In a March speech the President announced:

“a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan…this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office…

On August 30, General  McChrystal completed an exhaustive assessment and submitted his confidential report, including his recommended mission, strategies and tactics.

Someone in the administration leaked McChrystal’s report to the Washington Post, so we can all see what it says.  In a separate communication he requested more resources, including 40,000 additional troops.

So far, the Obama Administration has not responded to the report or to McChrystal’s request for more resources.  Various officials have indicated  they don’t necessarily accept the Theater Commander as the final authority.  They ‘re also seeking advice from a bunch of politicians with no military expertise, including Vice President Biden whose judgment in such matters has proved consistently wrong for decades.

There are interesting similarities between Obama’s March speech and McChrystal’s report.

Obama’s speech:

This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al Qaeda safe-haven that it was before 9/11. To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban’s gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.

McChrystal’s report is all about a comprehensive strategy that Obama called for including:

…to accomplish the mission and defeat the insurgency we also require a properly resourced strategy built on four main pillars:

1. improve effectiveness through greater partnering with Afghan National Security Forces;
2. Priortize responsive and accountable governance;
3. Gain the initiative… reverse the insurgncey’s momentum;
4. prioritize available resources to those critical areas where vulnerable populations are most threatened.

.

Obama’s Speech:

Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.

McChrystal’s Report:

Our campaign in Afghanistan has been historically under-resourced and remains so today.  Almost every aspect of our collective effort and associated resourcing has lagged a growing insurgency – historically a recipe for failure in COIN [counterinsurgency.]  Success will require a discrete “jump” to gain the initiative, demonstrate progress in the short term, and secure long-term support.

.

In his speech Obama noted:

Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, have seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.

In his report McChrystal noted:

…progress is hindered by the dual threat of a resilient insurgency and a crisis of confidence in the government and the international coalition.  to win their support we must protect the people from both of these threats.

Later in his report McChrystal presents detailed strategies for dealing with the narcotics trade and criminality.

McChrystal’s sixty-six page report details every aspect of his “classic counterinsurgency” plan, including this ominous warning:

…protecting the poplation from insurgent coercion and intimidation demands a persistent presence and focus that cannot be interrupted without risking serious setback…failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) — while afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.

Why hasn’t Obama approved McChrystal’s plan and his request for more resources?

Obama has a political problem, one he apparently didn’t anticipate when he made the speech in March.  His far-left, anti-war base, represented by roughly 1/4 of the House and Senate, wants to abandon Afghanistan, not undertake a renewed effort to prevail over Al Qaeda and The Taliban.

Thus, General McChrystal and tens of thousands of American troops are stuck in limbo, as the situation in Afghanistan gradually deteriorates.

We Agree.

In that spirit we compare the words of President Reagan with President Obama’s own words, and contemplate which would “mean something” to oppressed peoples, struggling to overcome dictatorships.

In the left column are two quotes from Ronald Reagan.  In the right column are two recent quotes from President Obama regarding the current struggles of the people in Iran.

President Reagan’s words were calculated to support his efforts to bring down the corrupt Soviet Union, and free the peoples of Eastern Europe.  President Obama’s words are calculated to avoid offending the ruling theocracy in Iran, with whom he hopes to “negotiate” sometime soon.

The President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, has tried to say and do as little as possible. The White House web site sets forth official Presidential Presidential reaction:  an uninspiring, written statement, and a link to a CBS interview of the President.

In both the statement and the Interview The President Said:

I’m very concerned based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching.

The Mullahs already figured that out without Obama’s help, and acted decisively to block the world’s view.  They jailed or deported every foreign reporter they could find.  They attempted, with limited success, to block citizen access to the Internet.  But defiant Iranians found ways around the government’s barriers, to export videos to Youtube, and send out  news via Twitter.

As in the photo, courageous Iranians are seen in covert videos holding signs written in English, hoping to attract the attention of Americans.

.

Does President Obama actually believe his warning that the world is watching will dissuade the Mullahs?

.

Meanwhile, in an interview with CBS yesterday President Obama responded to critics of his tepid response:

The last thing I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would like nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States.  That’s what they do.  that’s what we’re already seeing.

This is astounding.  The President of The United States of America, steward of the most powerful office in human history, is unwilling to throw unqualified support behind people who are risking their lives and everything they have for a principle, individual liberty.  Why? Because he is afraid of what the ruling thugs will say!  And, he even admits they’re already saying those things he fears so much.

.

Below is covert video, sent out from Iran minutes ago, in spite of the government’s attempts to shut down all communication with the outside world.  The following quote accompanied the video:

At 19:05 June 20th
Place: Karekar Ave., at the corner crossing Khosravi St. and Salehi st.

A young woman who was standing aside with her father watching the protests was shot by a basij (government sponsored militia) member hiding on the rooftop of a civilian house. He had clear shot at the girl and could not miss her. However, he aimed straight her heart. I am a doctor, so I rushed to try to save her. But the impact of the gunshot was so fierce that the bullet had blasted inside the victim’s chest, and she died in less than 2 minutes.

The protests were going on about 1 kilometers away in the main street and some of the protesting crowd were running from tear gass used among them, towards Salehi St.

The film is shot by my friend who was standing beside me.
Please let the world know

.

.

The House of Representatives expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law; condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the government of Iran and pro- government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

A longer and much stronger resolution had been introduced by Republican Mike Pense.  Democrat Howard Burman, used his power as Chairman of the relevant committee to bring this version to the floor for a vote.  To see the original Pense version click

Print - Email to a Friend - Share:

]]> http://libertyworks.com/iranian-dissidents-house-passes-resolution/feed/ 2 http://libertyworks.com/heroic-iranians-demand-liberty-mullahs-bully-obama/ http://libertyworks.com/heroic-iranians-demand-liberty-mullahs-bully-obama/#comments Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:06:42 +0000 BoomerJeff http://libertyworks.com/?p=3750 Mass demonstrations against the government continued for a sixth day in Iran.

So far the American President has painstakingly avoided showing solidarity with or support for courageous Iranians and their rebellion against the illegitimate theocracy that runs their country.

The cartoon expresses the reaction of the Iranian People to President Obama’s limp-wristed response.

The Iranian presidential election was a sham, not only because the vote count was rigged, but because the office of President is subservient to the  supreme potentate, Ayatollah Ali Khameneii, who was selected by his cronies in the ruling council of Islamic Mullahs and does not submit to the election process.

Today, Khameneii pronounced the election final and not subject to appeal, contradicting his earlier promise to conduct an investigation into the vote counting process, a promise President Obama had called encouraging.  Khameneii also vowed to punish protest leaders if there were any more violence, even though his own troops, police and militias have apparently been the source of most if not all the violence so far.

Throughout his career, Obama has shown himself fully capable of hard-ball politics, against domestic political adversaries.  An example was the ruthless reprisal against physicians and nurses who dared to disagree with his abortion dogma.

Yet, when it comes to dealing with foreign dictators Obama is ever the soft, compliant diplomat.  One of Obama’s comments on Tuesday was:

It’s not productive given the history of US Iranian relations for the US president to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections.

Predictably, Iran’s ruling Mullahs reacted by accusing the United states of “meddling” in their internal affairs, the very next day.  So far the only response from the American Administration came from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

The people of Iran deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted…The outcome of any election should reflect the will of the people and it is for the Iranians to determine how they resolve this internal protest concerning the outcome of the recent election.”

Translation:  “Oh please Mr  Ayatollah, don’t embarrass us in front of our hard-left supporters by telling the world we’re “meddling.”

Ms. Clinton’s lame statement fails to acknowledge the reality that the election was a ruise since the real political power rests in the Mullahs who rule by force and cannot be voted off their thrones.

The  Mullahs are fully capable of barbaric means to “resolve this internal protest”.  But as the protests grow, so also does the possibility that Iranian troops and police could become reluctant to enforce the will of the Mullahs against the people.  Indeed there are indications that military and police discipline is already breaking down.  This is a crack in the dictatorship’s control that a US President should try to exploit.

But apparently President Obama is so wedded to his commitment to “engage” the worlds dictators, he cannot bring himself to say anything that might encourage the liberty seeking demonstators and thus offend Iran’s ruling thugs.

.

.

Reagan went to Berlin that day to use his rhetorical skills and the power and influence of his office drive a wedge between the Soviet regime and the people under  it’s iron-fisted rule.  The most famous line from Reagan’s speech was directed at Soviet Dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev:

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Monday was the fourth day of massive protests in Teheran, capital of Iran.  The protests began when the government announced the results of last week’s presidential election.  It appears that the election was corrupted in order to reelect the despicable Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, even though one of his challengers was far more popular.  

Reliable sources now report that a government sponsored militia has fired on the crowd, killing at least one man. The photo shows a wounded man lying in the back of a truck, in the area where the militia were firing shots.

The Iranian Regime shut down the cell phone texting system on election day and it remains shut down.  Access to certain websites, including Facebook, has been blocked by the government.  International media have been ordered out of the country.

President Obama could use the crisis as an opportunity to call out Iran’s rulers and demand that the Iranian people be released to form a new government that protects, rather than curtails individual liberty.

Sadly, Obama seems to prefer cooperation and collaboration with the world’s dictators and thugs, and isn’t interested in using the power of the American Presidency to help bring down despotic regimes.

Sadly, this will likely go down as another missed opportunity for the cause of liberty.

The emerging exception to tyranny in Muslim nations is, of course, Iraq.  Thanks to America Iraq is the Muslim nation where genuine, voluntary, mutually beneficial partnerships with Western companies are already developing.

But, here’s what our American President had to say about Iraq in his address to all the world’s Muslims:

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.  Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

The President should speak with with pride of a monumental, humanitarian achievement in Iraq.  America made an enormous investment of blood and treasure, over six years, to free the Iraqi people from Saddam’s sadistic rule, to root out Al Qaeda and Iranian invaders, all  to help these Muslim people take the first faltering steps toward individual liberty and consensual government.  Yet this American President characterizes our triumph as a sad object lesson, a failure to use diplomacy and build consensus.

Throughout the struggle in Iraq, as American forces and American diplomats strived against long odds, Barack Obama advocated retreat and failure.   When he had the opportunity to be an idealistic leader in the cause of Liberty he deferred to the defeatist dogma that “Bush’s war” was an irreversible disaster.

In January, 2007 President Bush announced the radical change in strategy and tactics, including military, political and economic initiatives and a temporary increase in troop strength that would become known as “The Surge.” Minutes later Senator Obama said in a TV interview:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

A few days later he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

In July, 2007 as the intense combat phase of the new strategies and initiatives was in full force, and the troops deserved unqualified support from the home front, Senator Obama appeared on The Today Show and said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

He repeatedly tried his best prevent success in Iraq, first by introducing legislation that would have aborted the surge just as it began, and by twice voting to withdraw funds for the Iraq operation, even as US troops were engaged in daily combat.

Why was Obama so driven to bring about failure in Iraq?  Why does he now refuse to remind the world’s Muslim people of the priceless gift America has bestowed upon the now-free Muslims of Iraq?  He told us why a thousand times on the campaign trail. Because of pride and arrogance.  Because, from his irrelevant position in the Illinois State Legislature he opposed the 2003 invasion.

Talk is cheap Mr. President.  The world is watching and waiting for action, for you to eliminate the threat of nuclear attack from North Korea and Iran, through diplomacy and consensus, without firing a missile or dropping a bomb.  Until then, your cheap, arrogant, self-centered criticism rings hollow.

After the usual tedious call to “recognize our common humanity” the President said:

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

He starts with valid observations: Disease has never respected national borders.  America’s financial crisis has had negative consequences elsewhere.  For  one thing, Muslim nations Iran and Saudi Arabia have seen the foundation of their economies, exported oil, become far less profitable.

But what asserts to be the conclusion from these observations,  “That is what it means to share in this world in the 21st century,” simply makes no sense.   Those observations are not examples of sharing.  What does he want the typical Muslim listener to do with that assertion?  What action is he calling for?

Continuing from Obama’s speech:

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.

One wonders what he’s trying to say with this paragraph.  For one thing, it is not a “world order” that elevates America and Americans over most of the rest of the world.  It’s liberty.  America grew from zero to the most powerful, prosperous nation in human history because of individual liberty.  Other nations, including most that are dominated by Islam are not nearly as prosperous or powerful as they could be because they are kingdoms, dictatorships, or theocracies, that, to borrow Obama’s word, “subjugate” individuals to the interests of royal families, or thuggish despots.

The world order wasn’t imposed by some outside force.  It wasn’t imposed by America.  It just is what it is: free nations like America, occupying the same planet with other nations where the people still suffer under the jackboot of tyranny.

So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

Which “problems” does he refer to?  The flu problem?  Financial problems?  The Islamic terror problem?  The problem of rogue nations led by ruthless thugs having nukes?  Is he saying America can “partner” with the psycho who runs Iran to prevent him from achieving his openly stated goal, developing nuclear weapons, for the purpose of incinerating the Jews in Israel?

In America progress comes from private initiatives, investment, innovation, intellectual achievement, and hard work.  How does progress come to Iran or Saudi Arabia?  It’s imported from America and other free nations, in exchange for oil.  Can an American individual or company “partner” with the thugs who run Islamic nations, to bring shared progress? How would that work?

In reality there can be no partnerships of any real substance because Muslim nations are governed in a way that precludes them.  Americans can’t “partner” with or “share progress”  with people who are enslaved by their governments.  And, kings and Dictators don’t “partner” in their own demise.

.

The London Telegraph reports:

In what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to rattle the president-elect, Mr Medvedev said that short-range Iskander surface-to-surface missiles would be stationed in Russia’s baltic exclave of Kaliningrad, which borders EU states Poland and Lithuania.

Delivering his most aggressively anti-American speech yet, Mr Medvedev said he was ordering the deployment in retaliation to a missile defense shield that the United States wants to build in central Europe by 2011.

Medvedev also threatened to use “radioelectronic equipment” to  disable American/Nato radar systems that would identify incoming missiles to be knocked out by the missile defense shield.

None of this can happen overnight, and it may turn out to be idle bellicosity, meant more to encourage Russian pride and nationalism.  But if President-elect Obama equivocates or signals irresolution he will most certainly bring forth more of the same from the rest of the world’s bad actors.  Idle bellicosity could morph into military probes.  America could well be engulved in multiple, urgent, new international crises by the time President Obama takes the oath of office in January.

Russia risks virtually nothing by making these threats.  But Barack Obama’s decision as to how to respond will be fraught with risk.  Let us pray he or someone advising him is up to the challenge.