MSNBC: Live with Dan Abrams

On September 10, I appeared on MSNBC's Live with Dan Abrams along with fellow MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan. Here is a transcript of that segment:


MSNBC
LIVE WITH DAN ABRAMS
September 10, 2007 Monday



DAN ABRAMS, HOST: Speaking of Britney, later in the show, we`ll ask how her team of many actually allowed her to go on stage. Does she not have anyone who loves her enough, even likes her enough to say, Don`t go?

But first, the other eagerly anticipated September appearance, General David Petraeus and his long anticipated report on the progress in Iraq. Amid hecklers and microphone problems, he announced we will be able to start reducing a tiny fraction of the troops, and by next year, back, hopefully, to the level they were at earlier this year.

My take. The goalposts keep moving. The've changed the definition of victory, of success, of violence and now apparently of September, General Petraeus saying we need to wait for another assessment in March. The surge was implemented to offer Iraq political stability and stop the violence. Instead, it seems we`re constantly trying to get back to where we were the previous year. In terms of progress, violence and now troop numbers, when you look back at President Bush`s past comments and compare them to what General Petraeus and especially U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said today, it`s kind of depressing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We know that free societies are peaceful societies. So we`re helping the Iraqis build a free society with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the interests of all Iraqis.

RYAN C. CROCKER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ: But rather than being a period in which old animosities and suspicions were overcome, the past 18 months have further strained Iraqi society.

BUSH: And on the economic side, we`re helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure, reform their economy and build the prosperity that will give all Iraqis a stake in a free and peaceful Iraq.

CROCKER: Unlike our states, Iraqi provinces have little ability to generate funds through taxation, making them dependent on the central government for resources.

BUSH: We`re reaching out to Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan, asking them to support the Iraqi government`s efforts to persuade Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms and accept national reconciliation.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER: We believe that Saudi Arabia is still probably the largest country in terms of the foreign fighters, although that again may be diminishing somewhat, and there are certainly others that come from North Africa, Jordan, Syria, and so forth, into Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: So even if you take Petraeus and Crocker at face value, still major discrepancies between what was hoped for and where we are now.

Joining me now, Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona, MSNBC military analyst, and MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan. Gentlemen, thanks for coming on. Appreciate it. All right.

Colonel Francona, I mean, do you not think the goalposts seem to constantly be shifting?

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA, MSNBC MILITARY ANALYST: Boy, it sure looks that way. You know, when the general was testifying today and he said we`re going to be able to reduce our troop strength starting in December, and then moving through March and then into next year, he said, basically, we`re going to get back to where we were a year ago. So that`s correct. But he didn`t even commit to doing that. He said, We`ll start the withdrawal, and then we`ll take another look at it in March. So if you assume that the only piece of this that`s even working is the military side, you've got to even question that, given what the general said today.

ABRAMS: Pat, I mean, it constantly seems like we`re trying to get back to where we were the previous year.

PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, where we`re going to wind up, Dan, is in November of 2008, exactly where you were in November of 2006, with about 130,000 American troops in Iraq. And this, I think, is the president`s objective. He doesn't want this to fall and collapse on his watch. And I think, politically, he`s succeeded because I think the anti-war Democrats are basically beaten. They are not going to try to substitute their judgment for General Petraeus's.

ABRAMS: But Pat, isn't that kind of sad, that what you just said is that there`s a political decision being made here, when we`re talking about American lives and a war in Iraq?

BUCHANAN: Well, I do believe this. I believe the president speaks the truth when he says if we pull out and draw down too rapidly, as General Petraeus said, we will have disastrous consequences. I think both men believe that, Dan, and I think they believe if you pulled out the troops rapidly, that would happen. And I think the Democrats believe that. That`s why they won`t defund the war.

ABRAMS: Right. But Rick, is the only choice here bringing down the number of troops rapidly and basically bringing us back to where we were earlier this year? I mean, it seems to me that there`s got to be another choice in there, which is to slowly bring down the troop numbers.

FRANCONA: Well, that`s what he`s talking about doing. He`s talking about starting in December, bringing home a combat -- brigade combat team, and then more as 2008.

ABRAMS: Right. But by 2008, getting us back to the numbers we were at earlier this year.

FRANCONA: Right. Right. Well, he`s not going to withdraw -- he`s not going to reduce the troop strength any less than that, and the only reason he`s doing that is the Army basically cannot afford to deploy anymore troops. We are totally deployed, and if he doesn't reduce them, he won`t be able to keep up this ops tempo. So there are political -- there are military realities that are driving this.

But I think, to pick up on what Pat said, I think -- I think that what he did today, whether it was by design or not -- and I`ll let Pat make that analysis -- I think he really torpedoed the Democratic efforts to put some sort of timetable into legislation. I think that that is -- that ship has sailed.

BUCHANAN: Dan, the bottom line is the anti-war Democrats have been defeated horse, foot and dragoons. And quite frankly, they are not going to impose a deadline. They don`t have the ability to do it. They don`t want to do it. They don`t have the courage to do it. They`re going to follow Warner`s lead, and Warner is on all fours with General Petraeus.

ABRAMS: Let me play another piece of sound here. This is -- again, this is comparing President Bush to what was said today, this one by Ambassador Crocker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Victory is a government that can sustain itself, govern -- a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself and serves as an ally in the war on terror.

CROCKER: There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory. Any turning point will likely only be recognized in retrospect.(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: Does anyone care? I think that we keep changing the terms of the conversation, that President Bush talks about victory, and then when it seems like they can`t get victory, we change the way we describe this? Let me go to Rick. I've talked to Pat about this before. Go ahead, Rick.

FRANCONA: No, I agree with you. You know, what was a grandiose plan years ago has morphed into...

ABRAMS: But no one admits it, Rick!

FRANCONA: ... Let`s just get us out of here.

ABRAMS: No one admits it. No one will say, We are changing the way we talk about this because it hasn't worked out the way we hoped.

FRANCONA: Well, of course, they`re not going to say that. But as they keep moving -- as you say, moving the goalposts, I think what they`re doing is reality is beginning to set in and they`re going to take what they can get. They want to be able to get out of there without allowing Iran to just waltz in there and take over to fill that power vacuum. And I think that`s what they`re trying to do, come up with that balance between not letting Iraq fall into the bloodbath that it is and Iran becoming the power broker in the region. It`s very difficult.

BUCHANAN: Dan...

ABRAMS: Let me play one more piece of sound...

BUCHANAN: Sure.

ABRAMS: ... comparing President Bush and what was said today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: We`re helping Iraqi leaders to complete work on a national compact to resolve the most difficult issues dividing their country. The new Iraqi government has condemned violence from all quarters and agreed to a schedule for resolving issues.

CROCKER: It is no exaggeration to say that Iraq is and will remain for some time to come a traumatized society. It is against this backdrop that development in Iraqi national politics must be seen.(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: So Pat, isn't it fair to say, then, considering what President Bush said the goals were, that in essence, what we heard today was we have failed?

BUCHANAN: Look, you`re exactly right here, Dan. We started off, It`s going to be a democratic, free, pro-Western Iraq with relations with Israel, a model for the Middle East. What we are doing now is -- Bush, I believe, and Petraeus and I think Crocker saying, in effect, We have to stay this course to prevent a strategic disaster and a humanitarian catastrophe and an Iranian takeover of half of Iraq.

ABRAMS: All right. Pat Buchanan, as always, appreciate it. Lieutenant Francona -- Lieutenant Colonel...

(LAUGHTER)

ABRAMS: Lieutenant -- I hate it when they put that in there! Colonel -- Colonel Francona.

BUCHANAN: Promote the guy. Promote the guy!

ABRAMS: Colonel. Yes. Good to see you. Thanks a lot.

FRANCONA: Good to see you.

Quoted on CNBC blog

(excerpted)

9-11 Remembered

Wall Street today sadly remembers the thousands killed in the World Trade towers, in the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania six years ago with ceremonies and moments of silence.

Air Force Lt. Col Rick Francona, (ret.), an NBC military analyst, shared his thoughts with us yesterday on whether America and Wall Street are any safer since 9-11. "I think we are safer, but I definitely don't think we're safe," he said.

Francona, a Middle East expert, said however he believes al-Qaeda will more likely seek out targets like the military installations it attempted to attack in Germany.

German police last week arrested suspected Islamic militants who were said to be planning massive attacks on U.S. military targets in Germany.

Those types of targets make sense and officials need to be especially vigilant overseas, he said. "That's the largest concentration of Americans outside the United States ... that's where they need to be looking," he said.

(end quote)
-----
Note: Patti Domm is CNBC Executive Editor, News, responsible for news coverage of the markets and economy. She hired me as an analyst in 2003 for a 60-day stint....

The bin Ladin video - a unique confluence of events

As we commemorate the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 al-Qa'idah attacks on the United States, we have a new video from Usamah bin Ladin - the first actual video of him since October 2004. The release of the video also coincides with the upcoming status report to Congress by the commander of American forces in Iraq. One has to wonder if the three events are coincidental or merely serendipitous.

The video is interesting and a bit different than previous videos from bin Ladin. The most important thing about the video is the "proof of life." It is bin Ladin speaking about contemporaneous subjects, thus dating the video to the summer of 2007. The good news: it answers the question, "Is he alive?" The bad news: he's alive.

I have watched and listened to all of the bin Ladin releases over the past years, both video and audio. In this video, he appears to have dyed his hair and beard. Although this practice is common among Arab men, we've never seen bin Ladin exhibit such vanity. Thus, it does raise questions as to why he chose to appear this way. If he had dyed the beard with henna, that would be in keeping with some Islamic traditions, as it is believed that Muhammad used henna to dye his hair and beard. The black dye is puzzling. Is it vanity, or meant to hide something?

Bin Ladin also appeared to be a bit heavier in the face, but his shoulders were narrow and he seemed a bit frail, more so than I recall in the 2004 video. That said, his voice was strong and measured, actually sounding better than in 2004. His syntax was excellent - he was obviously reading a prepared text, but there were no signs of weakness in the voice.

The text itself is interesting. This message is not aimed at al-Qa'idah, this is squarely aimed at the anti-war left in the United States. Bin Ladin fully realizes that his organization cannot defeat the Americans on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan or possibly in the future in Pakistan - he can only defeat the United States by using public opinion. He would like for the war in Iraq in particular to stop, since the American military and Sunni tribal militias are now extracting a severe toll on his so-called mujahidin.

Of note, he chided the Democrats for winning an election on the promise they would end the war and have not. He likened the continuation of the war to what he called John Kennedy's failure to end the war in Vietnam - an obvious incorrect historical reference to Lyndon Johnson.

Bin Ladin also raises all the standard anti-war rhetoric - Bush lied, the neoconservatives misled, a million orphans in Baghdad, over 650,000 Iraqi dead, it's about oil, etc. He even used the phrase, "money talks." I would assess that all these references indicate the hand of indicted American traitor Adam Pearlman (AKA Adam Gadahn).

The release of the video coincides with the sixth anniversary September 11th. Bin Ladin says that to convince us that the war is wrong, he has ordered an escalation in the attacks and killings in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as elsewhere. I suspect that there are planned al-Qa'idah operations such as the one just thwarted in Germany, aimed at the American air base at Ramstein, headquarters of United States Air Forces in Europe. Combined with U.S. Army installations in the immediate area, it is the largest concentration of American military personnel and their families outside the United States. The area presents a lucrative and relatively soft target.

Bin Ladin is still out there. While many of our politicians want to bring him to justice, I'd rather have American forces bring justice to him and his.

The Petraeus report will make no difference

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

The Petraeus report will make no difference
Francona: Congress already knows its response — insisting on withdrawal

COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst
MSNBC

Next week, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will deliver the much-anticipated report on the status of the “surge” operations that have been ongoing since earlier in the year.

The report will be no surprise. It will say the military operations are starting to turn to the tide against al-Qaida, there is moderate political progress with some Sunni tribes, the Iraqi security forces are only slowly getting up to speed, and the Iraqi government still has major problems.

I suspect that no matter what the ambassador and the general have to say, it will make no difference. Those who favor the immediate withdrawal of American forces will try again to legislate an end to the war pretty much as they did in 1975 in Vietnam. The difference is that in Vietnam we cut off funding to the Vietnamese whereas here we are talking about cutting off funds to our own troops.

In Vietnam we declared victory, withdrew our forces, and left the Vietnamese to fend for themselves. It was an act which led to millions of deaths in Southeast Asia. Now, too many of our elected representatives are perfectly willing to declare defeat and leave Iraq.

Yes, I know the rhetoric; we are leaving Iraq, but not the region that is so vital to our national interests.

If you do not believe the Persian Gulf is vital to America’s national interests, I have one word for you: oil. They have it and we — along with the rest of the world — need it.

Despite the fact that the United States imports less than 20 percent of our oil from the Gulf region, oil is probably the ultimate fungible commodity. It does not matter where your oil comes from, it only matters how much is available on the world market. Take off the table the 25 percent of the world’s oil that flows from the Persian Gulf every day and the countries that rely on Gulf oil for the majority of their energy like Japan, China and India who will be bidding to buy oil from our suppliers and the price will skyrocket.

We will not leave the Gulf. It has been our national policy to guarantee the flow of Persian Gulf oil with military force if necessary since President Carter first stated it in 1980. Yet we are willing to watch Iraq, who has the world’s second largest proved reserve, descend into a Sunni-Shia bloodbath, or become the next al-Qaida stronghold, or both. The probability of al-Qaida achieving a victory in what they themselves have designated the primary battlefield in their jihad against the West is becoming less likely due to the recent success of military operations combined with cooperation from the tribal shaykhs in al-Anbar governorate.

Of course, that assessment only holds true as long as there is sufficient U.S. military force on the ground to continue aggressive operations against the group, a military presence that will need to remain until the Iraqis are capable of doing it for themselves. How long will that be? I doubt General Petraeus knows yet, but for sure no one in Congress does.

American forces have been in Iraq since March 2003 — far too long. We all agree that this war should have been over long ago. Whether you supported the invasion or not, once the troops were deployed, we owe it to them to conduct this war aggressively, efficiently and quickly. After the fall of Baghdad and until the surge operations of earlier this year, we did none of the above.

It appears that the leadership in Washingtonm, either at the White House or the Pentagon, has finally figured it out and committed the right combination of commanders and resources to conduct the war effectively. I fear it may be too little too late.

What the commanders on the ground in Iraq need now is time, the one resource Congress will not provide. The Crocker-Petraeus report will be delivered next week, but the Congressional responses to that report have already been written.

We could have and should have won this one.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

Saudis less trusting of America these days

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Saudis less trusting of America these days
Despite concerns, security of Saudi Arabia will continue to be a U.S. priority

MILITARY ANALYSIS
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst - MSNBC

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is increasing its oilfield security forces from 5,000 to 35,000. This dramatic increase in security, at considerable expense, is a response to changes in the geopolitical landscape brought about by the events of 2001 and the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saudi Arabia no longer perceives the United States as the ultimate guarantor of its security as it did back in the 1990s.

When Saudi Arabia appeared to be the target of Saddam Hussein’s armies in August 1990, the United States deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to defend Saudi Arabia, Operation Desert Shield, and only later was the liberation of Kuwait, Operation Desert Storm, considered. The initial concern was the defense of the kingdom and of course, its vast oil facilities and the world’s largest proved reserves.

What has changed since then to make the Saudis wary of their American allies? The Saudis only have to look north and see the turmoil in Iraq and the toll it has taken on American public opinion about the presence of American forces in the region. It is a two-edged sword for Riyadh. Not only do the Saudis believe the seemingly endless war in Iraq will result in the decline of American influence in the Persian Gulf region, they further believe it is ushering in the rise of Iranian power.

Over the years, Saudi Arabia has had ambivalent relations with Iran at best, and almost a war-like footing at worst. The two have always been at odds over who should be the power broker in the Persian Gulf. Note that only the Iranians call it the Persian Gulf and the Arabs refer to it as the Arab Gulf. Most of our politically-correct maps these days call it “The Gulf.”

Shifting American interests
American policy prior to the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran was to engage both Iran and Saudi Arabia, the “twin pillars” strategy. Of course, after the fall of the Shah, our policy changed to ensuring the security of the Saudi monarchy-theocracy, despite its lack of democratic procedures and a poor human rights record. During the "twin pillars" days, the United States could press for reforms in the kingdom. That ability, however, was removed with the Shah. Stability in Saudi Arabia became even more vital to American foreign policy interests. Our policy focus became the free flow of oil from the Gulf, rather than democratic reforms in the kingdom.

America's continued mishandling of the war in Iraq provides a real opportunity for Iran to make a play to become the key power in the Gulf region, and Tehran has taken full advantage. Iranian special forces teams are operating in Iraq supporting and arming Shia militias, including that of Muqtada al-Sadr. It continues to expand its military and develop additional capabilities, including longer-range missile systems, and has embarked on what almost every rational thinker believes is a nuclear weapons program.

The rulers of Saudi Arabia, the House of Sa’ud, are increasingly concerned that the United States may not be willing to play a stabilizing role in the region, especially if a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq hands Iran a victory and breeds a new isolationist attitude in the minds of most Americans. The Saudis likely assess that in the not too distant future, it will be forced to defend itself from threats foreign and domestic. Who can blame them?

Understanding Saudi Arabia's al-Qaida connection
Saudi Arabia, incubator of many of the world’s most infamous terrorists, now also finds itself in the crosshairs of al-Qaida. Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden openly declared war on the royal family, which was off limits for the group for many years. Although the royal family had been despised by bin Laden since the late King Fahd invited American troops to the holy ground, the continuous flow of money from wealthy Saudis to al-Qaida was critical for the group’s survival. When Saudi authorities responded to American demands that they choke off the funds, al-Qaida reacted.

Bin Laden has publicly called for attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities. In February 2006 there was a failed attack on the huge Abqaiq oil processing compound, an attack that awakened the Saudis to the vulnerability of their oil facilities. It also indicated al-Qaida’s intent to damage the oil infrastructure as an attack on both the Kingdom and the West.

The Saudis believe they have threats from two fronts, al-Qaida and Iran. They also are wary of American resolve to ensure their security. Is that assessment valid? Perhaps it should be of concern to them but the bottom line is that the security of Saudi Arabia was, is, and will be, a vital interest of the United States for some time to come. While there are questions about our policy in Iraq, there are none about the importance of the free flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

Syria and Iran need to rethink their choices

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Syria and Iran need to rethink their choices
Francona: Both countries must become responsive to diplomacy

MILITARY ANALYSIS
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst - MSNBC

A quick glance at the map of the Middle East and the changes in the geopolitical landscape since the events of September 11, 2001, shows that Iran and Syria have been almost surrounded by states now friendly to the United States and the West. However, Iraq sits in between these two pariah–like state allies. Both are involved in the support, either tacit or outright, of groups killing American troops.

Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While this meeting was taking place, American forces were chasing members of Iranian elite special operations units in Iraq. They are suspected of funding, training and equipping Shia militias who have American blood on their hands. Not a week later, al-Maliki shows up in Damascus to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. For al-Maliki, it may have been a somewhat of a reunion, after he was sentenced to death by Saddam Hussein in 1980, al-Maliki sought refuge in Iran and later Syria, so he has history with both regimes.

Just as Ahmadinejad denied any involvement with militias in Iraq, al-Assad claimed that he was doing all he could to stop the flow of men and weapons across the Syrian border into Iraq. He claimed that the border was porous and impossible to completely control.

I will take exception to the Syrian president’s claims. I served in Syria as a military attaché and it was my job to be aware of the security situation in the country. I made numerous trips to the Iraq border area although it was difficult to get anywhere near it without the consent of the Syrian government. Regardless of al-Assad’s claims, Syria is a police state in which virtually everything that happens there is done with regime knowledge and acquiescence. The very thought that al-Qaida recruits or arms are entering Syria and crossing into Iraq without the knowledge and approval of the Syrian government -- and that means al-Assad himself -- is ludicrous.

Al-Assad’s other remarks are equally ludicrous. His prime minister, who is only a mouthpiece since no one serves or speaks without the consent of al-Assad, uttered the same refrain we have heard before claiming that the withdrawal of American forces is the solution to the problem. He demanded a timetable for that withdrawal. In reality, the withdrawal of American forces would give Syria and its primary ally, Iran, the roles of primary power brokers in Iraq. The timetable would tell the al-Qaida fighters in the west and the Shia militias in Baghdad and the south just how long they have to wait for victory.

Which country is calling the shots?
Does anyone think that al-Assad has come up with this on his own? The strategy for Syria’s position and demands was not formulated in Damascus; it was dictated in Tehran. Iran is calling the shots here. Without Iranian support, the al-Assad regime would die on the vine. Of course, Syria has its value to Iran. Without access to Syria, Iran would be hard-pressed to support its clients -– Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.

Al-Maliki’s visit to Damascus only bolsters Syria’s position. Al-Maliki coming as an apparent supplicant to al-Assad gives Syria, and by extension Iran, legitimacy as a power broker in the region. Al-Maliki also made the point that he was not visiting to deliver a message from the United States. He was only visiting to speak to a fellow Arab leader. Granted, al-Maliki has to live in the neighborhood, but this gesture only convinces al-Assad he has the upper hand.

Al-Assad believes Syrian influence in the region is on the rise. It has been instrumental in resupplying Hezbollah; has regained much of its lost influence in Lebanon after being forced to pull out its troops after almost three decades; and now is being granted the status of a key player in what happens in Iraq.

Syria is part of the problem, not the solution. Maybe it’s about time we spoke to Syria directly and frankly, it is one of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. We have an embassy in Damascus, although the ambassador has been recalled since early 2005 in the aftermath of Syrian complicity in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minster Rafiiq al-Hariri.

I suggest we tell Syria the same thing we should be telling the Iranians: your actions are responsible for the deaths of American troops. If it continues, you will pay a price. Of course, if we say it, we have to mean it.

Does that sound like a threat? Well, in all my dealings with the Syrians, I have found that they understand threats – they’re not real responsive to diplomacy.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Enemies of U.S. are friends of Iran
Iran backs a former enemy to combat American and pro-Western troops

MILITARY ANALYSIS
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst - MSNBC

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has accused Iran of not only supplying money, weapons and training to Shia militias in Iraq, but also accuses Tehran of supplying weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan. This would represent a reversal of Iran’s past relationship with the Taliban; Iran supported the Afghan Northern Alliance against the Taliban in the late 1990’s until the Taliban was ousted by the American invasion in 2001.

Why would Iran now support its former enemy? Simple. Iran’s former enemy is now the enemy of the United States. In other words, as they say in the Middle East, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It’s the same reason the United States supported Iraq against Iran in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. Our support to the regime of Saddam Hussein was not about helping Iraq or Saddam, it was about containing Iran.

When Tehran sends weapons to the Taliban, it is not about supporting the Taliban. It is about combating American troop presence and the American-backed government in Kabul.

Tightening the noose
Put yourself in Iran’s position. Look at a map of the region and consider the changes that have taken place since 2001. You might begin to feel isolated and surrounded.

To the east, Afghanistan is run by an American-backed government, not to mention the presence of tens of thousands of American, NATO and other pro-Western troops. To the southeast is Pakistan, an American ally in the war on terrorism. To the south across the Persian Gulf are the six pro-American Arab countries of the Gulf Cooperation council (Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait) that are concerned about your nuclear weapons and missile programs, military modernization and the desire to export your brand of the Islamic Revolution. On your western border is Iraq, currently hosting 150,000 American troops.

The northern tier does not look any more comforting. To the northwest is Turkey, a NATO member also concerned about your nuclear and missile programs. North of your border are the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia – both pro-West. The only potential bright spot is northern neighbor Turkmenistan, which seemed to be leaning your way until the death of the former president. Now the new president is playing the Russia card, prompting Iranian prime minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to travel to the area in hopes of retaining at least one friend on the border. All three newly independent states are members of NATO’s Partners for Peace program.

From the Iranian perspective, the inescapable conclusion when looking at the borders –- America’s allies are beginning to tighten the noose. If it’s not American troops, it’s NATO (take a look at Afghanistan). If not NATO, it’s the NATO Partners for Peace program members. To make matters worse, America’s European allies have imposed sanctions, however ineffective, over the uranium enrichment issue.

Supporting America's enemies
Any decision for Iranian support to groups who are opposing the Americans comes directly from Tehran. Those orders are given to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force, the elite special operations and covert action organization that has seen action in Lebanon, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq and now apparently Afghanistan. The Iranians are feeling the pressure as economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation takes its toll. They believe they must respond to try to counteract what they perceive as growing American/Western influence in the region.

The obvious way to do this is to increase support the Iraqi Shia militias they have been supporting for years. These militias include the Badr Corps of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) under Abdul Aziz Hakim and probably—and of more concern—the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Jaysh al-Mahdi, commonly known as “the JAM.” The American command in Iraq claims that they have captured Iranian-made explosively formed projectiles, the deadly Iranian-made, armor-piercing munitions used in roadside bombs responsible for killing over 100 American troops. Additionally, Iranian training to these militia groups has resulted in much more accurate and effective mortar and rocket attacks against coalition targets.

It may be that the Iranians have determined that their best bet to break what they believe is the stranglehold on their country is to expand their relationships with other countries in Central and South Asia. In addition to supplying weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, they are stepping up diplomatic contact with Turkmenistan. Both Iranian president Ahmadinejad and the president of Turkmenistan are attending the summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional organization consisting of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, possibly hoping to join the group. This would be a good move for Iran, since both SCO members Russia and China are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and have veto authority over potential resolutions that increase sanctions on Iran.

Iran continues to be a pariah nation and perceives itself to be surrounded by hostile, or at least pro-American regimes. We should not be surprised that they are supporting the Taliban. Will we next see an alliance between the Iranians and the ultimate anti-American group, al-Qaida? After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

Dutch Priest - Call God "Allah"

A Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands has suggested that members of all faiths begin to refer to God as "Allah."

Let's put this in perspective. The word Allah is a contraction of two Arabic words: al meaning "the" and ilah meaning "god", thus "the God." It is not a name, it's a description. Christians who speak Arabic often refer to God as Allah. After all, Allah, God, Jahweh, Jehovah - however you refer to the deity - is the same entity for the three religions.

In the Arabic language, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are called "the three heavenly religions" and their adherents are referred to as "people of the book."

I was surprised to read comments by Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations idenitifying Allah as a name. Surely his understanding of Arabic is sufficient enough to distinguish the Arabic words versus a name.

Bottom line: it's two words, not a name.

Why are we still talking to Iran?

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Why are we still talking to Iran?
There's a problem with engaging the same people killing our soldiers

MILITARY ANALYSIS
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst
MSNBC

According to the Iranian First Vice President, “The Islamic Republic of Iran has always made a special effort to help provide and strengthen security in Iraq.” He made that propaganda-like statement while hosting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Tehran. Al-Maliki’s visit comes just days after the first meeting in Baghdad of a security committee composed of American, Iraqi and Iranian officials established to address the situation in Iraq.

Ironically, at the same time al-Maliki is in Tehran talking to Iranian officials, American forces carried out a raid on Sadr City. In that raid, 32 militants were killed and an additional 12 detained; all 45 have suspected ties to Iran. Yes, that’s right, Iran, our “partners” in stabilizing Iraq. While al-Maliki is dining with the Iranians, American soldiers are being killed by the weapons provided by that very government. According to senior American military officers, almost three quarters of American casualties in July can be attributed to Iranian-backed Shia militias.

In the past, al-Maliki has objected to, and at times attempted to prohibit, American raids into the slum that is the stronghold of Shia militias, especially that of the virulently anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Maliki, himself a Shia and former deputy head of the militant Islamic Dawa party, has sought to protect his Shia power base, often at the expense of American military operations in the country.

So why is al-Maliki in Tehran? Let’s not lay all the blame on al-Maliki. Before we do that, perhaps we Americans should ask ourselves, “Why are we talking to these people?” After all, American diplomats came up with the security committee idea and met on at least thee occasions with Iranian diplomats. All this plays right into Iran’s hand.

By talking to the Iranians, we have legitimized the regime in Tehran, arguably the world’s greatest state sponsor of terrorism, the same regime with a history of American blood on its hands. According to Iran’s senior national security advisor, the United States was forced to ask Tehran for its help in stabilizing Iraq. Doesn’t the Bush administration see a problem with seeking assistance from the same people who are killing its soldiers? We used to call that “suing for peace,” diplo-speak for “we give up.”

This only compounds the serious errors in executing the war almost immediately after the fall of Baghdad. By all accounts, the defeat of Iraqi forces and the removal of the Bath regime of Saddam Hussein was executed brilliantly by the American armed forces. It was afterwards that things fell apart. Agreeing to talk to the Iranians is just a continuation of that miserable performance.

Who’s stellar idea was that?

The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group recommended that we talk to Syria and Iran, the two countries that are a major part of the problem. I said it was the wrong thing to do then, and still believe that. It’s even more of a mistake now that we have competent military leadership pursuing what appears to be a winning strategy in Iraq. Attacks in al-Anbar governorate are down, cities that a year ago were controlled by jihadists are not today, al-Qaida in Iraq appears to be on the decline. What is not on the decline, in fact the opposite is true, is Iranian meddling in Iraq affairs. At about the same time the ISG recommended we talk to Iran, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps began providing the extremely lethal explosively formed penetrator to Shia militias, responsible for killing and maiming over 100 American troops thus far.

So we’re talking to the Iranians. How’s that working out so far? The Iranians talk to us in Baghdad, host the Iraqi prime minister in Tehran, all while providing the money, weapons and training that are killing our troops. I’d say it’s not working out very well.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

Fear of Iran creates strange bedfellows

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Fear of Iran creates strange bedfellows
Mideast nations overlook differences to unite against the threat of Iran

MILITARY ANALYSIS
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst - MSNBC

The Bush administration proposes to sell $30 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other "moderate"Arab countries. Surprisingly, the only real objections are coming from members of the U.S. Congress rather than from who you might expect – the Israelis. Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert said, “We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran."

Why aren't the Israelis up in arms, so to speak?

Almost every time the United States has proposed selling high-tech weaponry to Arab countries in the past, the Israelis have objected and mobilized their supporters (“the lobby”) to derail the deal or at least mitigate the effect. For example, when the United States sold F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia in the 1980's, Israel insisted that the avionics package included in the deal be of lesser capability than that of Israeli air force F-15's and was not to include the conformal fuel tanks (known as “fast packs”) that would extend the range of the Saudi fighters to pose a threat to the Jewish state. Similar, although unsuccessful, efforts were mounted to prevent the sale of AWACS aircraft to the Kingdom.

There is a lot of behind-the-scenes political maneuvering going on in the region -- nothing new. The Israelis have determined that their primary threat, or as they say, the "existential threat," is Iran. Although they are technically still in a state of war with some of the Arab countries, they have made peace with two key players – Egypt and Jordan. Syria, an ally of Iran, remains the critical holdout.

'No war without Egypt, no peace without Syria'
There is an old Middle East adage: "No war without Egypt, no peace without Syria." Israel recently failed to strike a deal with Damascus that would end Iran's access to Syria's airports and thus prevent Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from providing money, weapons and training to Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups in the Levant. After Syrian president Bashar al-Assad stated that he would be willing to have direct talks with Israel, it only took Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad two days to get on a plane to Damascus and make sure Syria remained in Tehran's sphere of influence. He also brought $1 billion for the cash-strapped Syrian regime to buy weapons from Iran.

If the Israelis cannot entice the Syrians away from their primary sponsor in return for a commitment to return the occupied Golan Heights, the next step is to not stand in the way of American efforts to bolster the moderate Arabs states as a counterbalance to growing Iranian power and influence. If Iran is truly the existential threat to Israel, anything that mitigates Iranian capabilities is a good thing.

The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan recently visited Jerusalem to talk to the Israelis about regional security. The initial announcement about the visit touted it as the first overture by the Arab League to Israel. Arab League sponsorship of the meeting was later withdrawn in the face of opposition from some member states, but in essence it was in fact an overture on behalf of the League. The visit was driven by the realization on the part of the mainstream Arabs that there is one common concern they share with the Israelis – the ascendancy of Iran as a major power broker in the region. There is another Middle East adage (there are plenty of them), “The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Fear of Iran creates strange bedfellows.

Let's not overlook the fact that part of the arms deal includes a 25 percent increase in the amount of American military aid for Israel, estimated to be at about $30 billion over the next ten years. Although there is substantial support to Arab states, Israel gains as well.

Something to keep in the back of your mind as this all plays out: none of the Arab states that are involved in this deal, in fact, virtually none of the Arab states with the exception of Syria, want to see an Iran with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. It does not appear that there is an international diplomatic solution to this problem, nor are the Israelis sure that anyone else (like the United States) is willing to act militarily against the Iranian nuclear research facilities. At some point, the leadership in Tel Aviv may decide that they have to attempt an attack. It's a long way from Israel to Iran, virtually all of if through Arab airspace.

Perhaps the Arabs are going to look the other way as the Israeli jets pass through? Sounds far-fetched, right? So does an Arab League delegation meeting with the Israelis. So does almost no Israeli objection to the sale of advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive