Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been wrong about a number of key issues lately.
Perhaps this is a sign of political immaturity but how can this be? Secretary Gates has a solid political career in addition to a long history in intelligence working for the CIA and the NSA.
So how could he be wrong on issues in which he should be an authority? How indeed.
Gates admitted being wrong about al Qaida being in its 'last gasp' in Iraq.
His thoughtless blabbing last Tuesday on PBS was followed by some of the worst violence of the year in Iraq, which had a cost measured in lives.
American lives.
Five American soldiers were killed in a suicide attack in the northern city of Mosul.
60 plus Iraqis were killed and another 200 injured in that and other attacks.
Gates' irresponsible comments were an echo of Cheney's 2005 statement in which he predicted that al Qaida was finished; words which lit up Iraq in a prolonged period of violence.
Yesterday Defense Secretary Gates put it out there that it would not be a good idea for Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
Specifically he said that an attack on Iran would "cement their (Iran's) determination to have a nuclear program, and also build into the whole country an undying hatred of whoever hits them.
" (To borrow a response from a world famous actor from Springfield, "Duh!") I don't think Iran is too fond of Israel at the moment anyway.
Why do Gate's comments make it sound as if Israel is the instigator? If he had read his own intelligence briefings or even the news, he would have noticed that Iran has promised the complete annihilation of the Jewish State.
A promise repeated over and over during Iran's race to achieve a working nuclear program.
He would also have noticed the acidic sarcasm with which Iran flipped him the bird as they filed a complaint of harassment against Israel with the UN.
This in a response, they say, to Israel's threat of attacking Iran's nuclear installations as a self-defense precaution.
There's no room of misunderstanding Iran's short term intentions.
President Mahmad Ahmadinejad has made his goals amply clear to anyone who will listen.
His tactics have been to avoid, delay, and threaten as he has put his nuclear program in place.
Even though the Russians have offered to provide nuclear fuel and remove the resulting waste, Iran insists on processing its own fuel which implies that it does indeed have a need for nuclear material aside from domestic power usage.
Ahmadinejad, in a clear characteristic smirk at the U.
S.
, upped the ante recently by holding a female American hostage in the form of reporter Roxana Saberi.
She is imprisoned awaiting the outcome of her 'secret' trial.
The veiled threat is that her outcome will be directly linked to America's interaction with Iran in the coming weeks.
Iran, we all know, has had some success with hostages before under a previous Democratic president.
Not too subtle those Iranians.
Nor is subtlety their intention.
Their outward contempt for the West is matched only by that of their hatred of all things Israeli.
Israel for its part is caught in the unenviable position of having to act - it has no choice in the matter.
The U.
S.
and the world should acknowledge this.
Iran has publicly demonstrated its ability to lob increasingly large payloads atop their rockets just about anywhere they please.
The very real implication is that they can act on their threats against Israel whenever they have the desire to do so.
Does Secretary Gates think that it's a better idea for Israel to make their decision to act in the 15 minutes it takes for those rockets to arrive from Iran? Reaction for Israel is too late - all that would assure is mutual destruction in which case Iran wins because their aim of destroying Israel comes without a price tag.
Gates comments to and about Israel are foolhardy.
They exude weakness and a lack of cohesion on Gates and our government's part at a time when we, and our ally Israel, can least afford it.
Regan would have advised Secretary Gates to 'grow some balls.
" Good advice.
It is time for the administration to take the focus off Israel and address concerns directly to the source of the problem, Iran.
Policies of appeasement have never achieved anything good.
Ever.
It merely emboldens the appeased - look at North Korea for example.
It stomps its feet like a child and the west gives it whatever it wants.
Iran does not want diplomacy; it needs what it as been getting, time.
It sees itself as the regional power with 70.
5 million people; a powerful Islamic nation albeit a broke one.
As a country in economic turmoil it has created an ongoing diversion for its people by focusing their and the world's gaze on Israel.
With ever decreasing oil revenues and having to import its own refined gasoline at market prices it is ripe for action.
For Iran, the destruction of Israel would be the supreme act as a king maker - no matter what the cost in human terms for Iran.
An onslaught on Israel would catapult Iran into a position of world power backed by over one billion Muslims that have taken up residency in our communities' world wide.
When all is said and done Iran's attacking of Israel could change the political and economic dynamics of the whole Western world.
That is the goal of President AhmadinejÄad.
Wake up Mr.
Secretary.
The enemy is at the gates (sic).
Perhaps this is a sign of political immaturity but how can this be? Secretary Gates has a solid political career in addition to a long history in intelligence working for the CIA and the NSA.
So how could he be wrong on issues in which he should be an authority? How indeed.
Gates admitted being wrong about al Qaida being in its 'last gasp' in Iraq.
His thoughtless blabbing last Tuesday on PBS was followed by some of the worst violence of the year in Iraq, which had a cost measured in lives.
American lives.
Five American soldiers were killed in a suicide attack in the northern city of Mosul.
60 plus Iraqis were killed and another 200 injured in that and other attacks.
Gates' irresponsible comments were an echo of Cheney's 2005 statement in which he predicted that al Qaida was finished; words which lit up Iraq in a prolonged period of violence.
Yesterday Defense Secretary Gates put it out there that it would not be a good idea for Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
Specifically he said that an attack on Iran would "cement their (Iran's) determination to have a nuclear program, and also build into the whole country an undying hatred of whoever hits them.
" (To borrow a response from a world famous actor from Springfield, "Duh!") I don't think Iran is too fond of Israel at the moment anyway.
Why do Gate's comments make it sound as if Israel is the instigator? If he had read his own intelligence briefings or even the news, he would have noticed that Iran has promised the complete annihilation of the Jewish State.
A promise repeated over and over during Iran's race to achieve a working nuclear program.
He would also have noticed the acidic sarcasm with which Iran flipped him the bird as they filed a complaint of harassment against Israel with the UN.
This in a response, they say, to Israel's threat of attacking Iran's nuclear installations as a self-defense precaution.
There's no room of misunderstanding Iran's short term intentions.
President Mahmad Ahmadinejad has made his goals amply clear to anyone who will listen.
His tactics have been to avoid, delay, and threaten as he has put his nuclear program in place.
Even though the Russians have offered to provide nuclear fuel and remove the resulting waste, Iran insists on processing its own fuel which implies that it does indeed have a need for nuclear material aside from domestic power usage.
Ahmadinejad, in a clear characteristic smirk at the U.
S.
, upped the ante recently by holding a female American hostage in the form of reporter Roxana Saberi.
She is imprisoned awaiting the outcome of her 'secret' trial.
The veiled threat is that her outcome will be directly linked to America's interaction with Iran in the coming weeks.
Iran, we all know, has had some success with hostages before under a previous Democratic president.
Not too subtle those Iranians.
Nor is subtlety their intention.
Their outward contempt for the West is matched only by that of their hatred of all things Israeli.
Israel for its part is caught in the unenviable position of having to act - it has no choice in the matter.
The U.
S.
and the world should acknowledge this.
Iran has publicly demonstrated its ability to lob increasingly large payloads atop their rockets just about anywhere they please.
The very real implication is that they can act on their threats against Israel whenever they have the desire to do so.
Does Secretary Gates think that it's a better idea for Israel to make their decision to act in the 15 minutes it takes for those rockets to arrive from Iran? Reaction for Israel is too late - all that would assure is mutual destruction in which case Iran wins because their aim of destroying Israel comes without a price tag.
Gates comments to and about Israel are foolhardy.
They exude weakness and a lack of cohesion on Gates and our government's part at a time when we, and our ally Israel, can least afford it.
Regan would have advised Secretary Gates to 'grow some balls.
" Good advice.
It is time for the administration to take the focus off Israel and address concerns directly to the source of the problem, Iran.
Policies of appeasement have never achieved anything good.
Ever.
It merely emboldens the appeased - look at North Korea for example.
It stomps its feet like a child and the west gives it whatever it wants.
Iran does not want diplomacy; it needs what it as been getting, time.
It sees itself as the regional power with 70.
5 million people; a powerful Islamic nation albeit a broke one.
As a country in economic turmoil it has created an ongoing diversion for its people by focusing their and the world's gaze on Israel.
With ever decreasing oil revenues and having to import its own refined gasoline at market prices it is ripe for action.
For Iran, the destruction of Israel would be the supreme act as a king maker - no matter what the cost in human terms for Iran.
An onslaught on Israel would catapult Iran into a position of world power backed by over one billion Muslims that have taken up residency in our communities' world wide.
When all is said and done Iran's attacking of Israel could change the political and economic dynamics of the whole Western world.
That is the goal of President AhmadinejÄad.
Wake up Mr.
Secretary.
The enemy is at the gates (sic).
SHARE
