We Win, You Lose

It is wonderful news that America's enemy, Muammar Gaddafi, has been overthrown and killed.  He murdered hundreds of Americans, in the bombing of Pan Am 103 and other terrorist acts.

It is very unfortunate, and much to President Reagan's discredit, that we didn't overthrow Gaddafi in the 1980s when he was engaged in multiple attacks on Americans.  Reagan's bombing of Libya in 1986, in retaliation for Gaddafi's terrorist attack at a Berlin disco that killed American servicemen, didn't go far enough.  By hurting Gaddafi, but not killing him or ending his regime, it allowed Gaddafi to bide his time to strike back at America - which he did with the Pan Am 103 bombing in December 1988 that killed 270 people, most of whom were Americans returning home for Christmas.

For those who questioned America's national interest in removing Gaddafi, it is this:  an enemy of ours who kills Americans must suffer the ultimate consequence - so that others are deterred in the first place from attacking Americans in the future.

Tragically, much of our foreign policy does not allow us to achieve this deterrence, willing to sweep attacks on America under the rug out of fear of escalating a situation into an international crisis.

It is hard to argue with success, and Barack Obama deserves credit for playing a role in Gaddafi's demise. But Obama was willing to let the Libyan rebels go to the brink of annihilation before being dragged into intervening, and by waiting so long it turned an easier task into a much harder one.

Moreover, it raises profound concerns over how often, and to what degree, will Obama take our national security to the edge of success or failure again - such as in dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Miscalculating the point of no return in overthrowing Gaddafi is one thing; doing so regarding the destruction of Iran's nuclear program would be catastrophic for America.

The Syrian Treatment

An American diplomat was recently hooded, roughed up, and detained by Syrian security agents.

In a different era, such behavior would be considered an act of war and America would respond accordingly. But in such a world, the prospect of America's response would have deterred Syria from engaging in this thuggish behavior to begin with.

Either Or

The Obama administration's policy toward the Libyan revolution is a study in inconsistency. We have taken acts consistent with waging war against Gadhafi's regime, such as freezing $32 billion in assets, while at the same time being unwilling to help the rebellion succeed.

Half measures are dangerous because they risk hurting America no matter how the situation turns out. If Gadhafi maintains his grip on power, he will remember how we turned on his regime by freezing assets. And if the rebellion succeeds, we won't get the same credit with the rebels as if he were more forthcoming in our help.

While there are risks that a new government in Libya won't be friendly toward the United States or that terrorists could find a new haven if instability reigns in the country, there are two important reasons for America to support the rebellion with military assistance if requested in addition to the desire we have to see a tyrant deposed.

First, it is important to remember that Gadhafi waged war against the United States throughout the 1980's through terrorism, culminating in blowing up Pam Am 103 in 1988 and killing 270 people, primarily Americans. Let's not confuse ourselves that he didn't fight us in a conventional way, with armies, navies, or air forces clashing, and thus it doesn't somehow count as waging war. Precisely because Libya couldn't fight the United States in a conventional military battle, Gadhafi battled us in a way best suited to their capabilities.

It would have been ideal if the United States had removed Gadhafi from power in the 1980's, and the Reagan and first Bush administrations deserve deep criticism for not doing so. But it is better late than never that America's enemies suffer the consequences for killing Americans and waging war against us, and since the opportunity uniquely presents itself to ally ourselves with the rebels to destroy Gadhafi's regime, we should do so.

The second reason is that if we don't help the rebels, we will be sending a terrible signal to potential revolutionaries in countries, such as Iran, where regime change may be critical to making America safer. If Gadhafi's assaults on his people succeeds and he maintains his grip on power, tyrants in other countries will see that the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia were overthrown when their militaries didn't ruthlessly suppress their revolutions, while the Libyan regime protected itself by unleashing its military on the rebels.

It is time for Barack Obama to protect America's interests and deliver a decisive blow to Gadhafi, one of our leading enemies the past 30 years.

Where's the Reciprocity?

Pakistan continues to detain in police custody Raymond Davis, an American subject to diplomatic immunity, after Davis shot and killed two armed assailants. Pakistani police say the attackers robbed others earlier.

By all accounts, Davis was acting in self-defense and should be released on that basis alone. Moreover, all diplomats are immune to prosecution for crimes committed in their host country, to avoid being used as a hostage. While Davis did nothing wrong, he should also be released immediately given his diplomatic immunity.

If the situation were reversed, and America was detaining a foreign national who was subject to diplomatic immunity, it would be a major news story in this country. The left and its media friends would denounce America, and you would hear about why America needs to live up to its international obligations so its diplomats can receive commensurate treatment in their host countries.

But there is no outrage by the left when America is on the receiving end of abusive treatment.

Why Egypt and Tunisia?

The recent events in Middle East, most prominently in Tunisia and Egypt, portend many changes for the troubled region. But one of the remarkable facts about these revolutions is that the countries with the largest demonstrations are not directed against the most repressive regimes in the region.

We can use the information that Freedom House publishes with its annual ratings of political rights and civil liberties for every country in the world, and that the Heritage Foundation produces with its ranking of nations based on economic freedom to assess this.

Let's look at five countries, three of whom have experienced recent large scale demonstrations (Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan) and two that haven't (Syria and Iran). Freedom House rates all five countries as Not Free, but its numerical scores differentiate between them. Egypt and Jordan have better ratings than Syria, Iran, and Tunisia.

For economic freedom, the Heritage Foundation rates Jordan 38th in the world, which is better than many countries we associate with as having a high degree of freedom (such as Israel and Iceland); Egypt and Tunisia rate in the middle of the pack at 96th and 100th, respectively; while Syria (140th) and Iran (171st) rate near the bottom.

You would think that Iran and Syria would be more logical candidates for domestic-driven regime change, given their more repressive policies. But it is their very repression that makes it difficult for domestic groups to succeed in toppling these regimes. In 2009, Iran experienced large scale demonstrations after rigging elections to allow President Ahmadinejad to win. But consistent with its brutal nature, the regime employed its vast powers against demonstrators, killing, torturing, and imprisoning so many that the demonstrations ended.

In 1982, Syria destroyed the city of Hama where the Muslim Brotherhood staged an uprising. Tens of thousands of Syrians were killed when the Syrian military turned its artillery, tanks, and planes against its own city, destroying the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts in Syria. Such brutality acts as a powerful deterrent to future demonstrations and uprisings.

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and President Ben Ali of Tunisia have employed oppressive tactics against its citizens for years, and certainly are no friends of freedom. But Ali was, and Mubarak to date has been, reluctant to turn the full power of their military forces against their own citizens to maintain their grip on power. While this doesn't make them "good guys", they are certainly less evil than the dictators in Iran and Syria.

Moreover, the modest degree of freedom people have experienced in Egypt, Tunisia, and Jordan make them want to have more. They see the quality of life through media and the Internet that is possible in other countries, and this emboldens that to take risks to change their government. At the most extreme, the people of North Korea are so isolated from the rest of the world, it isn't clear how well they know how awful the regime they suffer under is.

Given Egypt's size, geographic position, and leadership role in the Arab world, there is both risk and opportunity with an end to the Mubarak regime. The risk is that the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic group that has stayed relatively quiet in Egypt due to Mubarak's brutal policies, is able to secure political power and turn Egypt away from its relationships with the United States and Israel. The opportunity lies in the possibility that non-Islamic groups can lead a future Egyptian government and extend the scope of freedom in the Middle East.

Why Now

The reaction to the latest batch of confidential documents that Wikileaks has released is a very interesting commentary on our public discourse. Many Democrats, columnists, and foreign governments are aghast that diplomatic correspondence has been made public.

To be sure, these leaks are embarrassing and potentially damaging, to the extent diplomats are less willing to share information for fear it may be leaked in the future.

Moreover, there are individuals named who they or their families may suffer retaliation for exposing their actions, so lives may be lost because of Julian Assange's war on America.

And we certainly have had confirmed or learned a number of interesting things, most notably that many Arab nations are more aggressively encouraging the United States to attack Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons than Israel has publicly done so.

But there were earlier Wikileaks of American military reports, which did not receive widespread condemnation for being made public - even though the exposure of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq who have assisted the United States and thus whose lives were put at risk by Wikileaks.

The logical conclusion is that the leak of American military reports during the Bush administration was fine for many in this country and the world, but the leaking of State Department cables under both the Bush and Obama administration is unacceptable.

It is hard not to come to the conclusion that going after the "good" State Department, the Obama administration, and implicating foreign governments is what made these leaks a problem, while leaking information on the "bad" American military is OK for many.

And this is what is so upsetting about the world's reaction to the Wikileaks episodes.

Then and Now

North Korea's latest military attack on South Korea yesterday and its disclosure of building a uranium enrichment facility continues the tyrannical regime's efforts to extract concessions from the United States and South Korea.

The South Korea responded by saying it would take "stern measures" if attacked again.

Attacked again? But yesterday's attack was the "again" - after sinking the South Korean warship this past spring that killed 46 South Korean sailors.

In a similar vein of wanting to keep tensions to a minimum, the Obama administration initially said it wasn't deploying additional military forces to the region, citing our existing forces in South Korea, Japan, and Guam.

It is instructive to review our response to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 to see how far we've come in accepting threatening behavior today and attacks on us or our allies.

After the United States discovered that the Soviet Union had deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba, we imposed a quarantine on Cuba - a naval blockade in all but the name.

Vast military forces began to pour into our military bases in Florida and the Gulf coast as we prepared for a possible invasion of Cuba.

Most ominously, our nuclear-armed bombers in the Strategic Air Command greatly increased their air patrols and carried out attack runs aimed at the Soviet Union - each time pulling back before carrying out the attack but intending to intimidate the Soviets.

And the intimidation worked. Because despite the threat of looming war, which typically leads nations to at least prepare for war by deploying its forces accordingly, the Soviet Union didn't move a muscle. After starting the crisis with the deployment of its missiles, it then became terrified with America's overwhelming response and military superiority in the region and in nuclear weapons - so scared it didn't even prepare for war.

48 years ago, we responded to military threats by preparing for the worst, and in doing so, deterred war and obtained a better political settlement.

Today, we and our allies are the ones who are scared of preparing for war, and in so doing, increase the risk of war and of obtaining a worse political settlement.

Our enemies observe this, and plan accordingly. North Korea has had great success in pushing past previous "lines in the sand", only to find we don't really mean it and will appease them with concessions to avoid future provocations. Then North Korea repeats the cycle, crossing new lines in the sand and obtaining new concessions.

Will Barack Obama be up to the challenge to stop this dangerous pattern, that both Bill Clinton and George Bush engaged in?

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Recently, it seemed that Barack Obama was getting a new seriousness about foreign policy. During his Asian trip, he told an audience that the United States would not be leaving Afghanistan in July 2011, notwithstanding his previous comments to begin withdrawing troops then.

One of the colossal mistakes Obama made in announcing his Afghanistan "surge" was to concurrently announce the withdrawal of American troops 20 months later - thus giving comfort to the Taliban that they could wait out an impatient America and causing Hamid Karzai to accommodate the Taliban given his desire to secure political power for himself without the benefit of American power in the near-term.

So Obama's comments mark an attempt to change direction, give heart to America's allies in Afghanistan that we have staying power, and to cause our enemies to realize we aren't leaving until we secure our goals.

Likewise, within a few days of Obama's comments on Afghanistan, an administration official indicated the need for the American military to remain engaged in Iraq longer than previously discussed. Since this shift in policy was made during a belated effort by the Obama administration to resolve the political stand off in Iraq that has led to delays in forming a new government after elections this past March, it has the appearance that such an American commitment was demanded by some of the political parties in Iraq - since an American presence helps ensure that sectarian disputes don't turn into civil war.

Both these changes are critical to having America as favorable an outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan as we can, and it is a sign of growing maturity on the part of Obama to change course.

It may also be a recognition that now that the Obama has suffered a severe loss in the mid-term elections, his ability to achieve any of his agenda on domestic policy is in tatters - whereas foreign policy remains largely (but not entirely) his prerogative. This growing assertiveness of America's interests may also be a way for Obama to move right in preparation for the 2012 elections.

Unfortunately, all is not well with Obama's recent foreign policy pronouncements. While in Indonesia, he felt the need to criticize Israel again for building more housing in the Jerusalem. Obama's previous criticisms of Israel for such construction activity led to a breakdown in the very discussions between the Israelis and Palestinians that Obama so fervently wanted to encourage.

So Obama's recent maturation on foreign affairs can't fully overcome his desire to appease his Indonesian hosts nor his left wing base.

War by Another Means

Israeli commandos boarded five ships trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza, and according to the Israeli military, came under assault with clubs, knives, and gun fire by people on one ship. A gun fight ensued, and current press reports indicate nine people on the ship were killed with a number injured, including Israeli soldiers.

Since 2007 after the terror group Hamas took control of Gaza, Israel and Egypt have worked to prevent Hamas from smuggling arms into Gaza, which has included Israel enforcing a naval blockade of Gaza.

The ostensible purpose of the flotilla was to bring humanitarian supplies to Gaza. But considering that Israel announced last week that the ships' cargo could be delivered to Gaza so long as the ships first stopped in an Israeli port so the cargo could be screened to make sure military supplies weren't included, the fact that the flotilla's organizers proceeded with the attempted landing in Gaza indicates the mission was about something more:

The purpose of the trip was to provoke a confrontation with Israel, and hope that the resulting casualties would stir up an international uproar directed against Israel.

Clearly, if the purpose of the trip was merely to deliver the ships' cargoes to Gaza, Israel's offer to allow that would have solved the matter without incident or bloodshed. But the organizers instead proceeded with the mission, got its desired bloodshed, and will now get its international uproar.

If there were no condemnation of Israel, then terrorists and their supporters would not pursue tactics to create "incidents" that cause a PR storm for the terrorists' opponents.

So it is up to Americans, and everyone in the international community, to realize the game that the terrorists play to fight their battles. If you want to stop terror, then you need to recognize this reality, blame the flotilla's organizers for embarking on their deadly game, and come to Israel's defense.

Weak Presidents

The nuclear deal that Turkey and Brazil negotiated with Iran demonstrates what happens when the world perceives America, and its president, as weak.

Turkey and Brazil both aspire to play a larger role in world affairs. Turkey is a powerful and relatively modern Muslim nation, and under its Islamic-oriented government has changed its foreign policy course decisively in the past few years. Turkey had been a reliable ally of America and had developed an important strategic relationship with Israel, cooperating on various defense and security matters.

Turkey now sees Iran as likely to become the regionally dominant power, once it obtains nuclear weapons, so naturally wishes to develop good relations with Iran to minimize tensions with a powerful neighbor.

Brazil has a growing trading relationship with Iran and currently runs a $1 billion trade surplus, so maintaining good relations with Iran is important. Moreover, Brazil wants America's role in the world in general, and Latin America in particular, to be reduced so Brazil can be the local power of significance.

And in fairness to both nations, if America is going to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Turkey and Brazil try to win some diplomatic points in helping Iran and securing "peace"?

Herein lies the problem with Obama's appeasement of Iran, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Putin's Russia, and other thuggish regimes: if America won't stand up to oppose these bad actors, other nations aren't powerful enough to do so on their own or in concert with others - so they will accommodate the thugs too in their own way.

The price America is paying for electing Barack Obama president is incalculable. The end result will either be utter appeasement of a multitude of enemies (which is well underway) or war to escape the consequences of such appeasement - a war fought from a weaker position and fewer allies scared off by previous appeasement.

War is Peace

You might think that the resolution of the political crisis in Honduras last year with a presidential election might have ended the matter.

But you would be wrong.

Recall that the Obama administration took the side of Hugo Chavez's ally, former president Manuel Zelaya, after the Honduran Supreme Court ordered the military to arrest Zelaya for violating the Honduras constitution.

Chavez claimed this was a coup, which became the Obama administration's position, despite the fact that Zelaya was arrested according to Honduran law. In fact, the Law Library of Congress, an American institution, reviewed the situation and agreed that Zelaya was removed from office in accordance with the Honduran constitution.

Now we learn from the Wall Street Journal that two Democratic Congressional aides, Fulton Armstrong who works for Senator John Kerry, and Peter Quilter who works for Congressman Howard Berman, recently attended a dinner organized by U.S. ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens with members of the Honduran cabinet.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Armstrong and Quilter told the cabinet members that in order to have good relations with the U.S., they should accept the Obama administration's position that Zelaya was removed by a coup and not by the rule of law.

America's policy to Honduras in the Zelaya matter has been one of the most outrageous acts in foreign policy history - siding with a dictator and his ally against the rule of law and the desire for freedom by Hondurans.

And to add insult to injury, the Democrats are literally trying to re-write history so they can save face politically - domestically to help them refute that they sided with a dictator and internationally so they can show how tough the Obama administration cab be.

Tragically, the Obama administration is being tough with allies like Honduras and Israel and soft on enemies like Iran and Venezuela. It is, and will prove to be, a disaster for America and her allies. This is what happens when a man becomes president with a leftist worldview.

Obama's America

In the span of a few days, two seemingly unrelated events speak more to Barack Obama's view of an America that will be diminished: Obama signed into law his healthcare legislation, and his administration reached agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons.

What came to my mind was Britain's decline in the post World War II period - a decline in economic growth as the country pursued national healthcare and a broad socialist agenda and a decline in global power as it reduced its military commitments to reflect its diminished economic prospects.

And now Obama is pursuing similar policies, with likely similar effects if not reversed in upcoming elections.

Intellectually, both socialized medicine and nuclear disarmament derive from leftist ideology and policies as espoused for many decades. Financially, the higher government spending on healthcare means less money is available for military spending.

I always thought it remarkable and sad that Britain voted for economic and political decline after World War II.

I don't believe that most Americans felt that was what they voted for in 2008 in electing Barack Obama.

But it is what they got.

The Winning Side

Pakistan's capture of the second Taliban leader in recent weeks reflects their desire to have a voice in Afghanistan's affairs.

For years, the United States has been pressing Pakistan to do more to deal with the presence of Al Quaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan. Pakistan's help been limited, with its security service, the ISI, continuing to support the Taliban under the premise that some day the United States will tire of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan would want allies in Afghanistan.

But after much dithering, Barack Obama decided to "surge" troop levels and seek victory in Afghanistan. So Pakistan's calculation now changes, since accommodating America and working with our ally, Hamid Karzai, may now be the way Pakistan maintains its Afghan influence.

The left bemoaned the lack of allies supporting America. But they missed the key ingredient to securing support - the commitment of the United States to victory. Nations and groups want to ally themselves with the winner, not the loser. And until we demonstrated our intention to win in Afghanistan, others sat on the sidelines.

Release the Doves

Do you feel safer now that the United States and Russia have reached an agreement in principle to reduce nuclear arms (see here)?

Because if you don't feel safer, then you get no benefit from this - since in reality such an agreement makes the world less safe.

The Obama crowd somehow believes if we limit our nuclear arsenal, it makes it less likely that Iran and other nations will develop their own nuclear weapons - as if America's overwhelming conventional military superiority was irrelevant to Iran's strategic considerations. This is, of course, ridiculous - our weak posture in the world as reflected in Obama's foreign policy, of which this nuclear treaty is just one example, emboldens Iran and America's enemies to think they can get away with their ambitions. Note French President Sarkozy's question last year about Obama: "Is he weak"?

America's nuclear deterrent is directed against many threats and to protecting its many allies. We need to deter Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and possible new extrants to the nuclear club like Iran - and protect under our nuclear umbrella large chunks of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Russia doesn't protect anyone with its nuclear weapons other than itself and maybe Belarus. We need a nuclear arsenal of sufficient size, modernization, and flexibility to address this multitude of concerns, not one driven by a good photo op and diplomatic "win" for Obama.

The nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia have been shrinking without a formal treaty requiring such reductions, reflecting the diminished tensions between the two nations. Russia's arsenal is on a path to continued declines, reflecting its relative poverty as compared to America - as Joe Biden so aptly stated it last year.

So we are proposing a treaty that either codifies that which will happen anyway and/or limit our flexibility to deal with a a greater number of nuclear powers. And we have been anxious to strike such a bargain with Russia, who has naturally seen our anxiety and taken advantage of it in the negotiations.

More of the "change" voters probably didn't bargain for in November 2008.

China's Attack on America

Google's disclosure that Chinese-based hackers infiltrated Google's network, including accessing the email accounts of Chinese activists, led to reports that 34 companies had their networks breached. Subsequent news stories expanded on Chinese cyber attacks directed against the American government.

The hidden nature of such attacks, and the ability of the Chinese government to deny their involvement, cannot mean that we simply must grin our teeth and bear it. The Obama administration is reported to feel constrained to press China hard on this due to a lack of definitive proof, but such a standard will only embolden China to continue making such attacks against America.

We need to make China pay a real price for such behavior, or we will never stop it.

Anti-Americanism

I recently read that in 1945, a Gallop poll reported that 54% of the French expressed disfavor of America.

This after America liberated France from its Nazi occupiers.

Nothing highlights more clearly that we can't expect to be popular with foreign nations, that anti-Americanism is a long-standing matter and not just born under George Bush's presidency, and that Barack Obama's attempt to make America more liked is silly at best and dangerous at worst - dangerous because to the extent Obama appeases world opinion, he is often acting against America's values and interests.

Iran Takes Hostages, Again

Iran announced that it will try three American, who were hiking near the Iranian border, as spies. This continues a pattern of similar incidents, such as last week capturing five British citizens who were sailing in or near Iranian waters. The five Brits were released, and I suspect the three Americans will eventually be released after a show trial followed by a pardon by the Iranian regime.

You may wonder why Iran would do such a thing. I can see a number of benefits to the regime:

• It sends a message to Iranians, many of whom are protesting stolen elections from earlier this year, that if America can't even help its own citizens it surely won't help you in your protests.

• It creates the impression domestically that America is threatening the country, in a hope of rallying disenchanted Iranians to support the regime against external threats.

• It allows the thuggish regime to gain credibility and respect when American leaders have to ask for the return of the three captives.

• The regime looks "generous" when it subsequently releases them.

• It demonstrates to America that Iran can hurt us in many ways, attempting to deter an American military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

And what price does Iran pay for this behavior, which in previous times would have been grounds for war? Nothing. Iran knows very well America won't make them pay a fearful price for harming or threatening Americans.

If there only benefits, and no costs, from acting thuggishly, expect more of the same.

Now He Tells Us

The Obama administration is defending its Afghan war strategy by pointing to the success of George Bush's "surge" in Iraq in 2007.

Senator Barack Obama opposed the Iraqi surge, voting against it in February 2007.

For a man who has apologised for American's purportedly bad behavior, and who claims he wants to change the political culture in Washington, Barack Obama could acknowledge he was wrong, and Bush was right, about the Iraqi surge.

Don't hold your breath.

Supporting Iranian Reformers

For years many have suggested that the best way to support reformers in Iran was for the U.S. to be silent, out of fear that American support would taint the reformers politically within Iran.

The Iranian regime's crackdown on dissidents this year in response to the rigged election has provided a test of that advice, and it has proven to be dead wrong. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Iranian opposition leaders continue to press the Obama administration to support their cause publicly.

Tragically, Barack Obama has shown no sign of doing so. It turns out the big change Obama promised us in the 2008 presidential campaign has been to support dictators and undermine allies.

Nobel / Noble Insights?

While much has been said about Barack Obama winning the Nobel peace prize, including becoming a punch line of many jokes, there is an important element that has generally been overlooked.

The Nobel committee lauded Obama for his commitment to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and while most realize Obama doesn't have achievements worthy of the peace prize, I want to raise the issue that the Nobel committee, and Obama, are wrong to think that trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons will make the world a safer place.

In the 64 years since the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been no direct wars between the major powers. In the 75 year prior, there were two world wars that claimed tens of millions of lives, plus wars between Germany and France (1870), the United States and Spain (1898), and Russia and Japan (1905).

The stunning fact that the nuclear era has been free of war between the major powers isn't a mere coincidence. Instead, it is a function of the protection that the American nuclear umbrella provides to nations in Europe and Asia who are otherwise in close proximity to enemies (the Soviet Union and Europe and China and Japan / Korea) and that the consequence of war between the major powers would be so catastrophic.

It is true we stand at the precipice of rampant nuclear proliferation if we don't stop Iran's nuclear weapons programs. An Iranian nuclear arsenal will spur Arab nations to build nuclear weapons and raise the real specter of nuclear war involving Iran and Israel.

Unfortunately, it seems the only realistic to stop Iran's nuclear program is to destroy it militarily, which no doubt is the exact opposite of what the Nobel committee hopes to achieve with Obama's award.

The Norwegian leftists on the Nobel committee have gotten it exactly backwards: nuclear weapons in the hands of America and its allies have made the world more peaceful than it otherwise would have been, and a military attack is exactly what is needed to stop the disastrous consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons.