The Surge - Obama's Untouchable Third Rail!

Halevy, former Mossad head, not the hawk, Shin Bet's Diskin is. Halevy has different take on Iran being a super power and places a great deal of faith in Israeli missile capability. Takes a lot of guts to believe a tiny country could sustain a concerted nuclear attack by hitting incoming missile(s) in the air and what of the radioactive fall-out? With any luck perhaps it would fall on Hezballah in Lebanon.

Halevy is right about Israel attacking only as a last resort. As to the window of opportunity, I doubt Israel would attack after our election, unless there was extreme and convincing provocation, because they would be placing any incoming president in a very tenuous situation unless the candidates were clued in advance of the election and had signed on, which is highly remote. (See 1 below.)

Today's Wall Street Editorial is a gottcha! It explains how Berliners, dependent on U.S resolve, were unwilling to give up yet Obama, essentially told the Iraqis he was willing to give up on them. Like a women's slip, Obama's judgment was showing and the Journal's editorial was quick to point this out to its readers.

As the Journal editors write, winning should be the end goal. In Berlin, Obama asserted we must win against terrorism but he just can't bring himself to win in Iraq because winning is connected to the surge and the surge is Obama's third untouchable rail. So he will come home, take advantage of our wining and say we must move to Afghanistan without admitting he was wrong about the surge. Meanwhile McCain will probably be attacked by the press and media for needlessly haranguing Obama about the issue. (See 2 below.)

The U.N., like the World Bank, is a cumbersome bureaucracy. Each has worthy specified goals and each constantly falls short of them for a variety of different but also similar reasons. There are times when the U.N. serves our purposes and times when it stifles our initiatives. So it might be if we align ourselves more closely with European attitudes. Europe is conflicted by increasing Muslim influence, stunted economic growth, a desire to avoid confrontations and jealous of American power. They are consistently united in one matter - let America carry the ball and pay the price.

Europeans have a history of warfare and the decimation it has caused. Therefore, they are more willing to deny and appease believing or hoping the wolf at the door will go away. Six years of fruitless negotiations with Iran, Europe's willingness to support the IAEA's failed efforts to corral Iran's nuclear ambitions are cited as evidence of patient statesmanship and tireless diplomacy.

Strange that no one suggests a time line to these meetings with Iran. It must be because no one is getting killed and the cost of long lunches and dinners is not great. Eventually there will be a cost, deferred perhaps, but the nuclear pigeons will come home to roost one day because Iran, with an assist from Russia, intends to have nuclear weapons, the ability to defend the underground plants in which they are made and the missiles to deliver the rewards of their labor.

What could go right? Well, the Iranian people could overthrow their leaders. Ahmadinejad could be relieved of his position and a more dovish person could replace him, they could have a deterrent type accident along the way or have considerable technical difficulty which would impede the production of a nuclear device. Least likely but still possible, they could conclude the various sanctions are not worth the trauma to their citizens. That presupposes the thugs who control Iranian life style really care about their people's comforts.

Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons has some negative consequences as well. First, it would shake up the Saudi Sheiks and signal their reliance upon the U.S. was misplaced. It would, of course, send a message to Egypt and other Middle East nations they too need nuclear weapons and could finesse developing them as Iran did. Lastly, it could cause Israel to preempt Iran and who knows where that would lead but for sure the U.S. would eventually be involved and, also for sure, blamed.

Nothing I have mentioned is rocket science thinking. Even pacifist Swedes understand these pros and cons. The question is whether anything, beyond fruitless talk, will alter Iran's inevitable move. Will there be a time line laid down by McCain and/or Obama? Will Obama's new found Europeans friends join him in supporting a 'Fifty Four Forty' draw the line in the sand gauntlet that has teeth, ie. Iran, you can take this to the bank, you will be attacked? Can we expect an inspiring speech along those lines? I suspect not.

What I do expect is more pussyfooting, empty threats, perhaps a dose of new sanctions, if Russia permits, and more talk about all options remain on the table but lost, somewhere, in the tablecloth. Denial is so comforting considering the dire alternatives for which we have only ourselves to blame.

GW has got to be relieved he will soon be in Crawford, Texas and no doubt many Americans as well. Time and events might cause them to think otherwise but like Obama and the surge, they will never be able to bring themselves to admit it. After all, all the world's ills are because of GW. If you don't believe it ask those 200,000 Berliners because Obama obliquely told them that was the case. (See Gerard Baker's take in 3 below and say AMEN!)


Charles Krauthammer gave Obama high marks for the way he handled himself in France today. Krauthammer stated Obama came as an invited guest, unlike in Germany, appeared with Sarkozy unlike being alone on the stage in Berlin and said everything the French wanted to hear which suggests Obama might have learned a thing or two along the way while on his overseas trip.

Dick




1) Mossad chief says strike on Iran could 'affect us for 100 years'


Former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy told Time magazine in an interview published Thursday that an Israeli attack on Iran "could have an impact on us for the next 100 years" and should only be considered as a last resort.

Halevy, who currently heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, added that an Iranian attack on Israel would probably have little impact, because Iranian missiles would largely be intercepted by Israel's advanced anti-missile defense system.

Another former senior Mossad official, who reportedly served during Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's administration, told the American magazine that "Iran's achievement is creating an image of itself as a scary superpower when it's really a paper tiger.

An additional Israeli source told Time that Israel sees the period between the U.S. elections in November and the president's inauguration in January as the "window of opportunity" for a possible attack on Iran. The source explained that any military move against Iran would not be carried out before the elections, because it would negatively impact the presidential candidates, especially Republican candidate John McCain and "No Israel leader wants to be blamed for destroying the Republican chances," Time cited the source as saying.

However, the magazine quoted intelligence sources as saying that an Israeli attack on Iran would likely stall the Islamic republic's nuclear aspirations only by "a year or two."

Launching a long-range strike against a multitude of hidden targets in Iran entails huge risks and uncertain rewards, which makes the cost-benefit analysis weigh against an air strike on Iran, according to some senior Israeli officials who urge caution.

2) REVIEW & OUTLOOK: Baghdad, Berlin, Barack


For our money, the best line in Barack Obama's speech yesterday in Berlin came in the form of a quote from Ernst Reuter, the city's mayor during the period of the Soviet blockade and the American airlift, in 1948:

"But in the darkest hour," said Sen. Obama, "the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. 'There is only one possibility,' he said. 'For us to stand together united until this battle is won…. The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty'." This, from a U.S. Senator whose consistent message to the people of Baghdad, a similarly besieged city, also dependent on America's protection, has been, in effect, to give up.

Mr. Obama reiterated this view earlier in the week while traveling in the Middle East, in an interview with ABC's Terry Moran. Mr. Moran asked the Illinois Democrat whether -- "knowing what you know now" -- he would reconsider his opposition to last year's surge of U.S. troops in Iraq. "Well, no," Mr. Obama replied.

What Mr. Obama "knows now" is that the surge he opposed has saved Iraq, much as Harry Truman's airlift saved Berlin and underlined America's intention to defend Europe throughout the Cold War. The surge has also saved American lives in Iraq, with combat-related deaths (so far, there have been seven this month) at an all time low.

Mr. Obama offered his own unwitting testimony to this fact by not donning body armor upon his arrival in Baghdad and during a helicopter tour with Gen. David Petraeus. "There have been few if any attacks of late on our aircraft, and the situation did not require them to be wearing body armor," explained Gen. Petraeus's spokesman.

Mr. Obama also knows that Gen. Petraeus opposes setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. This military judgment ought to count for something, particularly since Congressional Democrats have long scolded President Bush for failing to pay sufficient heed to the advice of generals such as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki. Yet Mr. Obama, who has always been careful to cite the views of military commanders to justify his 16 month withdrawal schedule, now says that heeding less congenial military advice would mean an abdication of his responsibilities as a prospective commander in chief.

The Obama campaign now makes much of the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seems to have endorsed the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, with 2010 as the approximate date. This is being played as a great political coup for Mr. Obama -- which, we suppose, it is, if only because the media plays it that way.

But the significant debate is not over whether and when the U.S. will withdraw. It's over whether the U.S. will win. In his Berlin speech, Mr. Obama was at his most forceful when he insisted that "this is the moment when we must defeat terror," adding that "the threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it." This is well-said and true.

But it squares oddly with a political campaign whose central premise is that losing in Iraq -- and whatever calamities may follow -- is a matter of little consequence to U.S. or European interests. It squares oddly, too, with Mr. Obama's broader promise to "stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, the voter in Zimbabwe" and virtually every other global cause.


It is hard not to be moved by the sight during the speech of hundreds of American flags being waved, rather than burned. Then again, the last time a major American political figure delivered an open-air speech in Berlin, 10,000 riot police had to use tear gas and water cannons to repel violent demonstrators. It was June 1987, the speaker was Ronald Reagan, his message was: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Press accounts characterized the line as "provocative"; the Soviets called it "war-mongering"; 100,000 protesters marched against Reagan in the old German capital of Bonn. Two years later, the Berlin Wall fell.

Reagan's speech is a lesson in the difference between popularity and statesmanship. Watching Mr. Obama yesterday in Berlin, and throughout his foreign tour, was a reminder of how far the presumptive Democratic nominee has to go to reassure people he is capable of the latter -- "people," that is, who will actually get to cast a ballot in November.

3) He ventured forth to bring light to the world
By Gerard Baker

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers


And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
Background

* Obama fears the Blair effect as tour continues

* The Europhiles are not the future, Mr Obama

* The Bugle - Barack Obama is coming to Europe!

* Our leaders go after some Obama magic

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He traveled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of NATO immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy plowshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he traveled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”