Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in an unprecedented series of interviews with the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post signaled US defeatism, retreat, and appeasement as the main guidelines for the US “war” on terrorism. These interviews clearly establish that overall control of the terrorism policy has passed from the Pentagon to the State Department, especially to the Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.
Secretary Rice’s favorite line is that the Middle East is in a “Transformational Era” (never defined beyond this vacuous slogan) and the US should therefore not look for “quick victories” in the war on terrorism.
Madam Secretary, the US has had troops in Iraq longer than it had troops in the field against Hitler. Quick victories over Iran and Osama, and more than a few, are precisely what the US needs! Instead, Osama and Iran are making dramatic gains, beginning in Iraq, where the US holds the overwhelming military advantage.
In brief, Iran is taking Shiastan (essentially southeastern Iraq) and the port city of Basra from Iraq, which will provide Iran with effective control over the supply lines for US troops in Iraq. Iran is taking Shiastan via Iraqi parliamentary action, so far encouraged by the US, permitting southeastern Iraq and Basra to secede from the Baghdad government.
Meanwhile Osama is taking Iraq’s Anbar province, which constitutes 30% of Iraqi territory and borders on Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria, and which is connected to Baghdad. Osama intends to use Anbar province to mount attacks on US troops in Iraq and to spread terrorism into Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria.
Osama’s victory in Iraq is in addition to Osama’s victory in Pakistan, where the Musharraf government has just turned the province of Waziristan over to pro-Taliban warlords, who intend to use the province to mount attacks on US and NATO troops in Afghanistan.
If you are looking for clues on how the US could recoup in Iraq and against Osama, don’t waste time on Rice’s breezy interviews, which are permeated with defeatism, especially on sanctions (i.e. a western gasoline embargo on Iran “won’t work”). To take another example -- Rice pays lip service to the idea of containing Iran but never mentions the visas granted to Khatami and Ahmadinejad which provided a propaganda windfall for Iran. Also, Rice does not mention President Bush's extensive interview with the Washington Post's David Ignatius that favored a US-Iran strategic partnership. This is containment?
Instead, if you want to learn how to stop Osama and Iran in Iraq, look up the interview with Syria’s President Bashar al Assad in the current issue of Der Spiegel (“America Must Listen”). Assad is attentive to threats from Iraq because Osama and Ahmadinejad intend to finish off his secular socialist regime once they consolidate in Iraq, with at least passive US support. Assad presents a detailed rationale for shoring up Iraq’s central government to limit inroads by Osama in Anbar province and Iranian access to Shiastan.
That’s right. Syria’s President Assad is more attentive to US security requirements in Iraq than Secretary Rice, who mentions Iraq only in passing, and who fails to mention Osama and Iran as threats in Iraq.
Secretary Rice also downplays the threat posed by Hugo Chavez, which is already substantial and growing. Chavez is making a major bid for power in Ecuador, which hosts at Manta the core of US counter-narcotics programs in South America. A Chavez-supported candidate is now favored to win Ecuador's presidential election in October.
Chavez is also making a major bid for power in Bolivia, where Evo Morales is imposing a personal dictatorship. From Bolivia, Chavez and Morales would be able to export revolution directly to Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Paraguay. Fortunately, Bolivia has a strong opposition, although the State bureaucracy is pro-Morales and Chavez.
Moreover, Chavez is making a major power play in the UN by prevailing over Guatemala for one of the 15 rotating seats of the UN Security Council, where he could vote in support of Iran. The odds now favor Chavez.
Despite her criticism of Chavez, Rice fails to mention the Ahmadinejad-Chavez-Castro Axis, which is becoming active in South America and the Caribbean. Rice also ignores Chavez's arms buildup, which is a threat to regional stability. The bottom line is that Rice and the State Department do not have a strategy for winning on the issues of Ecuador, Bolivia, and the UN seat. By the way, State also gave Chavez a visa for the UN propaganda session against the US.
In short, Osama, Ahmadinejad, and Chavez have the US on the run. The fault lies with State and with Secretary Rice personally, who has pushed Secretary Rumsfeld out of the loop on terrorism issues. In fact, the word is that DoD is no longer consulted on Iran policy, which is monopolized by State (Nicholas Burns and other State Department bureaucrats) and NSC. This is no way to win a war.
