<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Withdrawal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/withdrawal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Israel Attacked on Four Fronts</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/israel-attacked-on-four-fronts/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=israel-attacked-on-four-fronts</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/israel-attacked-on-four-fronts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:37:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Spencer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=236531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Three of which it withdrew from for the sake of “peace.”]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Israel2.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-236564" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Israel2-450x300.jpg" alt="Israel2" width="282" height="188" /></a>The wreckage of earlier Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts – the Camp David Accords, Oslo, the Road Map to Peace and all the rest – was on particularly vivid display this week.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/14/us-israel-lebanon-rocket-idUSKBN0FJ2EJ20140714">Reuters</a> reported Monday that “at least one rocket fired from Lebanon hit northern Israel on Monday….The rocket was fired from the area around the southern city of Tyre, Lebanese security sources said.” <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/rocket-syria-hits-israel-held-golan-no-injuries-224448038.html">AFP noted</a> that “a rocket fired from Syria hit the Israeli-occupied sector of the Golan Heights on Sunday.” Rockets from Gaza <a href="http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Despite-offensive-Gaza-rockets-still-hit-Israel-5619276.php">continue to hit Israel</a> despite the Israeli defensive actions. And according to <a href="http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/07/13/Egypt-thwarts-Sinai-rocket-attack-at-Israel-.html">Al Arabiya</a>, “Egyptian security thwarted on Sunday an attempt to launch two rockets from Sinai at Israel.”</p>
<p>Southern Lebanon, Gaza, Sinai – all previously “occupied territory” from which Israel withdrew in order to help bring about peace.</p>
<p>Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in May 2000. Prime Minister Ehud Barack’s government thought that the withdrawal would show that Israel was serious about making peace, and would bring to an end the relentless attacks against Israel at the United Nations and in the international media. Israel withdrew from Gaza in September 2005. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government thought that the withdrawal would show that Israel was serious about making peace, and would bring to an end the relentless attacks against Israel at the United Nations and in the international media. Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula by 1982 as part of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty resulting from the Camp David Accords. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s government thought that the withdrawal would show that Israel was serious about making peace, and would bring to an end the relentless attacks against Israel at the United Nations and in the international media.</p>
<p>Are you starting to see a pattern?</p>
<p>Israel carried out all three of these withdrawals in pursuit of peace. But peace never came.</p>
<p>The UN and the media never let up on Israel, and in each case, the Israeli withdrawal led to the previously “occupied territory” becoming a base for new jihad attacks against the Jewish state.</p>
<p>How many more times is this going to have to happen before the leaders of the free world stop pressuring Israel into entering into these self-defeating and fruitless “peace” agreements? The events of the last few days have assuredly not persuaded Barack Obama and John Kerry to stop pressuring Israel to withdraw from the “settlements” so as to show that Israel is serious about making peace, and to bring to an end the relentless attacks against Israel at the United Nations and in the international media. But even if such an agreement comes about, and it looks unlikely now with the latest jihad savagery and Netanyahu apparently resolute against it, it will fail, yet again. The war against Israel is a jihad for the sake of Islam. It will never be negotiated away. It will never be turned away from its ultimate goal of the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.</p>
<p>Obama and Kerry and the rest may know this. Obama’s anti-Semitic associations are so many and so long-lasting that it is hard to sustain the idea that he is pressing the Israelis to curtail their latest operations and enter into what would certainly be a disastrous ceasefire agreement with Hamas out of naivete and a well-meaning but ill-considered desire to make peace. <em>He must know</em>. And many in the Leftist intelligentsia must know.</p>
<p>Those who do not yet know, however, should ponder the spectacle of Israel being attacked from southern Lebanon, Gaza and the Sinai all in one day, as well as from Syria, with which the Nixon Administration pressed Israel to make peace in 1973.</p>
<p>It is long past time for a new paradigm in Washington — an across-the-board repudiation of the prevailing political establishment, and the ascendancy of people who are willing to face the reality of the jihad threat in its full magnitude, and to defend Israel to the hilt as being on the front line of that jihad. But with the Republicans so richly deserving their sobriquet of The Stupid Party, such a change in the political culture is not, alas, on the horizon.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/israel-attacked-on-four-fronts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>48</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Residual Failure in Afghanistan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/residual-failure-in-afghanistan/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=residual-failure-in-afghanistan</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/residual-failure-in-afghanistan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 04:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226373</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Under Obama, expect the same tragedy in Afghanistan that transpired in Iraq. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/obama2.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-226376" alt="obama2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/obama2.jpg" width="333" height="250" /></a>Speaking at a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery after making a surprise visit to Afghanistan, President Barack Obama stated, “By the end of this year, our war in Afghanistan will finally come to an end.”</p>
<p>Not exactly.</p>
<p>President Obama is reportedly opting to maintain a residual force of nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after America’s formal combat operations role concludes there at the end of 2014.  The U.S. currently has about 32,800 troops in the country.</p>
<p>The troops remaining behind would focus on counterterrorism and training. However, the plan is not for them to be stationed in Afghanistan indefinitely, only for an additional two years until the end of 2016. While outgoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to cooperate in approving the security arrangements for any residual American force, his successor is expected to sign the required Bilateral Security Agreement, a precondition for any residual forces to remain.</p>
<p>President Obama does not want to see the disaster that has unfolded in Iraq, after he decided to pull all remaining American troops out of that country at once, play out again in Afghanistan. Although he ran for president on an anti-war platform and promised to end America’s combat role in Iraq once he became president, Obama had said back in 2007: “We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region.  We’ll continue to strike at al-Qaeda in Iraq.”  That did not happen because of the Obama administration’s failure to reach a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government that we were supporting. The result was that Obama’s complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq essentially reversed the positive results of the military surge undertaken there by former President George W. Bush.  Obama managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as Iraq once again has descended into sectarian violence.</p>
<p>As long as Obama is commander in chief, expect the same thing to happen in Afghanistan. Although he has been resolute and somewhat successful in his use of drones against al Qaeda and Taliban leaders and operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, his stewardship of the American combat operations in Afghanistan has been half-hearted at best. He is simply kicking the can down the road to 2016, his deadline for removing any remaining U.S. forces from Afghanistan. He will then bequeath the consequences to his successor.</p>
<p>Obama hesitated for months before ordering his own significant surge of military forces in Afghanistan in December 2009. He settled for a level that was lower than the military had advised. Then he publicly announced a fixed date for withdrawal of troops to begin, which allowed the Taliban to essentially bide their time. His administration also imposed onerous rules of engagement on our troops that put them at further risk.</p>
<p>All told, approximately 72 percent of the U.S. military fatalities in Afghanistan since 2001 have occurred under Obama’s watch. At the same time, there has been no discernible progress in protecting civilians from terrorist attacks. Nearly 3,000 civilians were killed in 2013, more than eight per day, the vast majority of whom were killed by anti-government forces such as the Taliban.</p>
<p>The civilian deaths in 2013 matched the record highs of 2011. In addition, there were more than 5,500 civilians injured during 2013.</p>
<p>&#8220;There are groups that are boasting about killing civilians, are making statements about how good it is that civilians are being targeted and killed,” said United Nations Assistance Mission special representative Jan Kubis. This is going on with three times the American troops that will be left behind under the residual forces plan. Will our own residual forces operating under restrictive rules of engagement and lacking adequate reinforcements become sitting ducks for a resurgent Taliban as well as turncoat Afghan police and soldiers? Quite likely.</p>
<p>In short, Obama’s so-called Afghanistan “surge,” which came with a short expiration period, only served to embolden the jihadists. They saw right through Obama’s ambivalence, which helps explain why any meaningful peace talks with the Taliban were never in the cards. They only have to wait Obama out and re-emerge full-force. New havens established for al Qaeda and other jihadists are sure to follow, as the Taliban and al Qaeda have maintained their ties.</p>
<p>“With the help of Allah, the valiant Afghans under the Jihadi leadership of Islamic Emirate defeated the military might and numerous strategies of America and NATO alliance,” the Taliban bragged in a statement back in 2012.</p>
<p>Karzai, our supposed ally in Afghanistan, does not have any respect for Obama either. The ingrate Karzai turned down Obama’s invitation to meet during Obama’s short Afghan visit at the Bagram air base. At least Karzai will be stepping down shortly, but it remains to be seen whether his successor will turn out to be any better.</p>
<p>In his memoir, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote critically of President Obama’s commitment to winning the war in Afghanistan: “For him, it’s all about getting out,” Gates said. By early 2010, Gates added, he had concluded that President Obama “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his.” Obama, along with his key advisors, also harbored “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers,” according to Gates, who found himself trying “to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military leaders.”</p>
<p>Meanwhile, al Qaeda has metastasized under Obama’s watch.  His focus on the so-called “core” al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan, against whom he has deployed drones, has done little to thwart the expansion of jihadism all over Africa and the Middle East.  The jihadists are destabilizing Libya, where Obama’s “lead from behind” strategy opened the door to the jihadists, who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi and are de-stabilizing the country. Nigeria and other parts of Africa have also fallen prey to deadly attacks by al Qaeda affiliates.</p>
<p>Jihadists from Afghanistan and Pakistan are among the thousands of foreigners flooding into Syria, threatening to turn that country into another haven for al Qaeda affiliates. The Tehrek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP: Movement of Pakistani Taliban) in particular has infiltrated Syria with the help of The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. These transplanted “core” Pakistani Taliban are providing training and their expertise in battle to other jihadists fighting the Assad regime, with the intention of replacing it with an Islamic caliphate. Al Jazeera’s Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, said the Taliban claimed that &#8220;Arab fighters in Syria had requested their help, that hundreds of their fighters were preparing to go there, or were already in Syria.&#8221;</p>
<p>Whether President Obama ends up leaving a residual force in Afghanistan through 2016 will not change the fact that Afghanistan will again become fertile ground for jihadism and a potential haven once more from which to launch attacks against the United States.  At the same time, the “core” Taliban and al Qaeda jihadists, whom Obama says are on the run, are actually busy helping to run deadly operations without fear far from their original “core” bases.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/residual-failure-in-afghanistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sharon’s Final Road</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/sharons-final-road/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sharons-final-road</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/sharons-final-road/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 05:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gaza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samaria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=216517</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The only path to peace. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ariel.sharon.headshot.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-216518" alt="ariel.sharon.headshot" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ariel.sharon.headshot.jpg" width="306" height="234" /></a>Originally published by the <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Our-World-Sharons-final-road-338059">Jerusalem Post</a>. </em></p>
<p>During his long career, Ariel Sharon built a lot of roads. As housing minister in the early 1990s and as national infrastructures minister in the late 1990s, Sharon played a key role in building everything from the Trans-Israel Highway to access roads to isolated communities.</p>
<p>Since he passed away on Saturday, his role in building Israel’s national infrastructures has been widely noted. But no mention has been made of the final and most important road that he paved. That is the road to Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.</p>
<p>Sharon’s most controversial – and damaging – act was his decision in late 2003 to surrender the Gaza Strip to Palestinian terrorist organizations. The action, which involved not only withdrawing Israeli military personnel and transferring control over the international border with Egypt to the Palestinian Authority, but also forcibly removing 8,000 law-abiding, patriotic Israelis from their homes and farms and the bulldozing of their flourishing communities, was carried out in August 2005.</p>
<p>Just before Sharon was felled by a stroke in January 2006, he was running for reelection on a platform calling for reenacting the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in large swathes of Judea and Samaria.</p>
<p>Sharon decided to surrender the Gaza Strip due to massive pressure from abroad and at home. The Bush administration, which launched the so-called Middle East Quartet’s road map for peace, was quickly losing patience with Sharon, who rightly noted that the PLO had no intention of making peace with the Jewish state.</p>
<p>At home, the leftist-dominated media and legal system were applying heavy pressure on Sharon, intimating that due to bribery allegations, Sharon would likely end his career behind bars – and that his two sons would share his cell.</p>
<p>There are only three options for dealing with the dispute over Palestinian-majority territory now administered by Israel. The first option is to negotiate a settlement with the PLO . Israel adopted that policy in 1993. Sharon owed his rise to power to the abject failure of the negotiated settlement policy at Camp David in July 2000.</p>
<p>The PLO ’s refusal to accept statehood and peaceful coexistence, and its subsequent turn to terrorist warfare in September 2000, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to the vast majority of Israelis that the negotiated settlement policy was a dead end.</p>
<p>As US Secretary of State John Kerry’s flailing attempt to resuscitate the peace process makes clear, 14 years later, the PLO has not changed. Like Arafat before him, Mahmoud Abbas continues to reject coexistence and statehood. The PLO remains far more interested in destroying Israel than in establishing a Palestinian state.</p>
<p>The second possibility for contending with the disputed territory is for Israel to pick up its marbles and go home; to simply disengage, and depart with the Jews and the IDF in tow. This is the policy Sharon adopted in Gaza, and hoped to implement in Judea and Samaria after the 2006 elections.</p>
<p>Whereas it took seven years for the full dimensions of the failure of the negotiated solution to become evident to most Israelis, it took less than six months for the failure of the unilateral withdrawal policy to become obvious. Hamas’s January 2006 victory in the Palestinian elections demonstrated that the critics of the unilateral withdrawal policy had been right.</p>
<p>In the months and years following Israel’s withdrawal, Gaza was transformed. Hamas terrorists, controlling territory within striking distance of Israel’s population centers, turned what had been a tactical nuisance into a strategic threat.</p>
<p>In less than a year, the number of Israelis within range of rockets, missiles and mortars from Gaza rose from 25,000 to a million. By 2012, the number of Israelis living within range of Gaza’s missiles topped 3.5 million.</p>
<p>With control over the border with Egypt, Hamas turned Gaza into a hub for global jihadists. And according to Egyptian prosecutors, Hamas played a key role in elevating the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt and effectively remilitarizing the Sinai, thus undermining the key component of Israel’s peace deal with Egypt. It was only the swift action of the Egyptian military in toppling the Brotherhood government that stemmed – for now – the seemingly inevitable demise of the peace between the two countries.</p>
<p>By the time Hezbollah launched its attack on Israel in July 2006, Sharon’s policy of unilateral withdrawal was dead in the water.</p>
<p>And so we are left with one last option: for Israel to remain in Judea and Samaria indefinitely, and end its self-destructive embrace of the PLO .</p>
<p>There are two ways to pursue this last option. Israel can openly assert authority and apply its laws, as it has done in formerly Jordanian-occupied parts of Jerusalem.</p>
<p>Or it can maintain the status quo of partial PLO rule and partial Israeli military administration.</p>
<p>The past 20 years of shared rule with the PLO have shown that the so-called status quo weakens Israel, to the PLO ’s benefit. With each passing year, Israel’s failure to assert its legal right to sovereignty over the areas causes the false Palestinian narrative of indigenous rights to the cradle of Jewish civilization to become more and more ingrained in the international psyche.</p>
<p>The price for Israel of asserting its sovereign rights and applying its laws to Judea and Samaria is a change of 13 to 14 percent in the proportion of Palestinian Arabs entitled to the legal status of permanent residents – citizens and otherwise – in Israel. In particular, the Muslim population of Israel would rise from about 18% today to roughly 32% if all the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria are accorded permanent residency status with the right to apply for Israeli citizenship.</p>
<p>My colleague at The Jerusalem Post, Martin Sherman, argues that if Israel grants permanent residency status to the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria, we will be overwhelmed by ungovernable Muslims who will transform the Jewish state into an incoherent morass of crime and unsustainable welfare, along the lines of Sweden and Norway.</p>
<p>That could happen. But it is far from clear why it would happen.</p>
<p>Were Israel to grant permanent residency status to the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria – and offer them the right to apply for citizenship – it would not increase the Muslim population west of the Jordan.</p>
<p>Israel would only change their legal status. And along the way, Israel would safeguard its Jewish majority by preventing the immigration of millions of foreign- born Muslims to a future Palestinian state.</p>
<p>In the past, Sherman rightly noted that if Israel applies its laws to Area C only, as Economy Minister Naftali Bennett recommends, significant numbers of Palestinians will move to Area C to live under Israeli jurisdiction, just as thousands of Palestinians have moved to Jerusalem over the years.</p>
<p>But if everyone in Judea and Samaria enjoys permanent residency rights, far fewer people will feel motivated to move west. They can stay at home and enjoy the same status.</p>
<p>Until Sharon adopted the unilateral withdrawal policy, he always said that two things protect Israel – Jewish settlement and the IDF.</p>
<p>The failures of both the negotiated settlement policy and the unilateral withdrawal policy proved him right.</p>
<p>Sharon’s true legacy is that he left only the path of Israeli sovereignty untried. And so, his last act on the public stage was to pave the way for Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/sharons-final-road/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iraq, Afghanistan and the Fall of the Middle East</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/iraq-afghanistan-and-the-fall-of-the-middle-east/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=iraq-afghanistan-and-the-fall-of-the-middle-east</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/iraq-afghanistan-and-the-fall-of-the-middle-east/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:52:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Walsh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disaster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=184869</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Catastrophe calling.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/iraq-afghanistan-and-the-fall-of-the-middle-east/loss/" rel="attachment wp-att-184887"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-184887" title="loss" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/loss.jpg" alt="" width="245" height="198" /></a>Not since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and its aftermath has the Middle East experienced the level of turmoil that has occurred since 2011. Whereas earlier periods of upheaval&#8211;the Iran-Iraq War, the Lebanon War and the 1991 Gulf War&#8211;were relatively contained by the big powers, that of the past two years has spread across the region. The &#8220;Arab Spring&#8221; toppled pro-Western governments in Tunisia and Egypt and has brought Islamists into power. Libya&#8217;s Qaddafi has been overthrown and killed, to be replaced by a weak central government in what has effectively become an al-Qaeda fiefdom. Syria is wracked by a bloody civil war in which a host of players (Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Iran, and al-Qaeda, among others) are fighting to gain or keep control of the country. Jordan faces increasing pressure from it&#8217;s large Palestinian population and the Muslim Brotherhood, while Yemen and Bahrain are experiencing increasing instability due to their Shia populations, backed by Iran. Add to this list the Iranian nuclear crisis, the strategic encirclement of Israel by Iran and its proxies and growing instability in Lebanon, where Hezbollah effectively holds power, and a perfect storm for major regional war is brewing.</p>
<p>Two countries that serve as a fulcrum for such a conflict are Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are now key to the great power struggle for the Middle East between the United States and Iran. Both hold important geopolitical positions in the region. Iraq is the gateway between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, while Afghanistan has for centuries held a position as a buffer between the Indian Subcontinent and such powers as Russia and Iran.</p>
<p>In both countries, the United States is on defense, while Iran is on offense.</p>
<p>First and foremost, there is Iraq. By the time Barrack Obama took office in January 2009, U.S. forces, thanks considerably to the 2007 surge, had brought about a considerable improvement in security in the country. As a result, Iraq&#8217;s government was able to establish its control though much of the country. This could have been used by the incoming administration to help establish Iraq as a buffer to Iran. Instead, President Obama showed little interest in using this situation for American advantage. The negotiations over the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) were a case in point.</p>
<p>Signed between Washington and Baghdad in 2008, SOFA stipulated that all U.S. forces were to withdraw by December 2011, which was completed. However, efforts to renegotiate SOFA in 2011, to allow 10-12,000 U.S. troops to remain after the deadline for withdrawal, were rejected by Iraq&#8217;s government. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Shia and pro-Iranian, was strongly opposed to any changes to SOFA. In a 2010 interview with the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, Maliki stated unequivocally that &#8220;The withdrawal of forces agreement expires on December 31, 2011. The last American soldier will leave Iraq.&#8221; Given that President Obama had made opposition to the Iraq War a major plank of his political career and 2008 campaign, he made little effort to dissuade Maliki. This despite private admissions by key Iraqi leaders that their country&#8217;s military was still heavily dependent on U.S. assistance. Thus, just 5,000 private contractors, hired by the U.S. Embassy, are left to provide support to Iraq&#8217;s 806,000-strong military and security forces.</p>
<p>Furthermore, these forces are divided along sectarian lines (70-80 percent of the army&#8217;s enlisted personnel are Shia) and are increasingly politicized. Both the security forces and  the military have been structured by Maliki to ensure personal loyalty to him. Officials close to the Prime Minister have been placed in key positions in both the Ministry of Interior (which controls the security forces) and the Ministry of Defense. The same process has occurred within the high command of the military.  This has enabled Maliki to establish an authoritarian style of leadership, one which rests on strong Shia support and is, not surprisingly, pro-Iranian. Teheran has shipped large quantities of arms to support the Assad regime in Syria via Iraq, and Maliki has refused to shut down this vital conduit despite American requests.</p>
<p>What all this means is that Iraq has effectively become a <em>de facto</em> ally of Iran. During the Iraq War, Teheran supplied large quantities of weapons to Shia insurgents, especially Moqtada al-Sadr&#8217;s Mahdi Army, itself defeated thanks to the U.S. surge. However, Sadr has since turned to politics, and his party is now the largest in Iraq&#8217;s parliament. This, combined with Maliki&#8217;s style of leadership and foreign policy, has seen a considerable increase in Iran&#8217;s influence over the past couple of years.</p>
<p>Given that armed conflict resulting from Iran&#8217;s continuing effort to develop nuclear weapons is a distinct possibility, Iraq&#8217;s strategic importance becomes apparent. An Iranian thrust into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is made much easier thanks to a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad. Iranian forces could easily transit through southern Iraq, the country&#8217;s Shia heartland. Indeed, the presence established by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps&#8217; al-Qods Corps&#8211;specifically meant to spread Iran&#8217;s Islamic revolution abroad&#8211;in southern Iraq would make this go very smoothly, especially since this force is based near the Iraqi border. Given the increasingly close cooperation between Teheran and Baghdad in intelligence and security, Iranian forces could launch an attack from Iraq into the Arabian Peninsula, using insurgent and terrorist attacks (made simpler by the large Shia populations in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, concentrated in the oil-rich coastal regions) as a prelude to a conventional invasion. The warning time available to U.S. planners would be greatly reduced, as would the ability to react effectively. Since this would be probably taken in concert with Iranian moves elsewhere (i.e. the Strait of Hormuz and by proxy against Israel), the danger of Teheran successfully waging war is considerably increased.</p>
<p>Then there is Afghanistan. Here, the threat is of a somewhat different variety. To be sure, Iran has been involved in supporting the Taliban, burying the hatchet (caused by the divisions between the Sunni fundamentalist Taliban and Shia Iran) in order to fight a common enemy. However, the Taliban present the greater danger for the United States and it allies. The growing effectiveness of Taliban forces, including a car bombing that killed a U.S. diplomat, the first since Benghazi in September 2011, along with Taliban infiltration of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and increasingly lethal attacks on U.S. and NATO forces, has called into question whether or not U.S. forces can be fully withdrawn by December 2014, when their combat mission is to conclude. Indeed, the situation is similar in this regard to that in Iraq in 2007. The government of Hamid Karzai is ineffective, unable to exercise its authority beyond Kabul. The ANA remains a less-than-effective force to say the least, and despite the guarded optimism expressed by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey that the ANA will take the lead combat role against the Taliban as early as May or June, this is not a realistic prospect.</p>
<p>Indeed, depending on a SOFA between Washington and Kabul, there may be a need for as many as 10,000 U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan after December 2014 in both an advisory and combat (counterinsurgency) role. The much-touted surge undertaken by the Obama Administration has not had the success hoped for, while political efforts to incorporate &#8220;moderate&#8221; Taliban elements into a peace process have also been a failure.</p>
<p>There are two dangers facing the United States in Afghanistan. The first is in relation to Iran. In a scenario like the one described above, a general war between Iran and the West, Afghanistan would see a large force of U.S. troops&#8211;at present 66,000, along with 47,000 NATO ISAF troops&#8211;exposed to Iranian attack from the west (most likely by guerrilla forces, including al-Qaeda) and large-scale offensives by the Taliban in the east, especially in Helmand, Kandahar and Paktia. Given that land-locked Afghanistan could only be supplied by air, U.S. and Allied airlift assets would be hard-pressed to keep these forces supplied, a task made harder by full support from Iran for the Taliban. In effect, the West would be subjected to a massive siege, drawing off forces from other fronts to ensure their survival and weakening the overall combat potential of U.S. and Allied forces.</p>
<p>The second is from the Taliban and where it is concentrated. It is a Pashtun organization, which means that it has a strong presence both in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Indeed, the Pakistani ISI helped establish the Taliban as an effective force during the 1990s. As the killing of Osama bin Laden in Abottabad showed, there are considerable elements within the ISI, as well as the Pakistani government and military, that share the Taliban&#8217;s (and al-Qaeda&#8217;s) Islamist ideology. Here lies the danger. If, after 2014, all U.S. forces are withdrawn and the Taliban manage to take large parts of the country (including Kabul), Pakistan, regardless of the composition of its government, will enjoy considerable influence in Afghanistan. Even a nominally friendly government in Islamabad will be problematic for U.S. interests, as has been shown many times in the past few years. If a hard-line Islamic government were to come to power, however, then things would be much more dangerous. Given the strong influence of Islamism in Pakistani politics and society, and the presence of tens of thousands of veteran Pakistani Taliban in the country&#8217;s North-West Frontier abutting Afghanistan, this is a realistic prospect. This would place Pakistan&#8211;with its large armed forces, its long coastline along the Indian Ocean in proximity to the oil-rich Persian Gulf, and, of course, its nuclear weapons, including ballistic missiles&#8211;under a fundamentalist Islamic government.</p>
<p>This could lead to similar regimes taking control in much of Central Asia (where Islamism is also a powerful force), as well as a threat to the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. It could also lead to war with India, which, needless to say, would be catastrophic.</p>
<p>Given these unacceptable prospects, the United States is unlikely to withdraw from Afghanistan within two years, despite President Obama&#8217;s promises. Given the war-weariness of the American public&#8211;not to mention those of Allied nations&#8211;the only realistic option will be to engage in a full-scale counterinsurgency campaign, in order to eradicate the most effective Taliban groups and force the remainder to cease fighting and make peace with Kabul. This will mean increased casualties, which will lead to additional loss of public support, and thus a race between successful completion of this goal and a forced withdrawal, the latter with the above consequences. The morale of the U.S. military, which faces major reductions in funding over the next several years under Obama Administration plans, would no doubt be eroded if withdrawal without victory was the course taken.</p>
<p>As for Iraq, the consequences of the failure of an effective SOFA has helped lead not only to increased Iranian influence, but to a resurgence of al-Qaeda, which has used Iraq as a base to wage war in both Libya and Syria. It has succeeded in the former, establishing an effective Islamist state that has projected force into both Algeria and Mali. It could succeed in Syria, where at least part of the country could fall under al-Qaeda control. This would no doubt lead to continued violence and instability with rival forces in that country. Worse, it could lead to al-Qaeda influence in Lebanon and even Turkey. Most worrisome, if al-Qaeda militias take control of Syrian chemical weapons, it could trigger Israeli (and probably U.S.) involvement, leading to a wider war with much deadlier consequences.</p>
<p>Whatever the course of events, the above scenarios would cause enormous destabilization in the Middle East. Add such wild cards as the unfinished &#8220;Arab Spring,&#8221; use of WMD by states as Iran and Syria and an Iranian-sponsored guerrilla and terror offensive against Israel, and the consequences only become more disastrous. At worst, the position of the United States in the Middle East&#8211;an area of vital concern to the West&#8211;might collapse, with results that, for the world as a whole, would be a catastrophe.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/iraq-afghanistan-and-the-fall-of-the-middle-east/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>46</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama to Demand Israel Withdrawal from Judea &amp; Samaria?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-to-demand-israel-withdrawal-from-judea-samaria/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-to-demand-israel-withdrawal-from-judea-samaria</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-to-demand-israel-withdrawal-from-judea-samaria/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 04:50:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samaria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[west bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=180080</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What the president may have in store during his belated visit to the Jewish State. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-to-demand-israel-withdrawal-from-judea-samaria/ai-by750_capjou_g_20130128125509-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-180099"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-180099" title="AI-BY750_CAPJOU_G_20130128125509" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AI-BY750_CAPJOU_G_201301281255091-450x345.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="207" /></a>Waiting until his second term, Barack Obama has finally decided to visit Israel in his official presidential capacity, beginning on March 20th. Obama will also be spending several hours in Ramallah to meet with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Freed by his re-election from domestic political constraints, Obama can be expected to vigorously renew his call for Israel to retreat back to the pre-June 1967 lines with minor land swaps and to continue to refer to &#8220;East Jerusalem&#8221; as the capital of the new Palestinian state.  He hasn&#8217;t asked the Palestinians to give up their insistence on the so-called &#8220;right of return,&#8221; which would send potentially millions of Palestinian refugees back to live within the land of pre-June 1967 Israel and effectively destroy its Jewish identity. Don&#8217;t expect him to do so on this trip.</p>
<p>Obama will be facing off with a politically weakened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is struggling to put together a governing coalition and may have to partner with centrists willing to make more concessions to reach an agreement with the Palestinians for a two state solution.</p>
<p>For example, Prime Minister Netanyahu has entered into an alliance with the Hatnua party and its chair Tzipi Livni, a strong proponent of a negotiated two state solution who has reportedly been offered a leading role in the negotiations. &#8220;We need to say &#8216;Yes&#8217; from time to time too,&#8221; Livni said back in 2010 when referring to Netanyahu&#8217;s refusal to extend the settlement freeze as Obama had then demanded.</p>
<p>There is also the centrist Yesh Atid party, led by former television journalist Yair Lapid, which finished second, with 19 seats, and could join a Netanyahu-led coalition if certain demands are met. Although he ran largely on economic issues and on a platform countering the influence of the ultra-orthodox in Israel&#8217;s political affairs, Lapid also said that he will demand a resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.</p>
<p>However, Obama recognizes that Netanyahu will continue to be pressured from the Israeli right as well, including from his orthodox party allies and from Jewish Home leader Naftali Bennett, who is adamantly opposed to giving up any West Bank land to the Palestinians.</p>
<p>Thus, Obama will be seeking to leverage Israel&#8217;s dependence on the United States for maintaining its qualitative military advantage in the region and for assistance in neutralizing Iran&#8217;s potential nuclear threat in order to tilt Netanyahu decisively towards the centrists&#8217; position on negotiations with the Palestinians and a freeze on settlements.</p>
<p>According to an unconfirmed report by World Tribune, quoting unnamed Israeli sources, Obama wants Prime Minister Netanyahu to present him with a detailed Israeli plan for withdrawal from the West Bank so that a Palestinian state can be established there as early as 2014.</p>
<p>“Obama has made it clear to Netanyahu that his visit is not about photo-ops, but the business of Iran and a Palestinian state,” a source was quoted as saying in the World Tribune report. “The implication is that if Israel won’t give him something he can work with, then he’ll act on his own.”</p>
<p>Whether or not this report turns out to be true, a key argument Obama can be expected to make to Netanyahu is that Abbas represents Israel&#8217;s last chance at making peace with a &#8220;moderate&#8221; Palestinian leader. Failure to seize this opportunity now, so the argument goes, will further enhance Hamas&#8217;s reputation at the expense of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, and will feed the fires of a third intifada already at risk of being sparked by the death of a Palestinian prisoner and the sickened condition of Palestinian hunger strikers in Israel&#8217;s custody.  Abbas&#8217;s only chance of survival is to play the same kind of extortionist game that Hamas is so adept at playing, which is to bargain for more concessions from Israel in return for a promise to keep violence against Israelis from getting out of hand. Obama may well end up as the enabler of this strategy during his visit to Israel and the West Bank.</p>
<p>Will Obama offer his own plan on reinforcing the faltering security apparatus of the Palestinian Authority during the period of resumed negotiations and suggest replacing it with some sort of international military presence as part of the final peace settlement?  Obama has a blueprint to turn to if he is so inclined, co-authored by his new Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. This <a href="http://www.fmep.org/analysis/analysis/A-Last-Chance-for-a-Two-State-Israel-Palestine-Agreement.pdf">2009 report</a> recommended the two state solution boundaries embraced by Obama, enforced by a “U.S.-led multinational force” which would be “under a UN mandate” and “feature American leadership of a NATO force supplemented by Jordanians, Egyptians and Israelis.” Jerusalem would have “a special security and administrative regime of its own.” A NATO researcher estimated that about 60,000 US/NATO troops and about 160 billion dollars over 10 years would be required to carry out this plan.</p>
<p>President Obama has another card to play in pushing Netanyahu towards making the concessions required to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. He can play on the emotionalism in Israel surrounding the life sentence of Jonathan Pollard, a former Navy intelligence officer who once had dual U.S. and Israeli citizenships and pled guilty to passing classified information to Israel. Pollard has been in prison since 1987. Under normal circumstances, he will be eligible for parole, and may be released, on November 21, 2015.  Obama could use his clemency powers and cite humanitarian health reasons for considering an earlier release, if the price is right.</p>
<p>“The time has long since come for Jonathan to go free,” Netanyahu said recently. &#8220;This issue will come up during President Obama’s visit. It has already been raised countless times by myself and others, and the time has come for him to go free.”</p>
<p>Obama may listen to Netanyahu&#8217;s plea this time, believing that the promise of a prompt release of Pollard in exchange for a moratorium on settlements and the release of more Palestinian prisoners, including the hunger strikers, may be enough to jump start resumed negotiations with the Palestine Authority, forestall at least temporarily a third intifada and enhance Abbas&#8217;s legitimacy vis-à-vis his Hamas rivals.</p>
<p>The Iranian nuclear threat is also certain to come up during the two leaders&#8217; discussions, with Obama saying he needs more time to see whether the current negotiations with Iran and the sanctions will bear fruit and Netanyahu trying to convince Obama that time is rapidly running out to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear arms capability. Whether there is any new intelligence to be shared by the two leaders, or whether they will agree on a timetable for possible coordinated military action if all other measures fail, is anyone&#8217;s guess.</p>
<p>At least, after visiting other countries in the Middle East region while skipping Israel during his first term, President Obama is finally going to Israel.  Expect him to pay his public respects to the victims of the Holocaust and repeat Vice President Joe Biden&#8217;s declaration to AIPAC on Monday of &#8220;our deep commitment to the security of the state of Israel.&#8221; It is what Obama will say to Netanyahu in private, and what he may threaten to do if Netanyahu does not heed Obama&#8217;s advice on concessions to the Palestinians, that remains very worrisome.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-to-demand-israel-withdrawal-from-judea-samaria/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>295</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Closer Look at the U.S.-Afghan Partnership Agreement</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/alan-w-dowd/a-closer-look-at-the-u-s-afghan-partnership-agreement/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-closer-look-at-the-u-s-afghan-partnership-agreement</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/alan-w-dowd/a-closer-look-at-the-u-s-afghan-partnership-agreement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 04:50:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan W. Dowd]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2014]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Osama Bin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[troops]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=130795</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The most significant problems with the long-awaited pact. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/120502030329-obama-afghanistan-address-story-top.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-130817" title="120502030329-obama-afghanistan-address-story-top" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/120502030329-obama-afghanistan-address-story-top.gif" alt="" width="375" height="245" /></a>A year after a fearless, anonymous team of Navy SEALs sent Osama bin Laden to wherever mass-murderers go when they die, the commander-in-chief continued his yearlong victory lap with a stop in Afghanistan to sign a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2012.06.01u.s.-afghanistanspasignedtext.pdf">framework agreement</a> with Afghan leader Hamid Karzai. While the Left <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/01/chris_matthews_i_was_so_proud_of_obama_speaking_to_troops_in_afghanistan.html">gushes</a> over President Obama’s swaggering anniversary speeches and the Right <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304050304577376424124490992.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion">questions</a> the president’s tone and tactics, it’s the substance of the U.S.-Afghanistan agreement—or lack thereof—that worries me.</p>
<p>I. The document states that “cooperation between Afghanistan and the United States is based on mutual respect and shared interests.”</p>
<p>Try telling that to the families of U.S., British and French troops who have been killed by Afghan troops—there have been some 45 attacks by uniformed Afghan troops on U.S. and other NATO forces, killing 70 allied troops—or to the Western forces still fighting for Afghanistan, who have to look over their shoulders as they fight.</p>
<p>II. The document states that the U.S. and Afghanistan “reaffirm” their commitment to “defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates.”</p>
<p>There are two problems with this part of the agreement, and they are significant. First, the commitment of the Afghan government and military is shaky at best. (See Point I.) Fresh from a tour of Afghanistan, Lt. Col. Daniel Davis <a href="http://armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030">describes</a> Afghan troops as largely unwilling to engage the Taliban. According to a classified report leaked to <em>The New York Times</em>, one Afghan colonel describes his own troops as “thieves, liars and drug addicts.” An American quoted in the report says Afghan troops are “pretty much gutless in combat; we do most of the fighting.”</p>
<p>Second, just how committed are Kabul and Washington to defeating “al Qaeda <em>and its affiliates</em>” if the two have directed their diplomats to talk to al Qaeda’s closest, oldest affiliate? That would be the Taliban. It pays to recall that Afghanistan became the world headquarters for al Qaeda because the Taliban welcomed bin Laden with open arms. The Taliban and al Qaeda share the same worldview and the same enemy. Given the terror that was unleashed when the Taliban was in power—and their brutality since being ousted from power—there’s no reason to think Mullah Omar and his henchmen have changed. CIA Director David Petraeus certainly doesn’t think so. A year ago, when asked to make the case for staying the course, then-Gen. Petraeus bluntly replied, “Two words…Nine Eleven,” reminding us of what happened the last time the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Moreover, when it comes to commitment, it pays to recall, as Karzai surely has, that the Obama administration always keeps its eyes on the calendar and the exit sign—and has little regard for standing agreements with allies. Obama casually scrapped a hard-earned missile-defense <a href="http://www.legion.org/landingzone/4955/amiss-missile-defense">agreement</a> with Poland and the Czech Republic in order to get an arms control treaty of questionable merit with Russia; jettisoned Mubarak when the going got tough in Egypt; and when NATO allies made an urgent request for an extension of U.S. air power during the Libya war, a <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-04/world/libya.war_1_forces-rebels-opposition-fighters/2?_s=PM:WORLD">NATO official</a> took pains to emphasize that America’s help “expires on Monday”—a bruising metaphor for what passes as American leadership in the age of Obama.</p>
<p>III. The document calls on NATO member states “to sustain and improve Afghan security capabilities beyond 2014 by taking concrete measures to implement” previous security agreements.</p>
<p>Good luck with that. Following Washington’s lead, NATO is headed for the exits. From the beginning, most NATO members have been half-hearted about the Afghanistan mission. Consider: The United States is contributing 71 percent of all forces to the mission; non-NATO members Australia, Georgia and Sweden have more troops deployed than Belgium, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal—all founding members of the alliance; Germany, Italy and Spain refused to help in Afghanistan’s restive south; Italy didn’t permit its fighter-bombers in Afghanistan to carry bombs; and German troops, until recently, were required to shout warnings to enemy forces—in three languages—before opening fire.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/alan-w-dowd/a-closer-look-at-the-u-s-afghan-partnership-agreement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Psychological Operations and the Afghanistan Withdrawal</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/nick-guariglia/psychological-operations-and-the-afghanistan-withdrawal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=psychological-operations-and-the-afghanistan-withdrawal</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/nick-guariglia/psychological-operations-and-the-afghanistan-withdrawal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:03:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[N.M. Guariglia]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=126767</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why we need to be bringing to light -- and ridicule -- our enemy’s private fears.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/afghan55.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-126774" title="afghan55" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/afghan55.jpg" alt="" width="368" height="230" /></a></p>
<p>It has been a bad month in Afghanistan.  First there was the inadvertent burning of the Koran by U.S. troops.  Although the Korans had initially been desecrated by Taliban prisoners—an act forbidden in Islam—this fact was lost on the Afghans.  In their <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/2012/02/28/white-house-response-violence-afghanistan">self-righteous vengeance</a>, Afghans killed numerous Americans, most notably two U.S. Army officers that were <a href="http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/26/10509207-afghan-intelligence-officer-sought-in-connection-with-us-slayings">shot in the back of the head</a> inside the Afghan Interior Ministry.  These murders prompted NATO—which had shamelessly <a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/26/nato-agrees-to-prosecutions-for-koran-burnings/">agreed to prosecute</a> the Americans involved in the Koran burning—to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17165410">withdraw its personnel</a> from all Afghan ministries.  Even hawkish conservative stalwarts were beginning to say “<a href="http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-maybe-its-time-to-say-the-hell-with-afghanistan-and-bring-our-troops-home/">the hell with the place</a>.”</p>
<p>Then Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales purportedly <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577298081237407836.html">massacred 17 Afghan civilians</a>, a cold-blooded act that threatens to change the entire dynamics of the war.  Subsequently, about 200 U.S. Marines were told to <a href="http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/14/10684063-in-highly-unusual-move-marines-asked-to-disarm-before-leon-panetta-speech">leave their weapons outside the tent</a> during a visit from Defense Secretary Panetta.  This was a symbolic moment that spoke volumes about the disarray of our strategy.  Trust is indispensable in war, and it is being undermined in every corner.  The timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan—slated for either 2013 or 2014, depending on who is asked—may now be expedited due to these developments.</p>
<p>Yet all is not lost in Afghanistan.  While the United States might not “win” the decade-long war, it is almost impossible to lose.  In a sense, there is nothing to win: Afghan culture is an embarrassment to the human condition.  Even the “good guys” will kill people over a book and then sell their daughters to a septuagenarian.  But there is nothing to lose, either.  Lest we forget, the U.S. routed al-Qaeda and the Taliban more than ten years ago, by December 2001, with the use of <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293733/worse-powder-keg-andrew-c-mccarthy">just 5,200 troops</a>.  The ensuing failure of Afghan civil society is not a U.S. military defeat.</p>
<p>In World War II, General Douglas MacArthur famously said, “We are not retreating—we are advancing in another direction.”  As we begin to withdraw from Afghanistan, U.S. leaders should speak in a comparable manner.  What we need is a public psychological operations strategy—or what the military now calls “Military Information Support Operations,” or MISO—coupled with tangible displays of military superiority.</p>
<p>Win or lose, Afghanistan was always going to be at the whims of Pakistan.  Thus, the U.S. has a Pakistan problem, not a Taliban problem.  It’s Hamid Karzai with the Taliban problem.  The Taliban are bad actors, no doubt, but they’re essentially a hobnob militia.  The head of the snake is Pakistan, which covertly supports al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and every major terrorist group in South Asia.  We must be clear: our eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan does not portend an American flight from South Asian politics.  In fact, if we are wise, it might strengthen our leverage.</p>
<p>We must intensify our drone campaign throughout the “Af-Pak” theater—and talk about it openly, too.  Predator drones work.  They have killed thousands of top-tier terrorists and <a href="../2010/05/13/the-drone-campaign/">have not hurt our popularity</a> throughout the region (we are already unpopular).  The drones have, however, undermined among the indigenous population the popularity of the Taliban.  If someone in your village were liable to get bombed at any moment, at some point you would want to kick him out your village.</p>
<p>Our air campaign has struck fear into the hearts of the enemy.  Terror chieftain Ustadh Ahmad Farooq <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/new-wave-of-drone-strikes-has-al-qaeda-crying/">was quoted as saying</a>: “There were many areas where we once had freedom, but now they have been lost.  We are the ones that are losing people; we are the ones facing shortages of resources.  Our land is shrinking and drones are flying in the sky.”  American leaders should be citing quotes like this publicly.  Bringing to light the enemy’s private fears is effective psychological warfare.</p>
<p>Although there are some slippery-slope arguments against the use of Predator drones, we should not doubt their efficacy.  The conventional wisdom once suggested that the more we bombed, the more we would “inflame” hatred against us.  But just the opposite is true.  The more air supremacy we display over our al-Qaeda and Taliban adversaries, the more they doubt themselves and their actions.  The truth is this: when our Islamist enemies have been irrefutably whipped on the battlefield, they are not enraged, but rather humbled, and are more prone to second-guess the divine sanction of their cause.  Allah doesn’t like losers, you see.  This was Osama bin Laden’s old “strong horse” logic: a neutral man will not gravitate to a weak horse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/nick-guariglia/psychological-operations-and-the-afghanistan-withdrawal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Blood Price of Afghanistan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-blood-price-of-afghanistan/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-blood-price-of-afghanistan</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-blood-price-of-afghanistan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:40:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[koran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. troops]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=125488</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The value of American lives.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/afghanistan.png"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-125491" title="afghanistan" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/afghanistan.png" alt="" width="388" height="271" /></a></p>
<p>The alleged attack on Afghans by an American soldier in Kandahar, where 91 soldiers were murdered last year alone, is already receiving the full outrage treatment. Any outrage over the deaths of those 91 soldiers in the province will be completely absent.</p>
<p>There will be no mention of how many of them died because the Obama Administration decided that the lives of Afghan civilians counted for more than the lives of soldiers. No talk of what it is like to walk past houses with gunmen dressed in civilian clothing inside and if you are fired at from those houses, your orders are to retreat.</p>
<p>Air strikes are for days gone by. The American soldier in the ISAF is expected to patrol and retreat, to smile and reach out to Afghans while they shoot him in the back. After risking his life to hold back the Taliban, he is expected to take it calmly when his government announces that it is trying to cut a deal with the Taliban. As he waits out the final months until withdrawal, seeing his friends lose their limbs and their lives, knowing that the enemy has won, that he has been betrayed and is being kept senselessly on the front line for no objective except the diplomatic position of a government that hates him, that is taking away his health care, his equipment and his job; how does he feel?</p>
<p>The Panjwai district, where the shootings happened, are the cradle of the Taliban. Smiling civilians plant IED&#8217;s and children serve as lookouts. Obama&#8217;s Surge pushed hard into Panjwai and the Taliban pushed back. American soldiers were caught in the middle, dying for a handful of dusty towns where the inhabitants took their presents and shook hands with them, and then shot at them from cover.</p>
<p>The Montreal Gazette tells us that Belanday, one of the villages where the shootings took place, was a model village. What it omits is that Belanday was a key Taliban base, the houses were used for IED factories and it served as a transit route on the way to Kandahar City. The model village concept was supposed to change all that, but it didn&#8217;t change the sympathies of the local population.</p>
<p>All of that doesn&#8217;t matter though. The feelings of the men and women sent into the heart of the beast don&#8217;t matter. Only the eternally tender sensibilities of Muslims do. When Muslims kill us because we disposed of Korans that they marked up, we are at fault. This is the modern Catch 22 of the military which requires officers who have only one skill, sensitivity to Muslim feelings, and soldiers who die to keep the peace among their killers.</p>
<p>The life of an American soldier is worth less than a Muslim&#8217;s feelings. Under Islamic Sharia law, the blood price for a non-Muslim was only a third that of a Muslim. At Islam&#8217;s homicidal Wal-Mart, you could kill three Christians for the price of a Muslim. And we have cut prices even further by placing the feelings of a Muslim above the life of a non-Muslim.</p>
<p>When American soldiers die to protect Muslim feelings, denied air support and the right to defend themselves so as not to outrage the IED planting populace, there is no outrage from the mass media organs of outrage who take the liberal bumper sticker about always being outraged by their attention deficit disorder to heart. But when Muslims die, then the outrage machine grinds to life and begins making blood sausage out of any members of the military unfortunately enough to caught in the crossfire between CNN, CBS and FOX.</p>
<p>This is yet another opportunity for the Apologizer-in-Chief to apologize. By the time American soldiers leave hellholes like Kandahar behind, he may have racked up nearly as many apologies as the bodies of American sons and daughters, not to their parents naturally, but to the parents of their killers.</p>
<p>These days Obama hates the military more than ever for inconveniencing him by urinating on Taliban corpses, burning Korans and carrying out night raids. His only consolation is that if enough of them from key states die at the hands of the &#8220;moderate&#8221; Taliban, that the Muslim Brotherhood is negotiating with on his behalf, it might be enough to swing a key state in a close election. And if the soldiers get their revenge by urinating on dead Taliban, he gets his revenge urinating on live soldiers.</p>
<p>The soldiers, those who survive, can expect no parades, they can expect to have their health care benefits cut at the urging of the Soros-run <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6709">Center for American Progress</a> and they can expect to be hounded by the media and Hollywood, which is already doing its best to turn the veteran of Kandahar or Fallujah into the new Vietnam veteran. They can watch on television as the Taliban sweep back into Kabul, firing assault rifles into the air, taking back every inch of the ground that they fought to defend for the ungrateful Afghans and D.C. drones. And they can watch some of the Afghans who have received visas, bring over large families and set up shop smuggling cigarettes and engaging in wire fraud, while receiving hefty government benefits, while they look for work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-blood-price-of-afghanistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leaving Afghanistan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/alan-w-dowd/leaving-afghanistan-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=leaving-afghanistan-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/alan-w-dowd/leaving-afghanistan-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan W. Dowd]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=121492</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“Our vital national interest” gets an even earlier expiration date.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/afghan1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-121500" title="afghan" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/afghan1.jpg" alt="" width="446" height="325" /></a></p>
<p>Floating a trial balloon for the White House, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/us/afghanistan-us-combat-mission/index.html">announced</a> last week that the Obama administration is planning to speed up its withdrawal timetable in Afghanistan. “By mid- to the latter part of 2013, we’ll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role,” Panetta said. That would be a year <em>earlier</em> than what the Obama administration had initially proposed.</p>
<p>This should come as no surprise. In fact, it’s exactly what President Obama has been pushing for, itching for, advocating, from the very beginning of his administration.</p>
<p>Recall that in 2009, after a lengthy re-review of his own policy, the president concluded that “it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan,” before <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/new-way-forward-presidents-address">promising</a> that “after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.”</p>
<p>That announcement raised red flags for many observers.</p>
<p>First, the notion that “our vital national interest” somehow has an expiration date was nothing short of bizarre.</p>
<p>Second, the much-ballyhooed surge of 30,000 troops was less than what the generals asked for—Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted 40,000—and arguably never had the full impact it was designed to have. In fact, the White House was trying to get the military to accede to a faster draw-down—and arguably shorter withdrawal timetable—last July.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=6733790&amp;c=ASI&amp;s=LAN">Defense News</a> reported at the time, then-Defense Secretary Gates was “sparring at a distance with White House aides who are pushing for a faster draw-down of the 100,000-strong U.S. force.” Indeed, after the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, the president declared that “it’s now time for us to recognize that we’ve accomplished a big chunk of our mission and that it’s time for Afghans to take more responsibility.” He then ordered the withdrawal of 33,000 troops by summer 2012. Again, the military advocated a <a href="http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/22/commanders-view-of-afghan-drawdown-not-as-simple-as-huntsman-and-romney-say">more modest reduction</a> of between 5,000 and 10,000 troops.</p>
<p>Third, letting the Taliban know when the U.S. military would end its offensive only made the mission harder—and the Taliban less open to some sort of settlement.</p>
<p>That helps explain why a leaked U.S. military <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-afghanistan-idUSTRE8100E520120201">report</a>, based on interviews of Taliban prisoners, concludes that:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Taliban commanders, along with rank and file members, increasingly believe their control of Afghanistan is inevitable. Though the Taliban suffered severely in 2011, its strength, motivation, funding and tactical proficiency remains intact…they see little hope for a negotiated peace. Despite numerous tactical setbacks, surrender is far from their collective mindset.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Regrettably, it seems the very opposite mindset is at work in Washington.</p>
<p>To be sure, the American people and their military should not be expected to sacrifice more for Afghanistan than the Afghan people are themselves willing to sacrifice. Moreover, it is the president’s responsibility to determine and then to do what is in America’s national interest—not what is in Hamid Karzai’s interest. In other words, sometimes the wisest, most just, most appropriate decision a president can make is to pull back and turn away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/alan-w-dowd/leaving-afghanistan-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Exit-Strategy President &#8211; by Alan W. Dowd</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/alan-w-dowd/the-exit-strategy-president-by-alan-w-dowd/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-exit-strategy-president-by-alan-w-dowd</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/alan-w-dowd/the-exit-strategy-president-by-alan-w-dowd/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:03:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan W. Dowd]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abu Dhabi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[age]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alan W. Dowd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[base]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berlin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[catastrophic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[combat mission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[course]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Czech Republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eastern Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[everything]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expiration date]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gen. McChrystal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ground]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[historians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ministry of defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[missile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missile Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moscow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NATO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nato policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nicolas Sarkozy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[period]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polish government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[range missiles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[realpolitik]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retreat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spokesperson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the Persian Gulf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tomorrow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vital national interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[withdrawal dates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=41265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama retreats from the freedom high ground. 
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-41270" title="USA-POLITICS/OBAMA" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/PH2007120300847.jpg" alt="USA-POLITICS/OBAMA" width="454" height="316" /></p>
<p>Tomorrow’s historians may look back on this period and label it the “age of retreat.” After all, President Barack Obama has set withdrawal dates for U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, reversed course on missile defense in Eastern Europe and generally embraced a policy of <em>realpolitik</em> over the advance of freedom.</p>
<p>It began with Obama’s announcement in February that “by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” In other words, Obama has gazed into the future and determined that, no matter what is happening on the ground, America’s mission will be complete on the summer of 2010—and that all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq by 2011.</p>
<p>More recently, after a lengthy re-review of his own policy, the president concluded that “it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan,” before <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/new-way-forward-presidents-address">promising</a> that “after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.”</p>
<p>Setting aside the notion that “our vital national interest” has an expiration date, it would seem that letting the Taliban know the U.S. military will end its offensive 18 months from now will not make Gen. McChrystal’s mission any easier. But that’s a subject for another essay.</p>
<p>Bookended by the withdrawal announcements on Iraq and Afghanistan was Obama’s retreat on missile defense. When the Polish government heard the news that Obama had decided not to deploy permanent defenses in Eastern Europe against long-range missiles, a spokesperson for Poland’s Ministry of Defense called the <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/17/united.states.missile.shield/index.html">decision</a> “catastrophic for Poland”—and understandably so. After all, Poland and the Czech Republic exposed themselves to Russian ire by agreeing in 2007 to allow U.S. missile-defense bases on their soil. Now that the Obama administration is unilaterally reversing U.S. and <a href="http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2008/p08-049e.html">NATO</a> policy, these allies are left with questions about where they stand—and Moscow, where everything is viewed through the prism of zero-sum power politics, is left with a sense of victory. This, too, is understandable, given that the administration’s missile-defense reversal has a whiff of quid pro quo. Of course, we are still waiting for the “quo” from Moscow.</p>
<p>We should not overlook Washington’s apparent retreat from freedom’s high ground, either. The sad irony of the president’s cold, muted reaction to the Iranian regime’s brutality during the Twitter Revolution was that it answered his own rhetorical <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/us/politics/24text-obama.html?pagewanted=all">question</a> of a year before, albeit in a manner his supporters would never have imagined. “Will we stand for the human rights of…the blogger in Iran?” he asked during his rock-concert speech in Berlin. Now we know the answer.</p>
<p>Contrast America’s withdrawal from leadership with the words—and even the actions—of French president Nicolas Sarkozy.</p>
<p>From the very beginning of his presidency, he has called Iran “an outlaw nation.” He has warned that if peace-loving countries don’t close ranks, the consequence will be “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.”</p>
<p>When evidence of a clandestine Iranian nuclear-fuel manufacturing plant came to light in September, it was <a href="http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article1432">Sarkozy</a> who challenged America to get serious and take action. Obliquely dismissing Obama’s “dream of a world without nuclear weapons,” he reminded the young president that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world.” With refreshing bluntness, he then detailed the growing dangers in the real world.</p>
<p>“Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions,” he began. “An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009. President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and on top of that, a statement by Iranian leaders proposing to wipe a UN member state off the map.”</p>
<p>For good measure, Sarkozy noted that North Korea’s leaders, like Iran’s, “disregard everything that the international community says, everything,” before concluding with a call to action: “There comes a time when facts are stubborn and decisions must be made.”</p>
<p>France may no longer have the capacity to project power the way it once did—and it certainly cannot match America’s clout or military muscle—but Sarkozy is trying to do his part. He has beefed up French contributions in Afghanistan, dragged France back into full NATO membership and launched a military-modernization program. In May, France opened new air force and naval <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602994.html">installations</a> in Abu Dhabi, just across from Iran. Sarkozy says the 500-man base, France’s first permanent base in the Persian Gulf, “is a sign to all that France is participating in the stability of this region of the world.”</p>
<p>So, France is talking tough and acting tough, while the United States is preoccupied with exit strategies. That’s not exactly the change most Americans had in mind.</p>
<p><em>Alan W. Dowd writes on defense and security issues.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/alan-w-dowd/the-exit-strategy-president-by-alan-w-dowd/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Frederick W. Kagan and William Kristol: Support the President, Weekly Standard</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/frederick-w-kagan-and-william-kristol-support-the-president-weekly-standard/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=frederick-w-kagan-and-william-kristol-support-the-president-weekly-standard</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/frederick-w-kagan-and-william-kristol-support-the-president-weekly-standard/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chairman of the joint chiefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chairman of the joint chiefs of staff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chiefs of staff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deadline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[effort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enemies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[everyone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[increase]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint chiefs of staff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reinforcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relationship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[request]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[round]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretaries of defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security forces]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[significance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[size]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[start]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[west point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=41055</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[President Obama has ordered sufficient reinforcements to Afghanistan to execute a war strategy that can succeed. We applaud this decision. And we urge everyone to rally round the effort to defeat our enemies and accomplish objectives vital to America&#8217;s national security.Obama&#8217;s decision, and the speech in which it was announced, were not flawless. The president [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>President Obama has ordered sufficient reinforcements to Afghanistan to execute a war strategy that can succeed. We applaud this decision. And we urge everyone to rally round the effort to defeat our enemies and accomplish objectives vital to America&#8217;s national security.Obama&#8217;s decision, and the speech in which it was announced, were not flawless. The president should have met his commander&#8217;s full request for forces. He should not have announced a deadline for the start of the withdrawal of U.S. forces. He should have committed to a specific and significant increase in the size of the Afghan National Security Forces. He should also have explained more clearly the relationship between defeating the Taliban and defeating al Qaeda, the significance of such a victory, and the reasons his Afghan strategy can succeed. The secretaries of defense and state, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made those arguments far more compellingly in subsequent congressional testimony than the president did at West Point.</p>
<p>via <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/307lxxjy.asp">Support the President</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/frederick-w-kagan-and-william-kristol-support-the-president-weekly-standard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Afghan Plan Fails to Satisfy Left or Right &#8211; FOXNews.com</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/obamas-afghan-plan-fails-to-satisfy-left-or-right-foxnews-com/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-afghan-plan-fails-to-satisfy-left-or-right-foxnews-com</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/obamas-afghan-plan-fails-to-satisfy-left-or-right-foxnews-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:57:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foxnews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foxnews com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal groups]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Satisfy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[something]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[timetable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[troop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=40028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By offering something to all sides in the debate, Obama may have left all sides unsatisfied &#8212; from liberal groups who have protested troop increases to conservatives who object to a fixed timetable for withdrawal. via Obama&#8217;s Afghan Plan Fails to Satisfy Left or Right &#8211; FOXNews.com.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By offering something to all sides in the debate, Obama may have left all sides unsatisfied &#8212; from liberal groups who have protested troop increases to conservatives who object to a fixed timetable for withdrawal.</p>
<p>via <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/obamas-afghan-strategy-sparks-debate-exit-plan-cost/">Obama&#8217;s Afghan Plan Fails to Satisfy Left or Right &#8211; FOXNews.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/obamas-afghan-plan-fails-to-satisfy-left-or-right-foxnews-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1174/1211 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 12:16:42 by W3 Total Cache -->