| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dupe entry: 'Steyn: World is watching as Iraq war tests U.S. mettle |
| 2006-08-20 |
| One way to measure how the world has changed in these last five years is to consider the extraordinary address to his nation by General Musharraf on Sept. 19, 2001. Pakistan was one of just three countries in the world (along with "our friends the Saudis" and the United Arab Emirates) to recognize the Taliban -- and, given that the Pakistanis had helped create and maintain them, they were pretty easy to recognize. President Bush, you'll recall, had declared that you're either with us or you're with the terrorists -- which posed a particular problem for Musharraf: He was with us but everyone else in his country was with the terrorists, including his armed forces, his intelligence services, the media, and a gazillion and one crazy imams. Nonetheless, with American action against Afghanistan on the horizon, he went on TV that night and told the Pakistani people that this was the gravest threat to the country's existence in over 30 years. He added that he was doing everything to ensure his brothers in the Taliban didn't "suffer," and that he'd asked Washington to provide some evidence that this bin Laden chap had anything to do with the attacks but that so far they'd declined to show him any. Then he cited the Charter of Medina (which the Prophet Muhammad signed after an earlier spot of bother) as an attempt to justify providing assistance to the infidel, and said he'd had no choice but to offer the Americans use of Pakistan's airspace, intelligence networks and other logistical support. He paused for applause, and after the world's all-time record volume of crickets chirping, said thank you and goodnight. That must have been quite the phone call he'd got from Washington a day or two earlier. And all within a week of Sept. 11. You may remember during the 2000 campaign an enterprising journalist sprung on Gov. Bush a sudden pop quiz of world leaders. Bush, invited to name the leader of Pakistan, was unable to. But so what? In the third week of September 2001, the correct answer to "Who's General Musharraf?" was "Whoever I want him to be." And, if Musharraf didn't want to play ball, he'd wind up as the answer to "Who was leader of Pakistan until last week?" Do you get the feeling Washington's not making phone calls like that anymore? If you go back to September 2001, it's amazing how much the administration made happen in just a short space of time: For example, within days it had secured agreement with the Russians on using military bases in former Soviet Central Asia for intervention in Afghanistan. That, too, must have been quite a phone call. Moscow surely knew that any successful Afghan expedition would only cast their own failures there in an even worse light -- especially if the Americans did it out of the Russians' old bases. And yet it happened. Five years on, the United States seems to be back in the quagmire of perpetual interminable U.N.-brokered EU-led multilateral dithering, on Iran and much else. The administration that turned Musharraf in nothing flat now offers carrots to Ahmadinejad. After the Taliban fell, the region's autocrats and dictators wondered: Who's next? Now they figure it's a pretty safe bet that nobody is. What's the difference between September 2001 and now? It's not that anyone "liked" America or that, as the Democrats like to suggest, the country had the world's "sympathy.'' Pakistani generals and the Kremlin don't cave to your demands because they "sympathize.'' They go along because you've succeeded in impressing upon them that they've no choice. Musharraf and Co. weren't scared by America's power but by the fact that America, in the rubble of 9/11, had belatedly found the will to use that power. It is notionally at least as powerful today, but in terms of will we're back to Sept. 10: Nobody thinks America is prepared to use its power. And so Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad and wannabe "strong horses" like Baby Assad cock their snooks with impunity. I happened to be in the Australian Parliament for Question Time last week. The matter of Iraq came up, and the foreign minister, Alexander Downer, thwacked the subject across the floor and over the opposition benches in a magnificent bravura display of political confidence culminating with the gleefully low jibe that "the Leader of the Opposition's constant companion is the white flag.'' The Iraq war is unpopular in Australia, as it is in America and in Britain. But the Aussie government is happy for the opposition to bring up the subject as often as they want because Downer and his prime minister understand very clearly that wanting to "cut and run" is even more unpopular. So in the broader narrative it's a political plus for them: Unlike Bush and Blair, they've succeeded in making the issue not whether the nation should have gone to war but whether the nation should lose the war. That's not just good politics, but it's actually the heart of the question. Of course, if Bush sneered that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi's constant companion is the white flag, they'd huff about how dare he question their patriotism. But, if you can't question their patriotism when they want to lose a war, when can you? At one level, the issue is the same as it was on Sept. 11: American will and national purpose. But the reality is that it's worse than that -- for (as Israel is also learning) to begin something and be unable to stick with it to the finish is far more damaging to your reputation than if you'd never begun it in the first place. Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Bush and the neocons. In reality -- a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted -- it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment. In late September 2001 the administration succeeded in teaching a critical lesson to tough hombres like Musharraf and Putin: In a scary world, America can be scarier. But it's all a long time ago now. |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #25 The US military reach is global, and by that, I mean anywhere, any time, at the President's call. No one should find comfort in NOT having US assets near their borders. Word, Old Patriot. And to he|| with this "shock and awe" crap. I want bouncing rubble with lots of room-temperature mullahs plus dead or maimed and dust-covered Iranian physicists crawling out from under it. Round two equals same for Iranian military. Round three means same for their oil pipelines. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-20 22:15 |
| #24 On the first day of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, the US deployed an SR-71 from Beale AFB, California, to fly reconnaissance over the battlefield in Israel/Egypt/Jordan/Syria. The aircraft recovered at RAF Mildenhall, and flew additional missions from there until at least a week after the war was over. B-52 war missions were scheduled to take off out of our midwest airfields and bomb Russia, then recover back in the US. There is NOWHERE too far away for us to touch, and it doesn't take aircraft carriers to reach. Crested Cap, an exercise that ran for several years between the US and Europe required an entire military tac fighter wing to deploy NON-STOP from the US (Holloman, for me) to Europe (Spangdahlem), and be ready to fly offensive missions within 8 hours of landing. One experiment called for US paratroopers to go aboard aircraft at Pope AFB, NC and from Fort Bragg, and drop in Italy. I'm talking about things that happened in the 1960's, 1970's, and early 1980's. We have an even greater "reach" today. Not having carriers in the Persian Gulf or off the southern coast of Iran means nothing. The US military reach is global, and by that, I mean anywhere, any time, at the President's call. No one should find comfort in NOT having US assets near their borders. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-08-20 20:57 |
| #23 see: "Diego Garcia; Bombers deployed from" You hit them from Whitman AFB. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-08-20 19:37 |
| #22 Folks, You don't hit Iran from carriers in the Med. You hit them from carriers in the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf (where CBGs (carrier battle groups) are never (rarely) deployed due to the tight circumstances), the Arabian Sea, and possibly the "Pacific" (the Pacific is a big place and the boundaries are not quite solidly defined so a CBG in the "Pacific" could just as easily be in the Indian for all the USN is going to say). Tehran is beyond non-aerial-refueled strike range of most land-based fighters from Israel so is almost certainly beyond the range of any non-aerial-refueled naval strike aircraft deployed from even a US CBG in the Med. Diego Garcia is in the Indian. Guam is in the Pacific. Both have airfields and aircraft fully capable of ranging to Tehran and back. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-08-20 19:00 |
| #21 Yes, that is the base nice and big and close. :) |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-08-20 18:39 |
| #20 Hah!! Balad looks like it's less than 50 miles from the Iranian border. That's gotta make the Mullahs a little nervous... |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-08-20 17:44 |
| #19 djohn66 were you thinking of Balad Air Base? |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2006-08-20 17:32 |
| #18 True. Let's hope things break loose soon; this aimless screwing around is getting REALLY old. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-08-20 15:18 |
| #17 7 outta 8 ain't bad |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-08-20 15:11 |
| #16 "Public attentive to terrorism...check" That's the one I'm not too sure about. Too many have gone back to Sept. 10th... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-08-20 15:07 |
| #15 Very interesting checklist Darrell, sounds good to me... |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-08-20 15:03 |
| #14 Was there a picture on RB with a big ass airbase in the middle of Iraq? just saying is all. :) |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-08-20 14:52 |
| #13 Hamas weakened...check Hizbullah weakened...check Israeli public dissatisfied...check Public attentive to terrorism...check Fleet protected...check Iran not stopping enrichment...check August 22nd pending...check NK needs an instructive example... check Ready to launch. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-08-20 14:48 |
| #12 And they don't say WHERE in the Atlantic the USS George Washington is. Re: Iran, it appears that we don't have any ships in or near the Straits of Hormuz. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-08-20 14:36 |
| #11 see: "Diego Garcia; Bombers deployed from" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-20 14:35 |
| #10 According to the Navy's public web page, we have no carriers in the Gulf or the Red Sea or the Mediterranean. We do, however, have the Iwo Jima expeditionary strike group in the Med along with a command ship. Location of subs is never mentioned. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-08-20 14:32 |
| #9 Yesterday someone said we don't have a fleet near Iran. I hope that's true, because it suggests to me that we are about to pound the hell out of them and don't want them to have targets for retaliation in the early hours. Submarines, cruise missiles, and stealth bombers work for me. Nukes too. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-08-20 14:24 |
| #8 yes |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-08-20 14:18 |
| #7 "Is it just me, or does anyone else sense that something huge and decisive is about to happen?" Dunno. But I sense something damn well better happen, or we're screwed. I see two possibilities here: 1) We've gone to one helluva lot of trouble to project an image of weakness, confusion and indecision, in order to lure the Islamonutz into doing something so vile and stupid that Bush & Co. will have a clear political mandate for stomping their asses; or 2) We really have descended into weakness, confusion and indecision. God, I sure hope it's #1... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-08-20 14:04 |
| #6 There's shock and awe and then there's shock and awe. I have a solution to all those dogs in the pounds across the US. We also have a lot of pig waste. Very few buildings destroyed or civilians killed. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-08-20 13:35 |
| #5 Something like the calm before the storm Snease? Yes, I have it too, and I have a feeling that 'Shock and Awe' won't begin to describe it. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-08-20 13:26 |
| #4 this is Mark Steyn. Ben Stein has the other opinion article.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-20 13:20 |
| #3 Sorta like, the ceasefire in Lebanon was pushed on Israel because they are the sideshow (not to waste more resources, they may be needed for bigger things), the main event is about to begin? Mr. GW Pokerface, show us your hand. |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-20 13:12 |
| #2 I think Ben Stein misses the motivations. I think the Russians and the Pakistani thought the US would fail in Afghanistan. By providing assistance they would come out on our good side if we won, but have a lot of manuevering room if we ended up in a 9 year fiasco as the Red Army did. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-08-20 13:11 |
| #1 Is it just me, or does anyone else sense that something huge and decisive is about to happen? Its not the Aug. 22 thing, because I sensed it before those rumors arose. For those who haven't heard it, cut and paste (until Mod approval) this link to the President's National Cathedral Speech. I always read something cryptic in the wording.
| |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-08-20 12:51 |