By Dawn's Early Light

Schroeder was no Merkel

Merkel's Values Trump Economics

Europe receives 80% of its natural gas supplies from Russia, through the Ukraine, as noted in DEL post "Holding the Russian Energy Bear at Bay".  Germany is currently very dependent on Russian shipments of natural gas via the Ukraine. No wonder that former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder played up his relationship with Russia's Vladimir Putin and played down Putin's anti-democratic ways.  The icing on the cake was "Schroeder's 'Sellout''" in taking a lucrative job at Russian-owned Gazprom after he was defeated narrowly by Ms. Angela Merkel.

All the more pleasing was the Sunday Times Online header "Merkel's harder line on Russia looks set to persist". 

"ANGELA MERKEL, the German Chancellor, showed no sign yesterday of being held captive by the deepening energy relationship between Moscow and Western Europe.

While President Bush was urging a softly, softly approach to human rights criticism of President Putin, Frau Merkel was more forthright about the need for a free press. This G8 summit, it is becoming clear, will take a sharper tone towards the Russians.

In the past, EU participants — and above all Germany — gave Russia an easy ride in recognition of the West’s overwhelming dependence on Soviet oil and gas.

Frau Merkel, a fluent Russian speaker, who lived her first 35 years in communist Germany, has a far more hard-nosed attitude to the Kremlin. Why should energy supplies be allowed to be the defining element of the German-Russian relationship, she recently asked an adviser."

Democratic values and personal freedoms are worth defending for this current German Chancellor.  This type of refreshing focus for a critical player in the European Union goes a long way to explain why the massive rift in US-German relations has healed so quickly.

The US-German position over Iran, Israel and Russia are converging to a large degree.  Trade discussions are emerging with respect to the current failing Doha round of trade talks that should work against some of the French reluctance to see farm subsidies tackled. 

Ms. Merkel took Russia and China to task for their lack of "responsibility" in dealing with rogue nations like Iran.

"We found that there is a lot that we [the United States and Germany] agree on, as regards our common responsibilities, responsibilities that we see for the two of us the world over. And I, for one, think that as regards, for example, Iran, this responsibility ought to be shouldered by more and more countries -- that goes for Russia, that goes for China. It will only be if we act in concert that we will be able to vanquish the tyrants, remove dictatorships and contain those who sponsor terrorism. And Germany would like to give its contribution to that."

Germany, along with the United Kingdom, was successful, from their view, in getting the United States to agree to direct multi-party talks with Iran, something that has not been done since the 1979 Tehran hostage crisis.

Both President George Bush and Chancellor Merkel suggested that it was best to keep their democratic criticisms to Mr. Putin private, that public condemnation would not best achieve the democratic reforms they are seeking in Russia.

The upcoming G-8 summit in St. Petersburg that President Putin is hosting will be fascinating diplomacy to follow between the major powers in attendance.

US-South Korean relations: Where To?

Given South Korean government and youth opinion becoming increasingly negative towards the United States, and in some cases seeing the US as a larger threat than North Korea, I have given increased thoughts to a phased US pullout.

In attempting to reason through what is in the best interests of US foreign policy in Asia and secondly the best interests of our allies in the region, including South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and even Australia, I have looked at several areas.  The three main areas are 1) US strategic and military planning in the region 2) South Korea's newly announced Defense Reform Plan and 3) Effects on potential regional threats, including North Korea and China.

Preface - The Korean War

The Korean War started on June 25, 1950 as Communist North Korea launched a surprise attack against South Korea.  For over three years, until a cease-fire was agreed to in late July 1953, several million people died, including Koreans, Chinese, Americans, British, and Canadians, with massive civilian casualties.

Due to the surprise nature of the attack and the fact that South Korea was not prepared for war, the Communists nearly succeeded in overrunning the country.  The U.N. Security Council, at the time being boycotted by the Russians, condemned, by resolution, the action by North Korea and called for immediate withdrawal of the North Korean military from South Korea, requesting all members of the U.N. to render every assistance in support of the resolution, and, subsequently, to "furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack."  President Truman interpreted the U.N. call for support as an authorization to commit United States troops, which he did, albeit without submission to Congress, the branch of government which, under the Constitution, has the duty to declare war.  U.S. and U.N. troops were placed under the command of American Five Star General Douglas MacArthur.  On September 13 to 15, 1950, Gen MacArthur led a daring and successful counter-attack against the enemy-held port city of Incheon (or Inchon), located 20 miles west of enemy-held Seoul, thereby cutting off the North Korean supply lines and turning the tide of the war.  As the allies pushed towards the Chinese border with North Korea, the Chinese entered the war in October, 1950. 

One of many heroic battles by U.S. troops took place as Army and Marine forces fought at the Chosin Reservoir after being encircled by a numerically superior Chinese Army. This brave and tragic battle is recounted well in Martin Russ's gripping "Breakout: The Chosin Reservoir Campaign, Korea 1950". 

Political influences and apparently personal failings in Washington, D.C. led to the abandonment of the customary tradition of fighting a war to victory, and by mid 1951, the Korean War had entered a stalemate as casualties, both military and civilian, mounted.  The War was stabilized along the 38th parallel that today is the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) separating the two Koreas.  It is the most heavily armed and defended border in the world today.  The United States has kept its commitment to defending South Korea from any end to the cease-fire or from any attack by North Korea.

While there has not been active fighting between the two Koreas since 1953, the fact there is no negotiated peace makes the stability of the region a larger issue for US national security than other nations that enjoy a US security arrangement.

Prior to Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's review and redeployment plans of US forces around the globe, the US had 37,000 soldiers committed to defending South Korea from within the country.  The Department of Defense will draw down this total by 12,000 military personnel by the end of 2008 to end up at 25,000 soldiers*, a reduction of nearly a third.  Along with the draw down, the US is transitioning greater responsibility for the defense of South Korea to South Korea's military and consolidating the remaining US forces between 2007 and 2008 in two bases further south. 

The reduction of US forces is likely motivated by some military and some political reasons.  Militarily, given the US technological supremacy on the battlefield, moving soldiers out of the way of an initial invasion by artillery and rockets is beneficial for a strong American and South Korean counterattack.  US weapons can increasingly fight at longer distances, reducing the need to be forward deployed.  From a political standpoint, American troops near Seoul were becoming more of a political liability as well as being expensive to base.  By moving the forces south, it allows an opportunity for US soldiers' families to potentially move to South Korea as well for the minimum year tour in the country, a net plus for a volunteer army seeking higher retention rates.  South Korean attitudes towards the Americans' presence does not have the same support among the younger generation as it does the elderly that remember the Korean War.  A Pew Global Research survey in 2003 demonstrated 71% of South Koreans aged 18-29 have an "unfavorable" view of the United States.  Even more shockingly, a majority of South Koreans were disappointed that Saddam Hussein's forces did not put up a greater resistance to the initial US invasion.  Given that over 53,000 Americans gave their lives in the Korean War and the US defends the country today, these are rather shocking results.

Why the Divide?

The current Roh administration has pursued a "Sunshine Policy" with North Korea, often at odds with US foreign policy goals for containing North Korea's weapons development, nuclear development, and exporting of weapons for hard currency.  South Korea is also pushing for operational control of military forces in their country (ie., control of US military forces under a unified South Korean commander instead of the current US unified command structure).  This position is unrealistic but could lead to two separate commands or, at the very least, an increase in friction in the alliance.  These differences between the Roh government and the Bush administration is putting a greater strain on the alliance.  Polls have shown a growing distrust of US unilateral action in the world, even right after the September 11, 2001 attacks against the US (see Harris Poll, December 26, 2001).

Given the continuing decline of the US reputation in South Korea, even when balanced against the constant antics and provocations of North Korea, the future of the relationship is a growing concern.  How should the US military plan for defending South Korea?  Should it continue to do so?  What effect will a declining alliance with South Korea have on US-Sino relations and US-Japanese relations? 

The next parts of this series will seek to address these questions.  Your comments and views are welcomed.

Recommended websites for additional reading:
1) The Korean Liberator - a top quality blog on freedom and democracy on the Korean peninsula.
2) Wikipedia - Korean War
3) Winds of Change - GEO Korea

* Thanks to Marvin Hutchens for catching a scribner's error.  The original post stated the final force would be 12,000 instead of 25,000, drawn down by 12,000.

Holding the Russian Energy Bear at Bay

The WSJ had an encouraging piece last week on Georgia's economic development.  President Mikhail Saakashvili has been taking on autocratic Russian President Vladimir Putin over Europe's growing energy dependence on Russian natural gas supplies through the Ukraine.  Russia's strategy, according to the WSJ, (subscription required) is:

"Gazprom -- the leading vehicle of Kremlin energy influence -- has accelerated a three-pronged strategy. First, it is campaigning to bottle up its control of Central Asian gas resources. Second, it is consolidating and expanding its hold on energy infrastructure among countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. Finally, it is trying to use a deepening war chest to acquire private and privatizing energy assets elsewhere in Europe.

Rising tensions with Moscow reached a crescendo last week when Mr. Putin, before meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Tomsk, Siberia, accused the West of "unfair practices" and agreed with Mr. Miller that it would redirect supplies elsewhere if its European expansion plans were blocked. A senior EU official says Mr. Putin's "pipeline rattling" is in direct response to EU pressure that Russia ratify an International Energy Charter requiring it to open pipeline access to competitors -- much as telecommunications companies share their bandwidth.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said at a Senate hearing recently that energy politics is "warping" international diplomacy, joined the battle in Ankara, Turkey, urging Turkey and Greece to reduce their dependence on Russia by favoring new pipeline plans that rely on Azerbaijan. Vice President Dick Cheney flies to Kazakhstan this week as part of a continued effort to get it and Turkmenistan to join pipeline plans that would reduce Russia's near-complete dominance of Central Asian resources."

Europe's growing dependence on Russian natural gas was brought home to the average European when Russia cut off supplies to Ukraine during the last winter season, demanding steep increases in payments.  According to the Washington Post:

"Europe relies on Russia for about a third of its natural gas supplies. Those supplies arrive via two major pipeline routes constructed in the 1980s over the objections of the Reagan administration. Today the United States realizes that Russian gas will remain vital to Europe, but it is pushing nations to diversify supplies so that Russia cannot exploit Europe's energy dependence for political purposes....

At the same time, however, Russia sells 80 percent of its natural gas to Europe and is worried about European plans to increase gas purchases from Algeria and Libya, as well as about liquefied natural gas from Qatar, which plans to triple its exports."

Mr. Saakashvili is working with Germany's Angela Merkel and other European countries, including Turkey, to bypass the old Soviet system.  In today's Wall Street Journal story "In Russia's Shadow, Georgia's Leader Remakes Nation":

"Mr. Saakashvili, who has strong backing from the U.S., is trying to transform Georgia's economy in a hurry. His aim is to end centuries of Russian domination and to forge new ties with the West. Corruption is down, and tax revenues have at least doubled since 2003, due in part to a new flat tax and improved collection, helping to pay for the government's many projects. The nation's gross domestic product rose 8.5% during the first quarter....

New pipelines that pass through Georgia are coming on line this year, giving Western nations access to oil and gas from the Caspian Sea area, one of the world's few significant new sources of energy outside of the Middle East and Russia. Georgia also is a key plank in the Bush administration's efforts to promote democratic governments in the former Soviet bloc."

The US embassy in Tbilisi supports a 650 person staff.  The United States is very committed to economic and energy reform in Georgia to counter Mr. Putin's impressive efforts in consolidating state control over Russia's energy and using it as a political weapon with Europe, the West and Asia.  To counter this, ahead of the upcoming G-8 summit, the US has been working to support alternative routes that bypass Russia and its reserves of natural gas.  Referring back to the Washington Post article:

"Bryza and more senior U.S. officials have been promoting pipeline routes that would bring gas from fields in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan near the Caspian Sea through Turkey to Europe. One such pipeline, from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, opens Oct. 1. U.S. officials have been saying that reserves in Azerbaijan alone could justify bigger pipelines even if territorial disputes over the Caspian Sea are not resolved. (Missing from the U.S. vision: supplies from Iran, whose natural gas reserves are second to only Russia's.)

Former Soviet Bloc countries are enthusiastic, especially since Russia has boosted prices on gas sold to Moldova and Belarus. Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili said during a recent visit here that he supports a pipeline that would bring gas from the Caspian Sea basin through Azerbaijan and Georgia, then under the Black Sea (to avoid Russia) to Romania and then north to Poland. Building that line would take at least five years."

Germany would be one of the largest beneficators of an alternative route for energy, and Ms. Merkel has met with the Georgian President to discuss these options.  It will be interesting to see if Turkey's desire to provide an alternative route for energy supplies could become an important area of leverage in their often troubled bid to become a member of the European Union.

Regardless, Georgia represents an improved US and European ally in trying to roll back Russian advances in energy control.

Kim Jong-il in a Bunker Listening to the Smiths

"ASK ME, ASK ME, ASK ME
Because if it's not love
Then it's the bomb
the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb
That will bring us together" - The Smiths' song 'Ask'

On America's Independence Day, the North Korean Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, attempted and succeeded in some fireworks of his own, with a failed ballistic missile launch.  I couldn't help but imagine frizzy hair, bugged-eyed Kim, in some North Korean bunker, listening to the Smiths' "Ask" song, once again miscalculating the world around him outside of his Hermit Kingdom.  While neither the world, or Kim's neighbors, may love him, his desire for a bomb surely can bring the world together.

The Context

The United States had tracked the fueling and preparation of a potential test launch of the North Korean Taepodong 2 ICBM over the past weeks.  This missile is an upgrade to the 1998 Taepodong 1 missile fired over Japan.  The Taepodong 2 has an estimated range of 6,700 km (4,200 miles) and can carry up to a 1,000 kg warhead. (For a history of North Korean missile development and its arsenal, see this excellent Asia Times story).  The North Koreans fired this missile along with 6 others (of lesser strategic value) over a two-day period.  This is in violation of their 2002 pledge not to test missiles.

What Does it All Mean?

1. North Korea's ability to sell "sophisticated" weapons for hard currency may be in greater jeopardy than before the test firing. The failure of the test is a great humiliation to the North Koreans. Possibly more North Korean missiles will rust in warehouses of weary buyers, like with the UAE in 1989.

2. North Korea has given the populations of South Korea and Japan one more great reminder of why a military partnership with the United States is in their strategic national interest.  While Russia and China will not support economic sanctions for the test firing, the international community has roundly condemned the launch.

3. Missile defense will only increase by regional players, including India, which is deciding between the US Patriot-3 system and the Israeli (with American support) Arrow missile defense system.

4. China, which blocked any UN announcement after the 1998 test firing, has allowed the issue before the whole Security Council, especially as they hold a critical seat as a sponsor of the 6-party talks that the North Koreans refuse to attend. 

5. US defense coordination with its allies in the region will only continue, along with the R&D required to continue to field a viable defense.

6. North Korean promises, statements and agreements are less reliable than their Taepodong 2 missile.

It is hard to see how the North Korean regime comes out ahead, based on this failed display of power.  For people who had no interest in the realpolitik arguments of deterrence and national security, they are taking another look and seeking protection from their governments.  This can only lead to greater international security cooperation in Asia with the United States.  A growing consensus is emerging that the threat of a North Korean nuclear "bomb" is bringing the world together.

International Commentary for additional reading

Australia - "Test Firing Linked to Closure of Foreign Banking Channels"
                "Rouge's Missile Menace"

Russia - "Russia blasts N. Korea over missile tests, balks at sanctions"

Philippines - "Politicians agree N. Korea missile launch worrisome"

India - "North Korean Missile tests Suit India"

Japan - "North Korea Launches 7 Missiles"
            "North Korean move triggers annoyance, bewilderment across Japan"

Celebrating America and More

Where has Dawn's Early Light been?  Why hasn't Bill Rice answered any email?  Why should I keep reading?

All very good questions.  First, let me start with an apology to those who used to regularly read the blog.  I am very sorry to have just stopped writing with no updates, no information, and not even looking at email since December 14, 2005. 

Since my last post, Catherine, Mom and Dad have been to London, Qatar, the California Coast, Seattle and various other cities.  I stopped blogging because I had realized that quality posting took a great amount of time (at least an hour for research and an hour for posting, not including the regular news-junkie reading all day long).  While I was not a great economics student in college, I did latch on to the concept of opportunity cost.  There are four driving forces in my life: God, family, friends and work.  Work took up more time towards the end of last year until recently, though I have traveled much on short trips. 

To sum up in pictures why I have been gone, here is a dear and special one, my lovely Catherine.  She is almost a year old, and in her 11 months has flown on 11 flights, 6 internationally, and is a first-rate traveler. 

This is Catherine enjoying her independence and smelling the flowers in our yard on a wonderful July 4th.

Here is my world-traveling Catherine en route to London in February.

Here is Catherine in London warmly dressed being held by Dad.

From cold London in February, off to Qatar, where we saw two very special friends of ours plus my best friend, who was deployed in Doha until April.  He is a Weapon System Operator in an F-15E Strike Eagle. 

Qatar was a fascinating trip and gave me a new insight into the Middle East, both the positive and negative, in comparing it to Western civilization.  Doha, the capital, is under massive reconstruction, made possible by Qatar's natural gas and oil wealth.

We also recently said goodbye to the last of my grandparents, Mildred Rice, who at 93 had lived a great and purposeful life.  Over 100 people said their goodbyes to a woman who lived in China, Japan and Taiwan and cared deeply about sharing God's love to the people she met.  Here is a photo before her passing, with Catherine.

But spending time with Catherine and Mom at the beach is one of our great loves.  Here is Catherine some months ago taking in dusk in San Clemente, California.

While these photos don't excuse my disappearance, hopefully they can convey the joy I have in being with my family and why working hard to create more special times and travels with them is so important to me.

I want to write again, but I know that I will not, for some time to come, be able to write daily.  Over the past several months I have wrestled with how I can blog about the foreign policy and political ideas I am passionate about and still give 100% to my family, friends and work.  The balance probably lies in less posting, but not putting my head in the sand and ignoring it completely.

There are many ideas that I want to explore further.  I live in a blessed country, with a terrific family, and every day I thank the Lord that I can live the American dream.  On this 4th of July, I want to especially thank those in the uniform defending the liberty that my family enjoys.

Stay tuned. 

Schroeder's Sellout is Merkel's Advantage

Coming Anarchy has a similar take to Dawn's Early Light on the sellout nature of Gerhard Schroeder's decision to go to work for Russian-owned Gazprom.  However, Coming Anarchy also points to the recent anti-Israel and anti-rational statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denying the holocaust and inviting Europe to carve out some land to relocate Israel. 

"What do these two events mean for German foreign policy? Both weaken Germany’s previous policies and continue to chisel away wiggling room. With Schröder’s so-called legacy already severely damaged by the man himself, the SPD is being forced to distance itself from not only Schröder but his pro-Russian policies. This leaves them with an easy cover should they begin to shift their foreign policy not to mention giving the CDU a golden opportunity to force them to do so....

Thus, these two events, completely outside the control of the current government, have served to undermine Germany’s previous policy with regard to Russia, Iran and have tarnished the SPD’s past few years of policy (how much remains to be seen). All of this significantly strengthens Chancellor Merkel’s position domestically giving her more leeway in her upcoming meeting with President Bush and his advisors from January 12th to 14th."

While Ms. Merkel may have misstepped diplomatically with her meeting with Secretary Rice [See DEL post here], she has a golden opportunity to move German diplomacy as her opposition party in her coalition government must move right to distance itself from the remnants of Schroeder's perceived sellout and failed Iranian policies.

Schroeder's "Sellout"

The Washington Post has a hard-hitting editorial today on former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's new job working for the Russian Government.  The editorial is titled "Gerhard Schroeder's Sellout".  "What?" you say.  "Yes", Gerhard Schroeder, champion of Russia, ignorer of Russian democratic suppression, France's tool in its Atlantic spat with America, is going to work for Gazprom, the Russian state-owned oil firm.

"To make the decision even more unpalatable, it turns out that the chief executive of the pipeline consortium is none other than a former East German secret police officer who was friendly with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, back when Mr. Putin was a KGB agent in East Germany. If nothing else, Mr. Schroeder deserves opprobrium for his bad taste.

But the announcement should also raise questions in German voters' minds about the real reasons Mr. Schroeder was so keen to see this pipeline project launched. The pipeline has cost Germany diplomatically by infuriating its Central European and Baltic neighbors. They point out that the Russian government chose to use the sea route rather than run a new pipeline alongside one that already exists on land, despite the far greater expense. The only possible reason for doing so was political: The Baltic Sea pipeline could allow Russia, a country that has made political use of its energy resources, to cut off gas to Central Europe and the Baltic states while still delivering gas to Germany. Many have wondered why Germany chose to go along with this project. Could it have been because the former chancellor realized that he was, in effect, creating his own future place of employment?"

Is it possible that Schroeder's anti-US Iraq position was personally motivated to curry favor with Vladimir Putin?  We may never know.  But the whole story raises a great deal of "what if" questions on a global scale. 

The Economist has many good articles on Gazprom and questions whether it is a company or an extension of the state.  This October 6th, 2005 article, "Russia's Energetic Enigma" explains Gazprom's influence.

"According to the scuttle-butt, Vladimir Putin has a plan for when his second and—as Russia's constitution requires—last presidential term expires in 2008. Rather than changing the constitutional rules or becoming prime minister, Mr Putin may become boss of Gazprom, Russia's state-controlled gas monopoly.

The rumour is as telling as it may turn out to be fanciful. Gazprom is a leviathan. Last week, it agreed to buy most of Sibneft, the country's fifth-biggest oil firm, in what will be the biggest takeover in Russian history. But Gazprom's gas resources are already so big that its new subsidiary barely disturbs the company's profile. Gas will still constitute 90% of its production next year. One Moscow investment bank calculates that for oil to account for half of its output, Gazprom would have to buy the entire Russian oil industry. Last year, Gazprom produced 20% of the world's gas. It has 60% of Russia's gas reserves and 16% of the world's. If it were a country, its oil and gas reserves combined would rank only behind Saudi Arabia's and Iran's."

If I were a German I would be extremely angry and would demand answers.  The Russo-German alliance never made sense from a historical paradigm of Germany's self-interest in Europe.  Gerhard Schroeder's sellout doesn't in itself provide the answer, but it does lead to plenty of questions and adds one more scandal to Germany's post-Cold War history of chancellors.  And Mr. Schroeder's decision could prove far more damaging to the world order than former Chancellor Helmut Kohl's financial scandal.

Political Will - Transforming Iraq (Part II)

Part I of this post can be found here.

The majority of Democrats in the nation's capitol speak of Iraq in terms of a loss.  One does not speak of withdrawing forces from a conflict when victory is in grasp unless there is a fundamental lack of commitment to achieving the objective: a democratic, region-changing Iraq.  Dawn's Early Light will take each of the charges listed in Part I that are argued by the Democrats along with a Beatroot's suggestion (in the comment section) that "we are less safe at home".

Charge 1: The War is Unjust

It is true that the claims of weapons of mass destruction did not bear out.  However, the record of atrocities of the Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein, including gassing its own people, invading both Iran and Kuwait, paying Palestinian suicide bombers' families for murdering Israelis, and flouting international law and resolutions of the United Nations over weapons inspections carry more weight than was mustered during the surgical European-US war in Serbia.

The Senate, then led by Democrats in October 2002, voted 77-23 (77%) in favor of the use of force.  The Congress voted 296-133 (69%).  Over two-thirds of Congress voted for the authorization of force.  Considering that Democrats made up 50% of the Congress at the time, the "Unjust War" theory seems hollow at best.  The passage of time, weakening of political will, and, frankly, political opportunism is tied up in the majority of Democratic statements about Iraq.

Charge 2: The War is Unwinnable

This has become the more common and long-lasting charge against the Bush administration.  However, the evidence does not support it, and one doesn't even have to take the American view to come to this conclusion.

The letter found by the United States from senior Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and leader of the terrorist/insurgency Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is revealing.  Retrieved in July 2005, the Director of National Intelligence sums up its points as follows:

• The centrality of the war in Iraq for the global jihad.
• From al Qa'ida's point of view, the war does not end with an American departure.
• An acknowledgment of the appeal of democracy to the Iraqis.
• The strategic vision of inevitable conflict, with a tacit recognition of current political dynamics in Iraq; with a call by al-Zawahiri for political action equal to military action.
• The need to maintain popular support at least until jihadist rule has been established.
• Admission that more than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media."

It clearly is not a letter written from the perspective of being on the eve of victory.  Al-Qaeda is losing in Iraq from their own perspective.  The last point is very telling with respect to the Democrat claims of losing the war.  It is difficult to argue that the Democratic position is not one that aids and emboldens the enemy to win "in the battlefield of the media" as lawmakers make statements in politically motivated press conferences.

The facts on the ground do not support a winning insurgency.  Bill Roggio, who has been following in detail the various US campaigns in Iraq and who is now reporting live from Iraq, tells a different story that what is parroted on the Sunday talk shows.  US operations such as Steel Curtain and the Anbar Campaign paint a wholly different story.  In "A Shift in Operations: The Wild West of Anbar isn't so wild anymore; the insurgency shifts back to the core," Mr. Roggio addresses where the military operations are ultimately heading:

"If you have a discussion with military officers in Western Anbar Province about the current and future status of military operations in the region, invariably the conversation will lead you to the reconstruction efforts of the Coalition. The phrases 'switching from kinetic to non-kinetic operations' or 'moving from kinetic operations to reconstruction' are often voiced."

This type of dedication to seeing the mission through to the end is what contributes to the major successes in Iraq.  The voter turnout in the 2005 January election in Iraq is estimated at 58%, and this amidst an insurgency that did its best to kill innocent Iraqis with massive bombings to dissuade and cower the population.  This signal, along with continued Coalition efforts to defeat the insurgency, led to an October 2005 vote on the Iraq Constitution that registered a 61% voter turnout. As voting begins for a new permanent Iraqi Parliament this week, Iraqis will again demonstrate their determination to build upon their electoral successes. 

For a nation and region with no history of fair voting, these rates are impressive, and would be impressive even for an industrialized country.  They clearly indicate to the world, even if not to the Democrats in Congress, that there is a strong desire by the Iraqis to organize a democratically elected government based on the rule of law.  Over 2,000 US soldiers have paid the ultimate price to ensure these successes.

From a micro level to a macro level, order and progress is being won in Iraq. A democracy is being born. 

Charge 3: Victory is not Worth the Cost

The death of 2,986 innocents on September 11, 2001 at the hands of Al-Qaeda was the awakening blow in the Global War on Terror.  The left will argue that Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or terrorism, but clearly the battle fought today against the insurgency is the battlefield between the US and terrorists (Al-Qaeda and others).  A loss in Iraq would embolden all those who seek the destruction of the US and Western values, much as the US withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 after the tactical win in the Battle of Mogadishu encouraged Osama bin Laden.

The US is the world's global power and historically has been a strong champion of democratic principles around the globe.  Abandoning Iraq would have consequences to US power and prestige, not to mention integrity, for generations to come.  While the loss of American lives in Iraq are individual and personal tragedies, their lives are not given in vain.  United States security depends increasingly on building a world order of democratic nations and removing the threat from rogue, repressive regimes.

Charge 4: The Bush Administration is Untrustworthy and Incapable of Victory

There will always be the zealots on the far right and far left of the political spectrum.  For those who believe that the White House is run by Vice President Dick Cheney or from the Pentagon by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or by the hated "neo-cons," there is little room for debate.  However, civility between lawmakers from both sides of the aisle is a must.  Politics should end at the water's edge in America.  The evidence supports that the war is winnable and that a democracy is being built in a region with no history of it that does have a history of breeding a hatred of the West.  This charge appears incredible when judged against the US success of thwarting attacks at home.  After the events of September 11, 2001, it was difficult to imagine the US would not have another major attack on its soil for over 4 years and counting as the battlefields shift around the world.

The current statements by the majority of Democrats betray the ideals of John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt.  The Bush Administration is focused on timetables for success in building a democracy while promising that US forces will remain until the job is accomplished.  This is political will and will be the defining memory of the Bush presidency. 

Maybe the Democrats believe their crticism is a winning campaign strategy, but it surely is not a winning strategy for securing freedom for Iraqis and America's allies and ultimately our own republic. 

For reference, the White House case for War was laid out on the White House website October 2, 2002.

Political Will - Transforming Iraq (Part I)

Iraq.  Just the word in any conversation brings up a good deal of emotions and strong debate.  Here in America the war in Iraq has become a non-stop argument from the Main Stream Media to the halls of Congress to the conversations among family members, co-workers and friends. 

However, the Democratic Party leadership has decided that it is time to declare Iraq a loss and discuss timetables of withdrawal.  Here is a sampling of their comments and proposals:

• Sen. John Kerry (D-MA and former Democratic Presidential 2004 nominee) along with Sen. Jack Reid (D-RI) held a news conference according to the Washington Post. "'No one has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins," Kerry said, referring to a passage in Bush's speech. 'No one is talking about running in the face of a challenge. We're talking about how to win, how to succeed, how do you best achieve our goals? That's the choice here. And what the president did not do today again is acknowledge the fundamental reality of the insurgency.'"
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-SF and Democratic Minority Leader) introduced legislation to set a timetable to bring US service-members home according to this SF Gate article. "'From the start, I've thought this war was a grotesque mistake,'' said Pelosi, who voted against the autumn 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to launch military operations against Saddam Hussein's regime. 'The question now is about the execution of the war. It's hard for anyone to argue that the war meets the standard of a strategy for success.''" Ms. Pelosi, according to the WaPo link above also stated, "We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable."
• Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) a former decorated Vietnam veteran and original supporter of the war said in a press conference: "When I said we can't win a military victory, it's because the Iraqis have turned against us. They throw a hand grenade or a rocket into American forces and the people run into the crowd and they -- nobody tells them where they are.  I am convinced, and everything that I've read, the conclusion I've reached is there will be less terrorism, there will be less danger to the United States and it'll be less insurgency once we're out."
• DNC Chair and former 2004 Democratic Presidential hopeful Howard Dean said "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

This is tantamount to leaders of the Republican Party in 1944 asking President Roosevelt for a timetable to bring the troops home from Europe and the Pacific Theater, which of course never happened.  It is impossible to argue that the war must be won while arguing for a timetable to retreat.   The Democrats listed above are far from the ideal of John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address who promised "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." [see DEL post regarding here]

While a good portion of the Democratic Party has united behind a message of defeat on Iraq, there is one glaring exception: Senator Joe Lieberman.  Sen. Lieberman "In public statements and a newspaper column... argued that Bush has a strategy for victory in Iraq, has dismissed calls for the president to set a timetable for troop withdrawal, and has warned that it would be a 'colossal mistake' for the Democratic leadership to 'lose its will' at this critical point in the war."

The Democratic argument is made up of elements of the following:

The war is unjust

The War is unwinnable

Victory is not worth the cost

The Bush Administration is incapable of winning the war and is untrustworthy

These are major claims and need to be addressed along with the Bush administration's responses, the facts on the ground in Iraq, and the record to date. 

Part I lays out the Democratic charge of failure and call to withdrawal from Iraq.  Part II will address where we stand in the battle to secure a democratic Iraq and the political resolve of the Bush administration to win at what cost.

Ms. Merkel's First Diplomatic Misstep

Dawn's Early Light must confess that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's first diplomatic outing with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was not reminiscent of Bismarck [See DEL post "Germany's Angela Merkel the Next Bismarck?"].  I am not ready yet to concede the field on the future ability of the German Chancellor, but I feel I must point to this Financial Times article (which is one of many similar stories).

"Angela Merkel and Condoleezza Rice were doing a good job of healing the rift between Germany and the US last Tuesday, until Germany’s new chancellor made a serious diplomatic gaffe.

The US secretary of state had admitted the kidnap of a German citizen by the American security services was a mistake, Ms Merkel said. As soon as the press conference was over US officials denied Ms Rice has said any such thing."

The European press jumped on this story and played it up, giving it plenty of attention.  However, it was a major meeting between the US and Germany and an opportunity to repair the relationship in a post-Schroeder environment.  Ms. Merkel flubbed this chance.  The FT continues:

"Did the chancellor intend to embarrass her guest by betraying her private confession? Was she lying? Had she unwittingly disclosed confidential information? Or was it just a slip of the tongue?

To Berlin veterans, the incident had a familiar feel. Ms Merkel has forged an unenviable reputation as an inept speaker in her 15-year political career. She is prone to lapsus linguae and not everything she says always makes sense.

Her electoral campaign last summer was peppered with blunders."

It is true that Ms. Merkel handed back to her SDP opponents much of the initial support she had going into the final voting.  It is clearly a black eye for Ms. Merkel, but I am guardedly optimistic that positive change is still in the air.