Left is Wrong: Deterrence Will Not Work

By Con George-Kotzabasis April 3, 2012

A reply to: Right is Wrong: Deterrence Will Work by Fareed Zakaria

The Australian March 20, 2012

The American political commentator, Fareed Zakaria argues in the above titled article in The Australian that even if sanctions against Iran fail to prevent the latter from acquiring a nuclear arsenal, it can be deterred from using it by the preponderance of the U.S.A. in the firepower of its own nuclear weapons. Therefore, such a policy, according to Zakaria is better and safer than a policy of preventative military action with all the imponderable dangers that would stem from it. And he ridicules and is scornful of the conservative right, such as The Heritage Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute, for arguing of the ineffectiveness and futility of deterrence against the regime of the Mullahs, and, therefore, proposes a major military strike to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In support of his policy of deterrence he quotes the conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, from an article the latter wrote in The New Republic in the eighties—while making fun of him since Krauthammer now is in favour of a military strike–that “deterrence, like old age, is intolerable until one considers the alternative.” Topping up his argument or should I rather say bottoming it down, Zakaria alleges that a strike against Iran would only delay its nuclear programme by only “a few years while driving up domestic support for the government in Tehran.” And he sedately poses the question that “if deterrence does not work then why are we not preparing preventative war against Russia which still has a fearsome arsenal of nuclear weapons?”

Zakaria completely disregards the fact that Russia today is not a deadly enemy of the West as it was in the past, unlike the Theocracy of Iran which clearly is. Further, as a serious commentator surprisingly he does not make a distinction between attacking a country that is fully armed with nuclear weapons that would open the doors of the MAD house to both combatants as such attack would lead to their Mutual Assured Destruction, and a country that lacks a nuclear stockpile as Iran at this stage is. It was precisely this mutual annihilation hovering like a Damocles Sword over the heads of the two rational superpowers that prevented them from attacking each other during the cold war. And the Cuban crisis was a limpid illustration of how both superpowers withdrew from the brink of this mutual destruction. But in the case of a nuclear armed Iran, one would have to be highly optimistic against the grim fact that the animus of a religious fanatic leadership, whose aim is to set up the new Caliphate of the twelfth imam Mahdi, would be supplanted by the dictates of reason and would desist, either directly or through its terrorist proxies, to launch a nuclear attack.

Moreover, Zakaria is oblivious of two substantial factors that make incomparable the situation existing during the cold war and the present situation of the hot war of multi-franchised ‘anarchic’ terror, in regards to deterrence. One of them is technological and the other is the strategically unidentifiable non-recognizable enemy until the moment he acts. Advanced technological knowhow is being easily accessed through the internet by the masses giving any individual with rudimentary knowledge the ability to construct lethal weapons, and, indeed, nuclear ones once their components are provided by rogue states, and has at the same time opened variable avenues to their portability to the countries against which they can be used. The second factor is the ample supply of Islamist mujahedin martyrs, in their ardent chase of the seventy-two virgins, camouflaged in civilian clothes, has also opened innumerable strategically invisible conduits for the delivery of these lethal weapons that can be used by any Islamist regime against the ‘Great Satan’, America, and its offspring in the West. Iran therefore can use stealthily these terrorists as ‘rocket launchers’ laden with nuclear weapons against any Western country it wishes to attack without identifying itself as the culprit that would immediately trigger a counterattack by the West. In such a situation therefore deterrence is totally a futile and ineffective strategy, and most dangerous to boot, in preventing an Islamist regime to launch a nuclear attack on America or on any other Western country. How can anyone deter fanatics from becoming nuclear weapon carriers in their pursuit of God-given paradisiac boudoirs? How can anyone deter the Islamist theocracy of Iran, with its virile libido dominandi to be the dominant power in the region and the paramount leader of Islam, from recruiting terrorists, with the cult of death as their banner, and ‘donning’ them with a panoply of nuclear weapons to be used against the infidels of the West? Or use them directly against Israel and thus fulfil its Godly agenda in annihilating the Jews? Zakaria by not seeing, and even not contemplating, this changed war milieu that exists presently in comparison to the cold war, makes his strategy of deterrence against Iran a folly of unprecedented magnitude in the annals of strategic thinking.

As to his comment, that a strike against Iran would only delay its nuclear programme while lending support to the Mullahcratic regime, he is blind to the great potential that such a surgical strike, whose target will not only be its nuclear facilities but also will have in its scope to effectively destroy the hated leadership of Tehran and the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, the Quds Force, contrary to his dire prediction, could bring on its heel a regime change by ushering the Opposition in power that would be friendly and amicable to the West and would accept and conform to the requests of the latter to stop all Iran’s activities toward developing nuclear weapons in the future. Another great danger, of which Zakaria appears to be unconcerned, is that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would start a nuclear race by other nations in the region to acquire them too and hence would augment the probability of a nuclear war either by deliberation or by accident. No deterrence could nullify the calculus of probability based on increasing numbers. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by a greater number of nations would lead with mathematical precision to a first strike by a nuclear device. Zakaria’s proposal of deterrence as an effective strategic instrument against Iran is not worthy of consideration by serious policymakers.

I rest on my oars: your turn now…

 

American who Considers that Obama will be a Strong Leader

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Sweetness, you bring up many points and allow me to deal with some of them. First, let us assume you are right that on the issue of Obama saying ‘present’ at Congress sessions was strategy not indecision. But what about his savvy political decision to have Hillary as deputy that was vetoed by Michelle who hated her and Obama caving before his wife’s decision? You will say this is rumour. But let us see if this rumour can be verified by some facts. The worse mummy’s boy is the one without a mother. Obama was abandoned by both his parents when he was a little boy and was brought up by his grandparents. All his life he was searching for his lost father whom he finally found in his pastor Jeremiah, and more importantly, for his runaway mother whom he found when he married strong Michelle. (And that is probably the reason why he never abandoned her, like so many other African-Americans do with their wives.) It is Michelle that is wearing both pair of pants: Her own and her husband’s.

Secondly, on the war, his decision to oppose the war was not based on wisdom but on ignorance. Ignorant of the content of the briefings as a junior Senator that other Democrat Senators more senior became aware of and for that reason supported the impending war. On the issue of the Surge and Woodward’s assessment, the Surge was part of a new strategy under General Petraeus linked to the ‘groundbreaking new covert techniques…’ that were primary in defeating the insurgency, according to Woodward. And the Surge may have facilitated these new techniques to achieve their goal. Further Obama only six months ago had pledged to the American people that he would withdraw the troops from Iraq. And he would do this while the bravery and professionalism of the US army were winning the war in Iraq. Thus depriving the soldiers their glorious victory and, most dangerous of all, conceding to their enemies that the U.S. was defeated in the war in Iraq, as that would be the logical conclusion of Obama’s withdrawal. Surely, as a reasonable person, you would not consider these decisions of Obama arising from his strength of character.

Thirdly, what I meant to say was that Obama by ‘cutting his sails to the winds of populism’ went along with the uninformed masses who had made their decision on the issue of the war not by the power of their brain but by the beats of their heart, and it was on those “beats” that Obama also positioned himself on the same issue. Unlike McCain who supported the Surge at the peak of the unpopularity of the war. This shows clearly which of the two leaders is endowed with a strong character. 

DEMOCRATS’ SEARCH FOR POLITICAL SOLUTION IN IRAQ A SEARCH IN ABYSS OF DEFEAT

The following article that was written few months ago illustrates how wrong the critics of the war in Iraq have been.

By Con George-Kotzabasis

The Democrats after seductively saying “I do” to the war bride of President Bush in their nuptial bliss to her four years ago, are wishing now that their bliss has been transmogrified into the difficulties and ugliness of war to dump and replace the old ugly hag of war with the beautiful “maiden” named “political solution”. Now that the war is showing its true changeless nature and its ugly features, the “teddy boy” Democrats, too timorous and panic-stricken to face its monstrous mien are scrambling before it and running to hide under the maiden’s bed sheets. Having lost once their hearts and minds to the goddess of war Minerva, presently they are losing their hearts and minds to retreat and ignominious defeat since they consider that a military solution in Iraq is impossible. Hence their current vehement opposition to President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq.

Politically buoyed by the unpopularity of the war and the massive opposition to it by Americans, that led the Democrats to capture both houses of Congress in the November elections, they have chosen to turn themselves into populist leaders, in these dangerous times that have been forged by the fire and ashes of September 11, and hence they have become turncoats to their historical, political, and moral responsibilities to the future of America. Instead of leading from the front they are leading from the “tail”, pushed by the populist wind.

While President Bush is seizing the chances of winning the war by their “forelock”, to paraphrase Friedrich Nietzsche, with his quantified and qualified Surge, i.e., new rules of engagement, the devastating use of the means of war against the insurgents, and tackling the “forays” of Iran and Syria in Iraq, the Democrats are deflating their surge of honor and political and strategic nous into the fizzling balloon of populism. The fierce indomitable adventurous spirit of Moby-Dick’s captain Ahab, who would “strike the sun if it insulted him”, that is the spirit of America, is transformed by the Democrats and the besotted with defeatism “speakeasy” media, into a romantic misadventure. Their romance with a political solution in Iraq is no more than a political misadventure at the expense of the vital interests of America and its people.

America is at War

America in the aftermath of September 11 is not involved in a skirmish with the holy warriors of Islam, but in a global war against them. The attack on the twin towers in New York by the suicidal fanatic recruits of Islam, has however redefined the meaning of war. The decisive existential battles of the West against the fundamentalists of Islam are not to be fought behind Maginot Lines and by panzer divisions against clear-cut enemy lines whose combatants are easily identified, but among civilian populations where the terrorists live, are nurtured and hide and are indistinguishable from, and from where they launch their cowardly stealthy murderous attacks against civilians and on the military forces that try to protect them.

Moreover, these suicide bombers with belts of death around their bi-gender waists clad in civilian clothes, are “identified” mostly only after perpetrating their murderous actions and not before. Also, this foreground of the terrorists has a concomitant lethal background of fifth columnists that reside as citizens and blend with their more moderate co-religionists in the countries that are waging war against global terror. Lastly, the overt supplying of arms and finance by rogue states, such as Iran and Syria, and covertly by the so called cultural fronts of other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, is a crucial element in fuelling the deadly actions of the global jihadists as well as “oiling” the world-wide Wahhabi Madrassas and Mosques that are the breeding grounds and cradles of Muslim Saudi “bastard” fanaticism. Taking also in consideration that in the near future these war-martyrs of Islam would be possibly armed with weapons of mass destruction, and, indeed, with nuclear weapons, which they would unhesitatingly use against the infidels of the West, since in their warped minds this is decreed by their Allah, this would be the ultimate greatest danger to the survival of Western civilization.

It’s all the above factors that have redefined the meaning of war and its combatants. The war that is waged by the jihadists against America, the sole superpower, and the “infidel” West, is the most “economical” war that one could ever fight, i.e., with box cutters and Saudi “subsidized” tickets on air flights. The “wealth” of fanaticism needs only to be armed with the poorest of war means to subdue and slay the wealthiest military power on earth, America. The holy warriors, making the most of their shadowy existence, have only to be armed economically with the most nondescript but lethal weapons, to bring about havoc, fear, and immeasurable destruction among civilians in the major cities of the West. Their arming with weapons of mass destruction and nuclear ones will bring the Islamist Armageddon in the metropolises of Western civilization.

This is the tragic reality that the latter will be facing especially because many of its political elites, academia, and media are afflicted by a poverty of thought, imagination, and historical sense, that is making them deaf to the reverberating hoofing sound that is send forth by the galloping Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse with their unsheathed scimitars aiming to behead Western civilization. In America itself, the indigence of cognitive power among many of its politicians and cultural and media elites makes the country powerless, despite its military supremacy, to confront this great danger that would engulf and drown America itself in this Mohammedan made deluge.

The Democrats, especially, lacking Churchillian mettle and wisdom, are morphing themselves into political eunuchs, impotent to mobilize the American people behind a winning military and political strategy, presently attempted by general David Petraeus in Iraq, that will deal a decisive mortal blow to this irreconcilable and tenacious enemy and thus defeat the infamy of global Islamist terror sooner than later. They are totally unaware of the elementary lesson of history that instructs that when one confronts an irreconcilable remorseless enemy, whom no diplomatic demarche, no matter how refined and clever, will ever induce him to negotiate, as is the case of the jihadist and his divinely ordained grievances, it is wise to destroy him while he is still weak and before he becomes stronger.

Hence, the Democrats’ search for a political solution, without the backing and relentless use of military power, is not only most unwise, but also a mortal political sin. The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the leader of the Senate Harry Reid, will be immortalized by being quartered in Dante’s Inferno for their political sins.