Benghazi and Gaza Reveal Government Spin Over Action

In the United States the public is being slowly traumatized by the horrors slowly coming to light as the putrefied onion that is Benghazi, Libya is slowly peeled one rotting later after another while in Israel there is the escalation by the terror governance in Gaza of rockets being hurled across the border at civilians and often timed to strike while children are transiting to or from school thus traumatizing the millions within the ever increasing range of these explosive projectiles. In both countries the government in general and the leadership in particular; President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, United Nations Ambassador Rice and others in the Administration in America and Prime Minister Netanyahu and the military and coalition leadership in Israel; are dodging responsibility and avoiding directly addressing the truth in a futile hope that neither problem will have any defining affect upon the upcoming elections. The similarities in both of these horrid and tragic instances go further than simply the attempt to wish them away by each nation’s leaders, they also have similar solutions which are based on honestly admitting some painful truths, taking responsibility for protecting the people and interests of the nation, giving an honest and complete assessment of the realities each nation faces, admission of mistakes and shortcomings committed by those in the positions of leadership and decision making, and finally refusal to take bold steps that would protect those in harm’s way and use necessary military steps that would prevent any further damages and show an understanding and consideration for protecting those who stand vulnerable from these threats.

The United States leadership needs to admit that it is very possible and even likely that the changes brought on by the so-called Arab Spring are more likely to result in situations less favorable to the West, freedom, liberties and even the economies of the nations where the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist entities have taken over the governance and are going to resemble an Arab Winter and relations are going to turn colder, not warmer. This places our personnel in the embassies, consulates, and other assets in greater threats of danger either directly from the new governance or from other terror-like threats acting with the permission of the governments if not directly being organized by these governments. It will not only be unwise to allow for security to be provided by the governments of the countries in which there are personnel and must insist on having United States Marines on duty guarding these people or should let it be known that American personnel will be pulled if forced to do so as well as financial and other consequences. Niceties cannot be extended if they will result in the death or threats of violence to American personnel. There are times when niceties must be put aside and putting forth a steel gloved hand becomes necessary instead of a white silk glove that President Obama appears to believe will solve everything. Reality is often not as pretty and in this case is extremely unseemly and ugly, but the truth is the truth.

Meanwhile, in southern Israel there have been close to one hundred rockets, mortars, bombs and other attacks originating from the Gaza Strip in less than one week. While the Iron Dome system protecting the city of Ashkelon has been of adequate success by intercepting at least eight rockets fired in its theater, there are simply not sufficient Iron Dome systems to protect all of the communities. There have been mounting casualties and an even larger number of people suffering stress and other nervous attacks and disorders as a result of this seeming declaration of war. If this many explosive rockets and mortars had been fired across a border into any country in the world other than Israel, the United Nations would be holding emergency sessions and there would be world-wide concern and denunciations against the senseless violence and provocations. Of course, since these attacks are against Israel there will be no fury of concern, hand-wringing and denouncements unless and until Israel should retaliate with any appropriate force which will be labeled as disproportionate as is the custom of the world in its current state of affairs. But just because the rest of the world will likely get their panties in a wad should Israel launch a ground attack that is carefully planned and executed sweeping through the entire length and breadth of the Gaza Strip searching every single building, shed, hospital, and mosque for rockets, mortars, rocket launchers, mortar launch tubes and any other such equipment of war and confiscate and destroy every single piece found does not preclude the possible necessity for just such an action. There should also be arrests of every leading terrorist and the rocket, mortar, bomb and explosive expert should be arrested or taken as prisoners of war to be released once all violence originating from the Gaza Strip has ceased for twelve straight months and a treaty negotiated. It may even have reached the point in time where returning IDF forces into the Gaza Strip to patrol the area and keep the peace has become a desirable and necessary option. Simply promising to reinforce the homes, businesses, hospitals, schools, malls, and other buildings to make them better able to withstand the rocket attacks is insufficient, irresponsible and completely inadequate. Election or no election in the offing, protecting the people of Israel is job one Mr. Netanyahu, not the strengthening of your coalition in the Knesset. What may not be obvious to you is that by assuring the safety and security of the people you also assure the size and loyalty of your coalition in the Knesset.

In both the United States and Israel there will be elections within a few months. The United States will have their election within fourteen days and may very well end up a referendum not only on President Obama’s performance in his first term, Obama Care, the economy, or any of the other items the American people have been fed for the whole election year thus far, it may well be a referendum on Benghazi and who will most likely keep the American people safe and the United States strong and respected with a sufficient dose of feared that nobody would ever consider attacking Americans anywhere in the world. In Israel the election might be a referendum on the authenticity of a return as an innocent man into politics by Ehud Olmert, or the return of Tzipi Livni. What should be the issues are a leader who will put the final nails to seal the coffin where the Oslo accords have been laid for some time by Mahmoud Abbas and his refusal to compromise or even discuss compromise, protection of the citizens living under constant threat in southern Israel from the rockets, mortars and other attacks originating from the Gaza Strip under the direction of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and related terror groups, the acceptance and application of the Levy Report along with all it implies, and stand firm before the hatreds and bigotries of too much of this world and establish that Israel is entitled to every millimeter of lands guaranteed under the numerous agreements including but not limited to the Peel Commission, San Remo Conference, Churchill White Papers, and Article 80 of the United Nations. The other way in which the United States and Israel are facing a similar situation is the possibility that the upcoming election in each country could have an effect on the entirety of each country’s future beyond what anyone can anticipate. Act One in two weeks and Act Two scheduled for late January of next year. The time between these two important dates should prove interesting, especially on how the results of the first could have influences on the second. These surely are interesting times but as such, are these a good thing or a curse as the Chinese believe.

Beyond the Cusp

Maybe Saudi Arabia and the GCC Should Step Up on Iran

Once again there are reports of Saudi Arabia, its fellow members of the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council), and other Arab countries have been lobbying the United States to strike Iran before the end of this year. In many ways, this has the same feeling and texture as the calls to contain Iraq and Saddam Hussein that culminated in Gulf War I which began in mid-1990. Back then one might have understood such a request as the United States was still interested in staying relevant in the Middle East. Also making those requests back then seem more vital was the lack of ability of these same Arab countries being able to carry out a mission at such a level thus requiring a large assist from the United States. Calling for air strikes on the Iranian nuclear weapon and missile launch and storage sites to be carried out by the United States while the Americans are in the midst of pulling forces from the Middle East could be problematic. Add in the recent sales over the past decade of F-15, F-16 and other military armaments and munitions, including penetrator bombs, and it starts to beg the question of why these countries don’t take care of this problem themselves. There are numerous reasons to require the countries in the area to take more responsibility in carrying out those missions which are purely in their interest.

Since the operation to delay Iranian progress in their military development of nuclear weapons and the missiles upon which to place them has been defined as purely to be air and missile strikes and does not include boots on the ground, then Saudi Arabia and their GCC allies have amply sufficient air-power to carry out such a mission. The current economic problems being faced by the United States makes committing to a new open-ended military campaign in the Middle East something the United States would wish to avoid. In addition, President Obama has made it clear that he still believes that Iran could be persuaded to give up their nuclear and missile programs by a combination of sanctions and diplomacy and that any military solution is out of the question. This has been even further backed up by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s statement that the United States believes the most effective way to confront Iran still was to use diplomatic pressure and sanctions. He further commented saying, “Obviously to go beyond that raises our concerns about the unintended consequences that could result.” Panetta pointed out that United States analysis showed a strike on Iran would only set back its nuclear program by one or two years which is not a sufficient result. Secretary Panetta further argued, “There are going to be economic consequences to that that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy. So those things all need to be considered.” In conclusion Panetta plainly stated, “The United States feels strongly that the way to deal with that is to work with our allies, to work with the international community to develop the sanctions and the diplomatic efforts that would further isolate Iran. That is the most effective way to confront them at this point.” This simply does not indicate even the slightest glimmer of hope for an American military response concerning anything Iran.

With the United States firmly seated on the sidelines with President Obama using the financial and economic ramifications as a reason to do nothing militarily about the Iranian military buildup, the world appears to be paralyzed to inaction, with all sides waiting for somebody else to make the first move. President Obama has made it well known both through his words and the echo chamber consisting of Secretary of Defense Panetta and CIA Chief Petraeus that the United States under his administration has decided that it would be less dangerous living with a nuclear capable Iran than taking any steps beyond making speeches and whining about the lack of resolve of the rest of the world to work with the United States on sanctions. President Obama has reached the conclusion that Iran will be prevented through the same MAD scenario from the Cold War which prevented the Soviet Union from using their nuclear weapons. It would not surprise me if President Obama has also concluded that even should Iran actually not be deterred by a MAD policy (which is really a mad policy), then the result initially would only be a crippling nuclear attack on Israel after which the United States could then realize their error and take action before Iran would be able to attack the United States. Of course the Obama administration has most likely not explained this part of their reasoning with Prime Minister Netanyahu or other Israeli officials.

That is the real problem with the whole Iran nuclear efforts and related missile development, namely that everybody is stuck on the undesirable ramifications of an attack on Iran to delay, even if not permanently prevent, their attaining nuclear weaponry but nobody appears to include the ramifications of doing nothing and Iran actually unleashing nuclear attacks on their perceived enemies. Nobody appears to have even had a glimmer of the idea that Iran might wait and develop sufficient nuclear stockpile and missile systems to allow an initial attack to be made on multiple fronts that would include beyond Israel nuclear attacks also on Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, other European targets, the United States, and possibly even Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Even if Iran only hit four other countries other than Israel and Saudi Arabia, what would those ramifications be? It probably would deliver far worse economic ramifications than attacking Iran’s nuclear sites now. Then there is also this writer’s opinion that Iran will not strike Israel first unless Israel is simply one target out of a group of countries. If Iran were to initially launch nuclear weapons at only one country, my fear is that such an attack would be aimed at the United States. This is further confirmed by the continued interest and practicing of launching medium range ballistic missiles off of cargo ships along with ways of camouflaging such ships such that they are not easily detected. Iran does not need to launch from ships to strike Israel. Iran is already capable of striking targets as far off as Paris, France (or presumably London, England if launching from Syria or Lebanon) thus much of Europe, so the only need to launch from ships would be an offshore launch against the United States from the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico thus placing every American city within range.

My advice to Saudi Arabia and those other Arab countries who fear a nuclear Iran is do not depend on the United States to address your concerns as it is not a concern for President Obama. If you need additional assistance, perhaps you might do the unthinkable and work with Israel. You have the choice of making a backdoor deal with Israel hoping to keep it between yourselves or taking on the responsibility for striking Iran by yourselves. It is your choice and if you are unable to take such responsibility, then join President Obama in the wishful thinking will solve the problem party. If you are wrong by just letting things go as you cannot be bothered to do the job yourselves, the pain will be brief and then you will no longer have any problems. If having a nuclear armed Iran is something you honestly cannot see living with, then do something other than cry to the United States, President Obama will not hear you from the White House basketball court. I hear he will be holding training camps and pick-up games for the striking NBA players in lieu of a real season.

Beyond the Cusp