A Look at the 110th Congress
By John Isaacs | January 18, 2007
Early votes in the new Congress reveal a determined effort by Democrats to maintain party unity and also reveal a breakdown of the Republican unanimity that had dominated during much of the Bush presidency. But the hard votes on national security are still to come. Read full story.
See also the new Right Web congressional profiles:
Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA)
A new House Democrat with ties to high profile neocons might frustrate the plans of his fellow party members to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Often regarded as a centrist Republican, when it comes to foreign policy the prospective presidential candidate is strikingly neoconservative.
Somalia: A Recipe for Regional War?
By Thalif Deen | January 18, 2007
Does an alleged “al-Qaida-lite” leadership in Somalia justify escalating military conflict there? The United Nations can't seem to make up its mind, and the result might be a larger war. Read full story.
Raising the Rhetoric on Iran
Gareth Porter | January 18, 2007
Defense Secretary Robert Gates' get-tough rhetoric on Iran during a recent trip to Afghanistan was the latest in U.S. efforts to shift blame for its problems in Iraq. Read full story.
ALSO NEW ON RIGHT WEB
Right Web Profile: Gary Schmitt
A founder of the Project for the New American Century, Schmitt has criticized those neoconservatives who have developed misgivings about the invasion of Iraq.
Right Web Profile: Zalmay Khalilzad
The new nominee to be the U.S. rep to the UN brings with him a record of misguided policy recommendations, like arming mujahideen with stinger missiles.
Right Web Profile: Danielle Pletka
Hardliner Pletka is the brains behind AEI's Iraq Planning Group, which is promoting a surge of troops in Iraq even beyond what Bush wants.
ODDS AND ENDS
In polls this week, the U.S. public voiced overwhelming opposition to the Bush administration's plans to increase by more than 20,000 the number of troops in Iraq. According to the Los Angeles Times, a Times/Bloomberg poll showed that “more than three-fifths of those surveyed said the war was not worth fighting, and only one-third approved of his handling of the conflict.” Similarly, 33% approved of President George W. Bush's handling of the war, while 65% disapproved.
A poll of neoconservatives would likely reveal a similar breakdown, with the minor difference being that the neocons are disappointed about the low number of new troops and restricted geographical focus of military activities. According to the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen, the only recipe for success in Iraq is to couple a surge with a regime-change strategy for Iran and Syria. Writing in the National Review Online (January 9), Ledeen argued: “If we do not tackle Syria, we will simply provide the terrorists with more targets. If we do go after them, we may yet win this thing. As luck would have it, this is the ideal moment to go after the Iranians, since their supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is either dead or dying, and a vicious internal power struggle is under way in Tehran. We should propose a better solution to the Iranian people: revolution, leading to their freedom. That would require the president and the secretary of State to call for regime change in Iran and Syria, something from which they have always retreated in the past.”
Concluded Ledeen: “I f we want to win, that's the first step. Anybody ready?” Not the American people, apparently.
Adding voices to what might be termed the “surge plus” solution is the Iran Policy Committee, a nongovernmental group of elite former policymakers and rightist ideologues whose slogan is “Empowering Iranians for Regime Change.” During a press conference a few days before the president's national address on Iraq, the committee presented what they called “powerful evidence” that “Iran has become the primary killer of U.S. forces in Iraq.” Bruce McColm, longtime president of Freedom House who is currently a principal of the Iran Policy Committee, introduced Alireza Jafazadeh, president of Strategic Policy Consulting, who said he has received intelligence that Iran is forming an Iraq-based “terrorist infrastructure” in Iraq.
The Iran Policy Committee and Jafazadeh say that their main intelligence source is the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK), a militant Iranian dissident group. Both the committee and Jafazadeh, who is a foreign affairs analyst with FOX News Channel, are closely connected with the MEK. Prior to joining FOX, Jafazadeh was the chief congressional liaison for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a branch of the MEK. Raymond Tanter, present of the Iran Policy Committee, has long argued that the United States should implement Iran regime change by supporting the MEK. At the recent press conference, Tanter also argued that the MEK could help ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq. He proposed that the Bush administration contract MEK to act as an interlocutor in Iraq, “noting that the MEK already engages in quiet negotiations with Iraqi factions and has excellent relations with the U.S. military.”
LETTERS
RE: Right Web analysis “The Push behind the Surge”
Why are Kagan, et al. always referred to as scholars? Irrationality is not a sign of scholarship.
The goal of the majority of those paying attention to what is happening in Iraq is to bring the troops home immediately. The goals annunciated by the Bush/neocon cabal when we invaded and occupied Iraq have been achieved … Their long-range plans are dependent upon building permanent military bases in Iraq; control of the production and distribution of oil reserves in the Mid East; and the empowerment of Israel. For the neocons, failure to achieve victory in Iraq could mean the end of their imperialistic dreams. Victory in Iraq would just pave the road to the invasion and occupation of Iran, etc.
Robert Castle
IRC encourages feedback and comments. Send letters to rightweb@irc-online.org. IRC reserves the right to edit comments for clarity and brevity. Be sure to include your full name. Thank you.
