Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Security Of The Homeland Begins In Iran And Afghanistan


The Failure of Appeasement

New Yorkers know only to well the results that a policy based on appeasement and benign neglect can generate. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 had their beginnings years before in the embassies in Africa, on the USS Cole and at the World Trade Center in 1993.

The Clinton Administration conducted national security through polling results and focus groups, weighing the public appetite for response and then acting accordingly. As a result, our enemies felt empowered to conduct operations with little fear of true retribution.

Fast forward to today, and we face an enemy who now appears emboldened by the apparent, or fairly obvious, weakness of the Obama Administration. The term Homeland Security seems to have been replaced by the desire of the new administration to be considered the anti-Bush around the world. To be liked and to avoid imposing our will under most if not all circumstances. If Russia doesn't appreciate missile defense installations in Poland and Czechoslovakia, we will remove them at a great cost to our NATO allies as well as to our own security. In return for this, Russia will throw us a few crumbs.

If General McCrystal, Commander on the ground in Afghanistan, placed there by President Obama, says that a troop surge is required to avoid mission failure, the President will respond that he will get back to him after he reviews options and potential plans. This while the Taliban continues to spread its tentacles around the country and our men and women on the ground are put at increased risk. Our national security seems to be based on the phrase: We will speak softly and carry no stick at all.

The Iranian Missile Crisis

October 1st the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain will be sitting down in Geneva for what are billed as substantive talks regarding Iran's continuing efforts to develop nuclear arms. This only days after a 2nd nuclear enrichment plant was revealed and two days of ballistic missile tests were conducted. The stick to be held out will be the threat of "severe" sanctions to be imposed by the Group of Five nations.

The problem will be that some of our "friends" will violate those sanctions, and Iran could care less about the well being of its people. These talks will serve as a smokescreen for the countries participating to buy time to avoid the ultimate response, which will be military action to take out the installations. In the meantime, Israel, with the most to lose, may be forced to act unilaterally.

The Impact On Our Safety

What is the seriousness of the threat to the world and to New York in particular? Imagine the reality of Iran possessing the materials required to build a nuclear device for a warhead, or possibly enough for several suitcase bombs. Where will the targets be, and who or what will the delivery mechanism be?

It is a safe bet that New York City will be high up on the list in this eventuality, and while President Obama panders to the left wing of his party by playing the diplomacy card with madmen, New Yorkers among others will have been hung out to dry. Decisions that the President makes are in no small part influenced by his desire to get healthcare through, resulting in the need to make no waves on foreign policy.

If in fact Iran is allowed to go nuclear, and if in fact we retreat in Afghanistan and let the Taliban run wild, healthcare will probably not matter anyway!

No comments :

Post a Comment

;