It appears that Russia’s favorite dictator is once again stirring the nationalist waters, poking at the US, and generally acting the part of totalitarian hawk.

“U.S. citizens were indeed in the area in conflict,” Putin said. “They were acting in implementing those orders doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader.”

Right.

In an exclusive interview with CNN’s Matthew Chance in the Black Sea city of Sochi Thursday, Putin said the U.S. had encouraged Georgia to attack the autonomous region of South Ossetia.

Putin told CNN his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate — Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are competing to succeed George W. Bush — although he presented no evidence to back it up.

And here is where the Lefties and the Pro-Russian nationalists join up.  Now if Putin had only tossed in some remarks about the evil Zionists…

Russia has succeeded in capturing South Ossetia and manufacturing a pretext for the attack: the supposed “defense” of the province from the power-hungry Georgians. Now that Russia has South Ossetia in its grasp and it has acquired a launchpad on the Georgian side of the Caucasus Mountains, it will move to bring Georgia’s days of independence to an end. If Georgia doesn’t play along, the Russians have already shown that they can charge forward to Gori and cut the country’s road and rail transports in half, leaving western Georgia disconnected from the capital of Tbilisi in the east. Russia can now station thousands more troops in South Ossetia than were there for the supposed “peacekeeping” mission and they can have much heavier weapons since they aren’t meant to be peacekeeping troops any longer.

The United States needs to take swift, decisive action to prevent Georgia from being cut down like a tree by Russia. We chose not to intervene while Russia was defeating Georgia militarily and killing its civilians which was, in my estimation, a mistake since it is always more difficult to eject a party from an area than it is to keep them out in the first place. The United States’ best (and perhaps only logical) option now is to increase the number of American troops in Georgia significantly. Russia has already shown its hand by raiding Gori: that will be their first destination when they try to undermine the current Georgian government. Therefore, the United States should station a significant number of troops in and around Gori as well as stationing more troops in Tbilisi. It would be wise to sprinkle more troop contingents throughout Georgia near possible targets of the Russian military but the largest numbers should remain in Gori and Tbilisi.

These American troops are going to serve a very important function for continued Georgian independence. They considerably raise the price of a potential attack by hostile Russian forces. By intermixing American troops with Georgian troops, Russia will have to carefully consider any attack on Georgia because if they kill American troops then they will either have to withdraw from Georgia under international pressure or face the brunt of an American retaliation against the Russian forces that would be invading Georgia to destabilize it. This is a tactic that has been used many times in military history: utilizing human shields. Many times the human shields were hostages from the enemy that were important people because they would think twice before possibly killing them unintentionally in an attack. In this situation, however, our troops will be acting as a foot in the door preventing it from shutting on Georgian independence as well as one of our few footholds close to Russia. If our troops are killed by Russian forces perpetrating an attack on Georgia that gives us a legitimate right of unlimited retaliation including an unremitting air campaign to assist Georgian ground forces in not only pushing the Russians back but also driving them out of South Ossetia and into North Ossetia.

Some may be saying that it is foolish to antagonize Russia over a small country such as Georgia. I disagree. Georgia is an American ally and that should mean something. Russia’s attack on Georgia is a slap in the face to America. They know that Georgia is our ally and they dare us to do anything to stop them from overrunning the entire country. Today it may be Georgia but if we do not extract a price from the Russians for attacking one of our allies, the next time the attack will be more bold. The next time it won’t be an attempt to kill the leader of Ukraine. The next time it will be a military strike on Ukraine to bring it back under Russia’s yoke as a satellite country.

Russia has made great amounts of money from its oil and it has used that money to rebuild and vastly improve its military. History shows us that armies are not built for peace; they are built for war. Vladimir Putin has bent the government in Russia to his will and ensconced himself as the leader of Russia in perpetuity. There was a time 70 years ago when an autocratic leader overseas acted belligerently and demanded territorial concessions based on questionable ethnic ties. The major powers foolishly thought that giving up this land would quench his thirst for conquest and bring peace. Instead, it only whetted his appetite for war and convinced him that the other powers were gullible and could be defeated by a concerted attack. The leader was Hitler, the territory was the Sudetenland and the small country that the major powers sacrificed on the altar of peace was Czechoslovakia. The Sudetenland contained most of Czechoslovakia’s industrial and military might so when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede it to Germany it was left nearly defenseless against the later onslaught by Germany. If the West sacrifices Georgia in the misguided hope of “peace” with Russia and not starting any trouble, it does so at its own peril. The West has seen what appeasement does to the countries that lay down at the feet of the bully. We would do well to remember the principle lesson from the Munich Agreement: “Peace” kills.

Can Obama win the reddest of Red States, Utah? In this land of conservative Mormon voters, it seems quite unlikely. Still, it looks like the candidate is sending volunteers to woo these unlikely voters…

This on top of the fact that even some Democrats feel that they’re too conservative for Mr. Obama. (more…)

There is an absurd notion floating (or perhaps burning wild-fire-like) throughout the anti-war camp that Iraq is some invention of the Bush Administration.  Now, while I have professed many times to having been a critic of our entrance into Iraq due to what I perceived as poor (and avoidable) timing, I take offense at the notion that somehow this is Bush’s war, pawned off on the American public and the US Congress alike in some epic hoodwinking–as though there was no lead-up whatsoever during the Clinton years.

This ignores history, of course, and parces quite selectively the situation in Iraq in ways that are utterly untrue. (more…)

Tuesday’s election results highlighted challenges for both Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans received a hard shot in Mississippi. Greg Davis (for whom I campaigned and who was a well-qualified candidate) narrowly lost a special congressional election in a district President George W. Bush carried four years ago with 62% of the vote. Democrats pulled off the win by smartly nominating a conservative, Travis Childers, from a rural swing part of the district who disavowed Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and hit Mr. Davis from the right.

This blow to the GOP came after two other special congressional election losses in recent months. Republicans lost former House Speaker Denny Hastert’s Illinois seat and Rep. Richard Baker’s Louisiana seat.

Both of those losses can be attributed to bad candidates. But that only shows the GOP can’t take “safe” seats for granted when Democrats run conservatives who distance themselves from their national party leaders. The string of defeats should cure Republicans of the habit of simply shouting “liberal! liberal! liberal!” in hopes of winning an election. They need to press a reform agenda full of sharp contrasts with the Democrats.

Why is it tough sledding for Republicans? Public revulsion at GOP scandals was a large factor in the party’s 2006 congressional defeat. Some brand damage remains, as does the downward pull of the president’s approval ratings. But the principal elements are the Iraq war and a struggling economy.

Gallup’s 2007 report found that fewer voters identify themselves as Republicans now than at any point in the past 20 years – despite the fact that less than a fifth of Americans agree with Mr. Obama’s call to rapidly withdraw from Iraq. And while many Americans are concerned about the economy, most are satisfied with their own finances.

As Republican ranks declined, the number of independents and Democrats grew. Has the bottom been reached? It’s too early to know. But Americans are acknowledging progress in Iraq, economists are suggesting the economy will be in better shape this fall, and a recent ABC/Washington Post poll found GOP identification rising.

What is clear is that John McCain and Republicans will prevail only if they convince voters that there are profound consequences at stake in Iraq, and that more and better jobs will follow from the GOP’s approach of lowering taxes, opening trade, and ending earmarks and other pro-growth policies.

Republicans also face challenges with the young (whose opposition to the war and attraction to Mr. Obama have made them Democrats) and Hispanics (the fastest-growing part of the electorate). A recent survey offers some encouraging news. Mr. McCain is polling as high as 41% with Hispanics – close to President Bush’s 44% in 2004.

Democrats shouldn’t be complacent after Tuesday. Their problems start with Mr. Obama’s 41-point loss to Hillary Clinton in West Virginia. Mr. Obama lost the primary because the rejection of him by blue-collar voters is hardening. The last Democrat to win the presidency without carrying the Mountain State was Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

Barely half of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters in Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia say they’re ready to support Mr. Obama against Mr. McCain today. Without solid support from these voters, Mr. Obama will be in trouble in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Wisconsin and other battlegrounds.

So far, Mr. Obama owes his success to elites captivated by his personality. But in the general election, most folks will care more about a candidate’s philosophy and stand on the issues. And what’s considered mainstream values in a general election is different than in a primary.

Mr. Obama knows this, which is why he peppered his North Carolina primary night speech with culturally conservative language. And it is also why he is reaching out to Jewish voters.

Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain 61%-32% among Jews. John Kerry won the Jewish vote 74%-25% in 2004. A weak performance for Mr. Obama could make it harder to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio or Florida. It could even put New Jersey in play.

Then there are the record low congressional approval ratings. No Congress has fallen as far and as fast as the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid-led House and Senate. Unlike President Bush, congressional Democrats will be on the ballot this fall, and can do little to improve their lackluster record before then. It must also be disconcerting for Ms. Pelosi that the Democrats’ winning formula has meant conceding ground on guns, prayer, partial-birth abortion and other issues that matter to social conservatives.

Both parties face major challenges and have little time to alter the dynamics of the election to their advantage. Recognizing underlying problems and correcting them within a matter of a couple of months is one of the supreme challenges in politics. Whichever party does that fast and well will benefit come November.

This article first appeared on the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page.  Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Which comes first, democracy or security?

It’s a trick question, like the one about the chicken and egg. The truth is they must come simultaneously.

And ay, there’s (as Hamlet would say) the rub, because in chaotic third-world nations—Pakistan comes immediately to mind, of course—the two exist in very uneasy and difficult-to-implement equilibrium.

Democracy requires a certain amount of openness and civility. Despite accusations of dirty campaigning in this country, and the recent increase of post-election sour grapes, elections are a tea party here compared to most of the world.

As Amir Taheri writes in today’s Times Online:

Whoever killed Benazir belonged to one of the nebulae of organisations that have vowed to kill not only those who stand for election but also those who vote. Their slogan is: “From box to box!” This means that, by slipping one’s vote into a ballot box, one risks ending up in a coffin.

This transcends one candidate vs. another, although the terrorists had special reason to hate Benazir Bhutto. This is about the process of democracy itself.

We often hear the slogan “There is no military solution in Iraq.” There is no democratic solution, either. The only solution must contain both elements. We in the West tend to forget that because the element of security is so firmly in place for us.

One of the effects of 9/11 was to undermine that feeling of security for us. The threat, however, was not internal, but external; the perpetrators were visitors from another culture and another world. Of necessity, in that culture and that world, security is usually provided in a heavy-handed manner.

Whatever one thinks of Musharraf and his recent racheting up of repressive measures in Pakistan, and the question of whether he purposely left Bhutto with inadequate security, or even of Bhutto’s checkered career when she was in power in Pakistan, it’s plain that the violence of those who would subvert the democratic process in Pakistan requires a leader who must be willing to apply a level of security that can be read as tyranny to outside observers. It’s not always easy to tell the difference between true tyranny and the toughness that is necessary to secure a government and a democratic process in a country rife with powerful and ruthless forces that are dedicated to tearing it down.

The assassination of JFK in this country represented a moment when we imagined we could feel the hot breath of that chaos on our necks. But in truth we were nowhere near that point. A few relatively simple precautions for presidents—including the prohibition of motorcades with open cars—seem to have taken care of the problem so far. We did, however, lose a certain innocence—a naivete we probably should have lost long ago, when Lincoln was assassinated—and have retained an extra feeling of vulnerability ever since.

Imagine, however, what it must be like to live in a country with a history of assassination and execution as a commonplace way to take care of political rivals. Unfortunately, the world contains all too many such countries. That’s one of the reasons our experiment in Iraq is so fraught with peril, and why recent encouraging signs there are so important.

There are those who say, along with commenter Tim P, that:

Once the population refuses to be cowed and begins to actively oppose the terrorists, they can no longer operate nearly as effectively. We have seen that in Iraq.

They have forgotten the all-important element provided by American security. Whether it be the postwar influx of terrorists in Iraq, or the prewar tyranny of Saddam, the people of Iraq were powerless to resist without the guarantee of at least a modicum of security.

In Iraq, the hope now is that, ultimately, the people of Iraq themselves will be able to provide that security. But it would not have possible without our initial help. Saddam’s net was way too tight, and his own “security” way too effective. Then later, the terrorists took advantage of the postwar chaos to get their own tight grip on many areas of the country.

That grip has been loosened now in Iraq, and there’s a promise of better things to come. But it remains fragile there. Pakistan has not had a recent war, but it seems at least as fragile right now.

No, I’m not suggesting a US invasion for Pakistan; even a neocon has no interest in invading all the failed and chaotic countries of the world. But the problem there is very real, and is not going away by itself, nor by the magic of a democratic election alone.

~from Neo-Neocon

Hilarious and nauseating at once is mankind’s chronic inability to retain wisdom acquired at the cost of much blood, toil, tears, and sweat. This tragicomedy was played out for us in no uncertain terms upon our recent Stateside pilgrimage to one of the more forgotten shrines to the cause of Liberty: the Alamo.

Internationally acclaimed as our mastery of history is, we must admit our general ignorance heretofore of this brief but profound chapter in the American story. Upon being made aware, however, we were somewhat stunned (as so often we are) at the parrallels between then and now, and the lessons afforded those with eyes to see and ears to hear. (more…)

In the Korean War, we weren’t fighting the Koreans. Not really. We were fighting the Chinese, but we didn’t call it the Chinese War in Korea. Everybody knew that this was happening, that the Chinese were heavily involved in the war, and that without their influence, we probably would have stopped the North Koreans–but it was easier to continue calling it the Korean War. Could stronger diplomacy with China have changed the course of events?

Iraq is the same. We’re not really fighting Iraqi insurgents. Now that we’ve chased many of the major al-Qaeda elements out of the country, we’re not really fighting them either.

We’re in a proxy War with Iran.

Iran has sponsored illegal militias since the formation of the Maliki government in 2006. The Qods Force, Iran’s premier terrorist training team and exporter of its revolution, provided between $750,000 and $3 million-worth of equipment and funding to Iraq’s militias monthly in the first half of 2007, according to U.S. Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner.

More information about the Qods Force and the Iranian “Special Groups” who are the puppet-masters behind the Sadr militia and many other Shiite militias in Iran can be found here.

Ms. Kagan writes a very informative article about the depth of Iranian funding and training of “insurgents” in Iraq. For an even more detailed look at the Iranian smuggling of arms and general support to their Iraqi counterparts, visit this site.

It’s apparent that what’s happening in Iraq is not so much about the welfare of the Iraqi people, but as an attempt to undermine America’s influence in the region. Essentially, Iran is exporting, in a violent fashion, their “Revolution” to Iraq. Both are Shiite countries, and while one is Persian and the other Arab, the Shiite bond is strong. Iraqi Sunis aren’t too fond of the idea, and while they helped US forces drive the Suni terrorists organization al Qaeda out of Iraq, the Shiites have done nothing to halt the flow of Iranian influence in their country.

Indeed, this war has no hope of every ending so long as US and Iraqi forces can’t stop the Iranian presence. This will probably not be won through military means alone, although the recent show of strength from the Iraqi government is a sign of progress, even if the execution was not entirely successful.

People worry that we might invade Iran, or strike them militarily. I propose that it is too late to avoid war with Iran, as we are already caught up in it. It is not, however, too late to broker a peace. The moment Iran decides to stop intervening against the Iraqi government is the moment peace will return to the Iraqi people. al-Qaeda alone is no more than an organization of thugs, but Iran is a rich, influential, and powerful nation. It’s time they realized that peace in the region will lead to greater stability for everyone involved. If they do not, we may need to take greater lengths to disable their actions in Iraq.

There has always been something profoundly brave and good about the ideology of neoconservatism. America is so wealthy, so powerful, and historically so dedicated to the purpose of justice and democracy. Why shouldn’t we use our military to free those subjugated by tyrants and murdered en masse by oppressors? How dare we not intervene in genocides? Libertarians believe that the government should not intervene in our individual rights. This is how, domestically, we protect our freedom from our own government. But how do we protect the life and freedom of those less fortunate than us elsewhere?

In fact, where is our military now? Where is it in the Sudan, in Darfur? Where were we in Rwanda during that tragedy? This is the meat of the issue, I think. Neoconservative policy must reflect a genuine desire to spread freedom and protect human life in all parts of the world, not just those that are rich in resources. Iraq was a mistake because we hadn’t won the war of global opinion, yet. We were seen by allies and foes alike as aggressors, perhaps after oil profits, perhaps vengeful of past wrongs. Either way, we were seen as bullies and had very little help in the struggle to free the Iraqi people. The mistake in Iraq was not that we overthrew the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Rather, it is that we invaded with too little planning, too few allies, and not nearly enough of a defensive strategy against the hostile powers in Iran and Syria.

We stand idly by now, as tens of thousands in Darfur are slaughtered because we have become so stymied in our progress in Iraq and, sadly, Afghanistan. I must lament the failure in the former safe-haven of both Al Queda and the Taliban. Here is one area we need to redouble our military efforts.

Meanwhile, Russia and China, the two giant rogue states, work behind the scenes, encouraging Iran and Venezuela in their defiance of America and spreading terrorism, global unrest, and civil war throughout the 3rd world. China holds much of Africa in its deep pocket, and foments much of the violence there–or at least does little to intervene.

Here are two countries that, if they had the means, would quite quickly bring Iran or Venezuela to their knees in order to rob them of their resources, and yet in the streets of Tehran who do the young men shout against? Whose flag is burned? America’s. More on this later…

Certainly it is not the end goal to simply persuade the world that the United States is a purveyor of good, of freedom, of prosperity. However, this PR campaign certainly wouldn’t hurt the cause. Rather, it would do much to quell these protests. It would further cast Russia and China into the light they deserve. We should lead by example first, and then worry about long-term strategy. First we should enter areas of conflict that are not so controversial. We should establish our role as freedom fighters and defenders of liberty. If we had a decent track record on this point, we would have met with much less resistance in Iraq from our allies. Perhaps NATO or the United Nations would be operating heavily in that country, rather than US troops and a farcical coalition of the willing–though I am loath to recommend any reliance upon the UN to accomplish much of anything militarily. They are very nearly as ineffectual as the African Union. NATO is a far more reliable organization.

In summation, the following global military strategy is essential if we are to eventually come up against the threat of China and Russia as well as in our Long War against Terrorism. We must fight battles of mercy as well as strategy. We must save the weak–the hundreds of thousands of dispossessed in the Sudan, for instance–before we can justify assaults on Iran or North Korea. We must solidify the good will of civilized nations, not because they are right, but because we must find a strategy that affords us the longest momentum. We cannot lose the war of public or global opinion if we are to continue fighting, otherwise the average American will eventually grow disgusted and give up, as is the case now with many voters over Iraq.

Beyond this we must pay more heed to our experienced military leaders in the planning and execution of future conflicts. Iraq was badly mishandled in the first phases of rebuilding. The security situation was pathetic at best. This is unacceptable, and was the most critical defeat in the policy war against the neoconservative movement.

It is time to polish our idealism with practicality, and to sprinkle mercy and compassion into our global military reach. Hearts and minds are as vital as shock and awe, after all.