TEN REASONS TO STRIKE IRAN NOW

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." George S. Patton

There is a looming threat on the horizon. All those with knowledge of the situation are aware of its existence. It has been approaching for some time without significant action being taken to stop it. The consequences for not acting could be disastrous or even apocalyptic. Most of the world stands idly by, also cognizant of the threat, but seemingly paralyzed. It is as if a gigantic destructive asteroid is approaching our planet while everyone stares at the sky in disbelief. Some are screaming at the top of their lungs while most remain stunned.

Iran's nuclear program has been the subject of much debate for years. Media reports this week indicate they now have enough material to build at least one bomb, needing only to refine it. Experts predictions place the time frame at anywhere from one to seven years until refining is possible and complete. The point of no return for the rest of the world, and especially the United States and Israel, is nigh. Now is the time to strike Iran with all our collective might before events overtake us and such a mission is not possible. Here are ten reasons why:

1. The United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have made little to no progress in slowing or even successfully monitoring the Iranian nuclear program. In its latest report, the IAEA and Director General Mohammed ElBaradei admit that after six years, they are not one bit closer to determining the purpose of Iranian nuclear intentions. The Iranians allegedly have nearly four thousand centrifuges running to produce the necessary material, with another two thousand plus ready to come on line. Iran continues to defy Security Council demands to halt enrichment, claiming the program has a purely peaceful purpose. Other intelligence sources indicate Iran is testing high explosives and missile re-entry vehicles. The entire fiasco is shrouded in mystery, has been all along, and the U.N. is powerless to do anything about it. Three rounds of U.S. sanctions restricting the export of military technology to Tehran have been roundly ignored. Those who claim that further enrichment would tip off inspectors are whistling past the graveyard. No amount of U.N. resolutions or sanctions can stop them at this point. There can be no remaining doubt about the intentions of their development. It is military in nature and aiming for a weapon capable of striking with little to no warning.

2. Iran's leaders have made repeated threats, especially against Israel. The rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to be menacing and even borderline insane. Wiping Israel off the map and striking Iran's enemies are a normal part of his statements. It seems the majority of the world continues to turn a deaf ear to his rantings. He continually rejects Israel's right to exist and is a known Holocaust denier. Apologists question his hold on power and assert he is not actually in charge, both suggestions dubious at best. Ahmadinejad should be taken seriously. Future victims of an Iranian nuclear attack may wonder why he was so long ignored. His re-election, once in question, now seems assured.

3. Iran's support of terrorist movements around the world is documented and well known. Their support of Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and interference in Lebanon is not a matter of debate. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, had prior knowledge of the kidnapping and murder of USMC Colonel William Higgins in Lebanon in 1988, and directly supported the group responsible for the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed nineteen American servicemen. Should they succeed in developing a weapon, they could easily pass it on to one of their terrorist allies and place their guilt for an attack in question.

4. Iran continues to interfere in Iraq. They have provided advanced armor-penetrating IEDs to Iraqi insurgents, directly resulting in the deaths of American forces. Iranian agents have occasionally been detained in Iraq while they provided weapons and training to terrorists battling Iraqi and U.S. forces. Their recent vocal opposition to the Iraqi security pact with the United States that would extend the presence of American forces shows their level of interest.

5. An attack now would be somewhat unexpected. The sense of relief they may feel over the election of Barack Obama should be exploited now before it dissipates.

6. Israel is ready and capable of helping. The F16-I now in the Israeli arsenal has made a long distance attack more feasible. Considering the level and frequency of threats against the Jewish state, their cooperation and assistance is assured.

7. Obama is coming. His promise to engage in direct talks with Iran will only result in further delay that would allow the Iranian nuclear program to proceed apace. Further diplomatic discussion with Iran is pure tomfoolery. Their repeated and continued defiance of the United Nations and the international community as a whole is not likely to be reversed with a few high level chats. Involvement in photo ops with Obama would only legitimize their delusions of grandeur and give them more time for enrichment and missile development.

8. The Bush administration, now fully in lame duck mode, would pay little or no political price domestically or internationally for an attack now. The election is over. The Republican candidate already lost. There are only a few months left to act before Obama takes office. Should the President-elect decide to talk with the Iranians as promised, his position would only be strengthened by a successful attack he could somewhat distance himself from later.

9. An attack, while possibly not completely devastating to Iranian nuclear plans, would provide an additional measure of time for further international action if any is possible. Their facilities may well indeed be widely dispersed and deeply buried, but many of them are readily apparent and above ground. Claiming that an attack might not be one-hundred percent successful does not justify doing nothing at all. Broadening the target list to include Iranian oil refineries would further handicap their efforts.

10. American naval forces are now deployed in the Persian Gulf in sufficient numbers to both launch an attack and counter any Iranian attempts to block the flow of oil. The fact those forces are already in place also provides an additional edge of secrecy. The threat to the U.S. Navy from Iranian naval forces would be minimal, especially if the targets for an attack included ports and harbors used by them.

Options for countering Iranian nuclear development narrow as time progresses. The United Nations and other international organizations are feckless as usual. The time to effectively strike is now, but the window is rapidly closing. When it eventually slams shut, the world will have no choice but to rely on the good intentions of men like Ahmadinejad. The United States and Israel cannot take the chance that Iran will either build a usable nuclear weapons platform or pass a weapon off to their terrorist allies. The risks of acting are indeed great, but the risks of not acting are potentially devastating to millions of people for many years to come. Strike while the iron is hot, and surely it's flaming right now.

OBAMA TO KILL MISSILE DEFENSE?

President-elect Obama has more than one major military decision to make, not the least of which is what to do about missile defense. He'll have to decide whether or not to continue the Bush administration's plans to deploy ten missile interceptors in Poland and a set of radar stations in the Czech Republic, set to be operational by 2014. Obama was not specific about his plans for the program during the campaign, obviously designed to leave him some flexibility. As with most military issues, Obama seems less than fully informed. Any reasonable person who has followed the issue should be aware of the success of recent tests, the threat posed by Iran, and the apparent viability of a system first proposed by Ronald Reagan.

Today, LTG Henry Obering III, head of the Missile Defense Agency, wondered about Obama's intentions for the program and its pending deployment. It is remarkable that more than a week after his election, neither Obama nor any of his minions have reached out to the general. Of course, Obama has yet to consult SECDEF Gates and has only had a brief conversation with JCS Chairman Mullen, so why would one suspect he has delved any further into other vital defense issues. Obering expressed confidence in the European leg of the system to function properly and provide a viable defense against missile launches from rogue nations, namely Iran. Just yesterday Iran test fired a new generation of missile and continues its inexorable march toward acquiring nuclear capability. Their latest missile provides them another option should they decide to strike Israel or Europe.

Given the increasingly disturbing rhetoric coming from Tehran and their pace of weapons development, European capitals would be wise to consider full deployment in the shortest possible time frame. The proposed European deployment does not defend the continental U.S. and would only provide protection against a limited number of strikes. Opposition from European peaceniks is puzzling considering it is a system that is purely defensive. Do they prefer to be left naked to Iranian aggression? As usual, Old Europe seeks to oppose any American efforts to shore up collective defense, more proof that NATO is moving headlong toward becoming completely useless. They won't provide additional troops for combat in Afghanistan, preferring instead to keep their precious and relatively small troop contingents in REMF roles and allow U.S. forces to bear the brunt of fighting and thus casualties. They're fine with supplying a few additional troops, so long as they don't have to participate in actual combat. Old Europe as a bloc tries to act as a counterbalance to American power even while enjoying the nuclear and defense umbrella we continue to provide. So much for gratitude and commitment to collective defense.

The Kremlin also seems somewhat uninformed about missile defense. The system nearing deployment is not designed to counter a nuclear arsenal as large as Russia's or provide an offensive capability. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last week he plans to deploy nuclear missiles closer to Poland to counter a possible deployment to interceptors. This is nothing more than paranoia, not an unusual reaction from Russia. Anything that comes within a thousand miles of their border is seen as an imminent threat. Russian nuclear forces could easily overwhelm the proposed system. Perhaps they're still terrified by Reagan's vision. They should be more concerned about Iran and the destabilizing nature of their threats. Russia has provided technology and equipment to further Iranian missile development, so maybe they think they are immune from potential attack. Moscow has also threatened to deploy jamming equipment to counter any defensive systems, but we don't hear Berlin or Paris howling about that.

President-elect Obama's inexperience may lead him to kill the program as part of a gutting of the Pentagon budget to provide funds for ridiculous social spending. That would be a dangerous path to follow. Iran's missile program has placed Europe squarely in the cross hairs. Leaving them without any defense, even if they don't see the wisdom of it, is simply foolish. The Iranians should know that there is a good possibility that a missile strike against Israel or Europe would likely result in an intercept and an overwhelming response may be enough to deter them from doing so. That is the real purpose of the system.

Obama has some time to make the decision, but he doesn't have forever. Stepping up to the plate on this issue would be a strong move. Whether or not he has the guts is another issue. The whole idea of missile defense, having been conceived by the Gipper, elicits a knee-jerk reaction from the Democrats, as do most high tech defense programs. Their desire to divert the funds to domestic spending could leave Europe and Israel short in the event of an Iranian attack. Obama needs to show he has the ability to take actions necessary for national security opposed by the pacifist left. Future Presidents may be hamstrung by the decision Obama makes on this issue. He should aggressively pursue development and deployment not for others, but for American national security. None of us knows what the future may hold, and it would as always be prudent to prepare for a worst case scenario. Missile defense has come a long way, the test firings are increasingly successful, and deployment is simply the next stage. Delaying or cancelling deployment would indicate Obama's plans for other Pentagon programs necessary for our defense and the protection of others. Let's hope he makes the right call. We'll be watching to see how he moves on this one.

TAP DANCING ON A LANDMINE

President-elect Obama is already showing his naivete concerning military matters. So far he has only spoken briefly to JCS Chairman Mullen and not at all to SECDEF Gates. One would think these two gentlemen would already have been extensively consulted by the man about to take the reins of the world's finest military currently fighting two wars. His campaign promises do not bode well for our armed forces or their efforts. His intent to exponentially increase spending on domestic programs spells certain doom for Pentagon efforts to maintain and improve our forces. It is hard to fathom that this was truly the intent of the American people.

The subject of the enemy combatants held at GITMO has already arisen. Obama seems headed toward allowing these miscreants civilian trials, an outrage considering they have been detained as suspected Al Qaeda members or were taken prisoner on the battlefield while actually engaging U.S. forces in combat. Allowing them all the rights and privileges of American citizens is beyond the pale. The only logical policy is to hold them until the war is over or begin military tribunals that would lead most if not all of them to the gallows. Does anyone think our Al Qaeda enemies would be kinder than we have been? I wouldn't dare suggest we start cutting off heads on the Internet as they have often done, but fair is fair. Why should they be treated any differently than prisoners taken in past wars? Obama should resist the urge to placate the rest of the world and handle them with velvet gloves. They should be treated with an iron fist instead, if nothing else to dissuade others from joining their cause of killing Americans. Enemies of the United States should know that if they attack American forces in the field, they will be swiftly tried and executed if they are fortunate enough to be taken prisoner. The Geneva Conventions, which should be followed during their captivity, certainly do not require anything close to what Obama is suggesting. Enemy combatants not in the uniform of a recognized nation are accorded absolutely nothing. Obama's plan could set a dangerous precedent for our military. The idea of Al Qaeda members taken prisoner immediately demanding lawyers for their defense and being given the exact same rights as American citizens is unthinkable.

Media reports Tuesday indicate the Taliban are urging Obama to discontinue our efforts in Afghanistan show what course should not be taken. The President-elect has repeatedly indicated a willingness to send more forces to Afghanistan lest he appear a total defeatist. Unfortunately he has also indicated a desire to quickly withdraw American forces from Iraq at a time when victory appears imminent. A hasty retreat from Iraq could result in a total collapse of all the efforts there so far. That would be a waste of all the blood and treasure invested over the last five years. Iraqi forces are largely in control of the country now, but our forces are still needed to support and train them. Obama should defer to General Petraeus on both these conflicts, and most assuredly the general would not recommend such a plan. He should also pay close attention to the lessons of history concerning Afghanistan. Both the Russians and the British before them attempted to control the country with massive amounts of troops, and both failed miserably. Some additional forces may be needed, but certainly not the numbers we have seen in Iraq. Instead, Obama should recognize his total inexperience and allow Petraeus to continue the policy of negotiating with the reconcilables while battling the less agreeable insurgents. Obama has certainly not made the prospects of victory any more likely by suggesting we take more aggressive action across the border in Pakistan. We need the Pakis as allies, not enemies as the result of increased action. Some strikes withing Pakistan may be necessary, but it is a far wiser policy to continue pressuring the nuclear-armed Pakis themselves to take the required actions. Obama was rather careless during the campaign in his comments about Pakistan, a fact not lost on the them or others in the region. He should tread carefully when suggesting we bomb an ally, an idea that reveals his lack of understanding of military matters.

The Pentagon budget is just as tricky. Obama will have to balance the maintenance of current forces against programs for future weapons systems, just as every President before him has done. Defense projects take many years to complete and thus must be wisely planned. Both the new F-35 fighter jet and the sorely needed new generation of ground combat vehicles for the Army have been identified as possible budget casualties. Every time Obama proposes some new government cheese program, he is putting the future defense of our nation at risk. Seeking to trim budget overruns and speed up procurement delays would be the wiser policy. Today Obama promised to care for America's veterans, but that seems doubtful considering the amount of new domestic spending he proposed during the campaign. Hopefully Mr. Obama will have wise counsel on these issues, because he certainly doesn't have the personal experience to handle them alone. It's unlikely his Cabinet will be stocked with Pentagon hawks, making the outlook for desperately needed military equipment programs cloudy at best.

Our nation is taking a potentially dangerous risk by placing Obama in the Oval Office. Rumors of a twenty-five percent Pentagon budget cut floated last week indicate the depths to which he may be willing to go to fund his domestic spending. One can hope that was only a rumor. At a time when we are engaged with the enemy on multiple fronts and faced with increasing threats at home, Obama risks devastating our armed forces for decades to come. He is without a doubt the emptiest suit ever elected to the highest office in the land. Those who supported him will bear direct responsibility for the consequences of his defense policy. The tragic part is that our men and women in uniform and in harm's way will pay the price more immediately.

FRESH START

I will admit I have been completely demoralized by the election results. I considered deleting this entire blog and ignoring politics.

I can't do it.

There are too many important issues, especially concerning our armed forces. I will begin posting again tonight. Rest assured there will be no quarter given to the Hussein Obama administration. Thanks for reading.