turn their back on the government and the public, which oppose any dialogue with Hamas, show that respecting the consensus of the vast majority of Israel’s citizens means nothing to them.

6) The Audacity of Selling Hope
By Charles Krauthammer

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns — boat, shoe, clock — by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.


And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.


This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity — salvation — for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."


"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country — nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."


And believe they do. After eight straight victories — and two more (Hawaii and Wisconsin) almost certain to follow — Obama is near to rendering moot all the post-Super Tuesday fretting about a deadlocked convention with unelected superdelegates deciding the nominee. Unless Hillary Clinton can somehow do in Ohio and Texas on March 4 what Rudy Giuliani proved is almost impossible to do — maintain a big-state firewall after an unrelenting string of smaller defeats — the superdelegates will flock to Obama. Hope will have carried the day.


Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the mainstream media.


ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience — to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek."


That was too much for Time's Joe Klein. "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism," he wrote. "The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."


You might dismiss as hyperbole the complaint by the New York Times's Paul Krugman that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama's Potomac primary victory speech with "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg." When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said that Obama "comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."


I've seen only one similar national swoon. As a teenager growing up in Canada, I witnessed a charismatic law professor go from obscurity to justice minister to prime minister, carried on a wave of what was called Trudeaumania.


But even there the object of his countrymen's unrestrained affections was no blank slate. Pierre Trudeau was already a serious intellectual who had written and thought and lectured long about the nature and future of his country.


Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war — with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.


Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.

7)Two Winnable Wars

Iraqi supporters bearing a likeness of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rally in Baghdad Thursday, the day before he extended his militia's cease-fire six months.
Iraqi supporters bearing a likeness of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rally in Baghdad Thursday, the day before he extended his militia's cease-fire six months. (By Wathiq Khuzaie -- Getty Images)
Enlarge Photo
TOOLBOX
Resize Text

Save/Share +
Digg
Newsvine
del.icio.us
Stumble It!
Reddit
Facebook
Print This
E-mail This
COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 71 comments about this item.
View All Comments »

POST A COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Why Do I Have to Log In Again?
Log In Again?
CLOSE
We've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Discussion Policy
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging
» Links to this article
By Anthony H. Cordesman
Sunday, February 24, 2008; Page B07

No one can return from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I recently did, without believing that these are wars that can still be won. They are also clearly wars that can still be lost, but visits to the battlefield show that these conflicts are very different from the wars being described in American political campaigns and most of the debates outside the United States.

These conflicts involve far more than combat between the United States and its allies against insurgent movements such as al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban. Meaningful victory can come only if tactical military victories end in ideological and political victories and in successful governance and development. Dollars are as important as bullets, and so are political accommodation, effective government services and clear demonstrations that there is a future that does not need to be built on Islamist extremism.

The military situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are very different. The United States and its allies are winning virtually every tactical clash in both countries. In Iraq, however, al-Qaeda is clearly losing in every province. It is being reduced to a losing struggle for control of Nineveh and Mosul. There is a very real prospect of coalition forces bringing a reasonable degree of security if decisions such as Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's announcement Friday to extend his militia's cease-fire six months continue over a period of years.

Military victory is far more marginal in Afghanistan. NATO and international troops can still win tactically, but the Taliban is sharply expanding its support areas as well as its political and economic influence and control in Afghanistan. It has scored major gains in Pakistan, which is clearly the more important prize for al-Qaeda and has more Pashtuns than Afghanistan. U.S. commanders privately warn that victory cannot be attained without more troops, without all members of NATO and the International Security Assistance Force fully committing their troops to combat, and without a much stronger and consistent effort by the Pakistani army in both the federally administered tribal areas in western Pakistan and the Baluchi area in the south.

What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war. Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don't end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020.

If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.

The most serious problems, however, are governance and development. Both countries face critical internal divisions and levels of poverty and unemployment that will require patience. These troubles can be worked out, but only over a period of years. Both central governments are corrupt and ineffective, and they cannot bring development and services without years of additional aid at far higher levels than the Bush administration now budgets. Blaming weak governments or trying to rush them into effective action by threatening to leave will undercut them long before they are strong enough to act.

Any American political leader who cannot face these realities, now or in the future, will ensure defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Any Congress that insists on instant victory or success will do the same. We either need long-term commitments, effective long-term resources and strategic patience -- or we do not need enemies. We will defeat ourselves.