Articles on the Iran run the gamut from the application of “Military” power vice “Diplomatic.”  “Economic ” incentives used to encourage peaceful resolution while the news media  provide “Information” that includes the full range of potential possibilities.  The unintended consequence mentioned in the article is bolstering Ahmadinejad’s re-election campaign. 

Now Bush Is Appeasing Iran, (Wall Street Journal)…Michael Rubin, July 21, 2008, Pg. 11

…Diplomacy is not wrong, but President Bush’s reversal is diplomatic malpractice on a Carter-esque level that is breathing new life into a failing regime. The Iranian government has spent billions of dollars — money that might have been better spent on refineries and gas turbine power plants — on a nuclear program that has failed to produce a single kilowatt of electricity.

On May 31, 2006, Condoleezza Rice drew a red line in front of Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program. “The Iranian government’s choices are clear,” she said. “The negative choice is for the regime to maintain its current course. . . . If the regime does so, it will incur only great costs.” She also offered an olive branch: “As soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table with our EU-3 colleagues and meet with Iran’s representatives.”

Two years later, Iranian officials have installed more than 3,000 centrifuges in a facility designed to hold 50,000.

While European diplomats hope regime pragmatists might reinject responsibility in the Iranian debate, Ms. Rice’s State Department has bolstered Ahmadinejad and his fellow travelers. As Ahmadinejad begins his re-election campaign, he can say he has successfully brought Washington to its knees through blunt defiance, murder of U.S. troops in Iraq, and Holocaust denial. Should he win re-election in 2009, he will have Mr. Bush’s whiplash diplomacy to thank for his greatest — and, given the state of his economy, perhaps only — victory.

Mr. Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Two articles that contrast the challenges in a Democracy during a war. Once the commitment to go to war is made, how do you avoid the perception that one political party wants to see the other lose?

We Have Won The War In Iraq,  (New York Daily News)…Michael Yon, July 21, 2008, Pg. 19

“The war in Iraq is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.” When I wrote this on my Web site a few days ago, I set off a mini-firestorm. Perhaps because I have spent more time embedded with combat troops in Iraq than any journalist I know – and have interviewed countless Iraqis and members of the coalition military.

So I will be very clear what I mean when I say we have won the war. A counterinsurgency is won when the government’s legitimacy is no longer threatened by the insurgents, the government is able to protect its own people and the people are participating in the government. In Iraq, all three conditions apply.

We should keep some troop presence in Iraq to continue supporting the ISF in its peacekeeping mission. There will still be sporadic violence and even spectacular attacks. But I believe that by the end of the year, barring some unexpected setback, even the most ardent war critics will have to admit the obvious: The war is over. We won.

Yon, a former Green Beret, is author of the book “Moment of Truth in Iraq” and writes at www.michaelyon-online.com.

 

The Democrats’ Baghdad Two-Step, (Washington Post)…Peter Hoekstra. July 21, 2008 Pg. 15

It’s hard not to have heard about the positive developments in Iraq lately.

How have Democrats reacted to these developments? Have they reveled in the news that U.S. casualties have plummeted? Have they praised the achievements for which our troops have fought so hard? Have they congratulated the Iraqi government for progress in political reconciliation?

Not exactly.

While there is much still to be done in Iraq, recent events give many reasons for hope. Rather than always focusing on the negative of one front in the battle against radical jihadists, Democratic congressional leaders need to acknowledge success, highlight challenges and lay out a comprehensive long-term strategy to confront, contain and ultimately defeat the threat facing America. Our country cannot be led by naysayers who slide from issue to issue. The responsibilities of leadership go far beyond what Democrats in Congress are demonstrating today.

The writer, a representative from Michigan, is the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Trust Still Needs Verification, (Washington Times)…Richard Lugar, July 18, 2008, Pg. 24

Although it escaped most news media attention, the United States received an important bit of good news over the July 4 holiday: Russia’s parliament overwhelmingly approved legislation that enables the United States and Russia to continue their 16-year cooperation to safeguard and destroy the vast Soviet nuclear, chemical and biological weapons arsenal, which to this day remains a danger to both countries.

Ricochet, (Washington Post)…Warren Zinn, July 13, 2008
Pg. B1

The e-mail was a punch in the gut: “the soldier you made famous — killed himself last Saturday — thought you should know.”

But as I stared at his image on my wall, I couldn’t dodge the question: Did this photo have anything to do with his death? News reports said he hated the celebrity that came with the picture. How much, I wondered, did that moment — just 1/250th of a second when three lives intersected on a river bank in Iraq — contribute to the burdens he’d brought home with him? If I’d never taken his picture, would he have ended up as he did? Would he still have been a casualty of war?

Cost of Power Quality (COPQ):  “Most important costs are unknown and unknowable.”

We’re Not Leaving… (U.S. News & World Report)…Michael Barone, July 10, 2008.

On June 23, the Soviets cut off land access to West Berli. .

… Secretary of State George Marshall and Joint Chiefs Chairman Omar Bradley, two of America’s most respected generals, felt Berlin was indefensible and we should withdraw. One man disagreed. President Harry Truman, in one crucial meeting after another, said, We‘re not leaving Berlin.

Just as Truman’s Pentagon opposed the airlift, so George W. Bush’s Pentagon mostly opposed the surge strategy in Iraq.

But Bush, echoing Truman, said, at least in effect, We‘re not leaving Iraq. He embraced the proposals for the surge, which had been worked up by retired Gen. Jack Keane and American Enterprise Institute scholar Frederick Kagan. He found a commander, Gen. David Petraeus, who had rewritten the Army’s manual on counterinsurgency and who had the character and skill to put the surge into effect.

…The lessons are clear. Stand fast. Put the right men in charge. And never doubt the capacity of the men and women of the American military, when given the right orders, to perform far better than the experts predict.