American and British Politics and Foreign Policy

Once Tony Blair came back from his holiday the chattering classes returned to their favourite sport, when would the Prime Minister decided to go, so the press could have a new story under the Premiership of Gordon Brown. As it has been noted Tony Blair bought this on himself before the last election by stating he would not run for a fourth term, the day after the election it started how long would New Labour have Tony Blair in charge at 10 Downing Street. In recent interviews and news stories, the Prime Minister has stated that he would not get in to the issue of when he was going. This has of course irritated Gordon Brown supporters, who must being to wonder if Brown has the political muscle to tell the Prime Minister that he must go for the good of the Party and the Country. The Terror scare wave at the moment has put Dr Reed, the Home Secretary at the forefront, is Tony Blair waiting for Gordon Brown to fowl up any way as to allow others to challenge him for the leadership later next year. The question has to be asked does the Prime Minister have the time, or will the guys in overalls, this is the Labour Party after all, come calling and say it time the Prime Minister took up the Lecture circuit in the United States. It has been argued that the Labour Party has very complicated rules to get rid of a sitting Prime Minister, but in the end it was the Cabinet that removed Lady Thatcher, will we see a second Cabinet Revolt before the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections. Time and Tide wait for no man even if he is Tony Blair.

On the American scene we have the Bush Administration coming out in defence of their Iraq policy before the Mid Term Elections, at the moment according to the Polls the Democrats should take the House of Representatives over the 15 seats they need to take control, the Senate still to close to call. But Views political gut is not sure that will be the result, as a British Prime Minister once stated, ‘ A week is a long time in Politics ‘. An interesting article in the Sunday Times, Friends of Hillary hint she may pull out of presidential race , in essence the article suggests that Hillary R. Clinton the Junior Senator from New York might not run for President and stay in the Senate. It should be noted that the last Senator to win the Presidency was John F. Kennedy. Bob Dole in 1996 and John F. Kerry in 2004 failed to win. In really depends on who the Republican candidate is, if John McCain or Rudy Giuliani; the Sunday Times also has an article on Giuliani; win the nomination it would be very hard for Hillary R. Clinton to win the General Election.

On the international front we have Iran and Afghanistan, Iran has rejected UN demands, the general analytical view is that this crisis is a slow burning one, and one President Bush wont allow to go to the distance, a Nuclear armed Iran. As to Afghanistan, the UK has lost 15 personnel in a week, one soldier through combat and 14 others from different sections of the armed forces from what looks like a technical fault on the plane. Afghanistan worries Views more in some respects that Iraq, the mission has changed, we have only about 800 combat troops in theatre. The Troops need time to relax, from reports they are in constant combat with the Taliban and the planes used to transfer troops and in combat operations are being pressed to their maximum use due to the conditions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems in views eyes we have to but more troops on the ground, 800 combat troops are not enough in an area the size of Wales.

Pardon Campaign on the Move

An interesting article in the today’s Wall Street Journal, Fess Up, Mr. Armitage, it notes that Mr Armitage has not publicly admitted that he leaked the name of Valerie Plame and states that the President should think about giving Mr Libby a Pardon. As the charges are an extension of the main charge. It seems if you agree with the Main Stream Media about the reason for the Iraq war and the present condition of the Iraq then you can get way with leaking confidential information due to a mistake, while minor matter of forgetting information due to pressure of work gets you on trial. This is where Presidential leadership come to the for, the President should make it known through the Press if the charges are not dropped by the start of the New Year then he will use his Presidential Prerogative to Pardon Mr Libby and appoint him back to the administration. If those pardon under the Bush 41 can come back and work for the administration then those that have served the President and Vice President should be able to come back to work in a role that does not require Congressional Approval.

In fact this debate could be used to get the political base out, we have had years of conspiracy theories about how the Bush White House was out to destroy Mr Wilson due to his critical review of Bush Policy on Iraq, well its time to take the fight to the Liberals. The Attorney General should ask for an investigation of the New York Times for its release of Secret Information, it should drag in the Reporters who wrote the Stories about the National Security Agency following the money of Terrorists and its checking of calls to mine for more information. This is a time of War, can you imagine Roosevelt or Churchill putting up with this during World War Two. If the New York Times had reports about the Manhattan Project it would have been on the front pages years before it was develop. This is a different type of WAR, it uses all polices of government, military, intelligence, economic, culture, all are important. A wise Supreme Court Justice once stated that the Bill of Rights was not an automatic right to suicide, there are limits, the government needs to protect its people, that is it main aim. The impression one gets from very Liberal Democrats, that as long as there rights are protected they don’t care about the War on Terror, as they tend to very rich Liberals and live in California, that is a very liberal view of Liberals. In today’s world, any one any place is a target, 9/11 and 7/7 should be a wake up call to those who seem more interested in civil liberties than in one liberty above all, the right to live an happy life not under the threat of terror. The government needs to use all its assets; the first priority of any government is to protect its citizens.

Thus the role of the President is to protect the people, but this can also mean to stop injustice, lets start a positive campaign to Pardon Mr Libby.

The Campaign to Pardon Mr Libby

It is reported today in the New York Times (Register Required) and on CNN, that Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State in the First Term of George W. Bush leaked the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. As usual the Times shows how biased it is in coverage of the Bush administration, the article stresses that the leak was a mistake, even shows how it happened. As Mr Armitage is seen as a moderate, he will be given a pass by the MSM, Main Stream Media. I would guess if the name was Karl Rove one would be hearing calls for an Independent Council and what did the President learn the information and when did he forget. One can hear the Liberal Bloggers now stressing that it was a mistake and it does not matter that the real case is the one that will take place next year for Mr Libby. A charge by the way that has nothing to do with the first point of the investigation. It is about time for Conservatives to ask the President to Pardon Mr Libby. It would save the American Tax Payers and would follow the example of George H.W. Bush when he gave a pardon to those involved in the Iran – Contra Affair.

The Plamegate Incident

An interesting article by Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff, on the release of Valerie Plame’s name by Robert Novak. After the entire guess work it seems it was Richard Armitage who released the name by mistake during a chat with Novak and then before that with famed Watergate Reporter Bob Woodward. While on Meet the Press Today, Novak stated that his source should out himself. The story in one way would be finished, the all the players would be known, we would then just have the trial of Mr Libby at the start of next year.

For the benefit of Views Readers

At the time of the Incident, as Secretary of State we have Colin Powell, former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, and National Security Advisor to Ronald Reagan. As his Deputy, Richard Armitage, a moderate within the Administration and a critic of the Bush policy on Iraq.

The Neo Cons in the Administration, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defence Secretary under Bush 41. Member of the House of Representatives, Chief of Staff to President Ford.

Afghanistan

UK Soldier killed in Afghanistan, as the BBC reports eight this month.

Iran

Two interesting articles on Iran in Today’s London Times. One by Anatole Kaletsky, The Iranian paradox: to gain victory the West must first concede defeat as can be see from the title, a counter view to my recent Blog. And also an Article by Bronwen Maddox, the Times Foreign Editor, The power is real - but so are the fears about how the Iran nuclear debate is developing on the International Front.

Simple International Politics

After reading Francis Fukuyama, After the NeoCons, America at the Crossroads, (Profile Books, 2006), I have summarised after reading a few chapters that in modern scene of International Politics has three theories on how the system is run, we have realist, Neo Conservative and Internationalist or Liberalism. I will use past references as Fukuyama does to explain how the three theories are used in International Politics and from there to look at the present international system, for a more detailed history of highly recommend by Views the above Book. The realist school of thought sees International Politics as a matter of self interest by states and how each states deals with that issue, thus we have the historical case of the Soviet Union and its role in the International system. In the realist view, it was important to deal with the Soviet Union and to keep peace within the international system, thus we have the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, SALT of the 1970s. In the realist corner we have Presidential Administrations of Nixon, Ford and their National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. In this perspective the powers had self-interests and it was important to deal on various issues as both sides gain from these agreements. The aggressive polices of the USSR in the 1970s destroyed this idea; these agreements had a might opponent in the shape of Ronald Reagan. Reagan had a simpler view, the Western Democracies had to win and the Soviet Union had to lose and how the Soviet Union dealt with the World Community was based on her suppression of her own people and her Satellites. Thus to recall Reagan’s “ Evil Empire” remarked in the early 1980s. There could be only one winner, it has been argued that in theory there was nothing wrong with the theory of Karl Marx, about the suppression of the workers by the those that run business as to make more money. It has one flaw, its rubbish, business needs well paid workers to buy its goods, more goods sold, more profits, the better paid the worker they will spend more on luxury items beyond just living. As more goods are needed, more workers are needed, thus more workers are hired and they are paid which creates more economic development. In essence the Soviet Union entire economic make up was based on a rubbish idea and developed by Communists for the purpose of self wish rather than real economic facts, it was noted by academics in the 1970s that the population growth of the Soviet Union was more in the Third World. They system was dieing on its feet. By the Mid 1980s the economy was a basket case as stated my President Reagan on many times. By the end of the Reagan Presidency the Cold War was at end. In retrospect it has been argued that Reagan was a Neo Conservative, but this in an interesting argument and one I will come back to later. In this perspective Views was a Neo Conservative after watching the film Nicholas and Alexandra; released late mid 1970s; the film on the final years of the Tsar. At the end of the film I recall saying to myself, they have to go, that being the Communists and didn’t really care how they where got rid off either.

On the International front argument, the structure of the International system is base on International Law and the United Nations, this group tended to be for the Nuclear Freeze of the 1980s, against SDI, or Star Wars in their view, the arming of Space and also wanted talks with the Soviet Union and Saw Reagan as the problem not the solution to the Cold War.

The past few years we have had the problem of Iraq, Francis Fukuyama in the above mentioned book, looks at the historical development of NeoCons and how this has effected American Foreign Policy in the 1990s and in the Bush Administration from 2001. It looks at the history of NeoCons and its development of Policy after 9/11. As it deals with a Current Foreign Policy it hard to see where Iraq will be in the next six months never mind by the end of the Bush Administration. Thus this brief essay will look at the case of Iran and what policy the United States should follow should Iran fail to agree to stop it military nuclear development.

The Iran nuclear dispute, allows us to look how future developments in the dispute can be seen from the perspective of the above theories. At present we are in the International frame, the United States and Europe is working through the UN, much good it seem to do, the government in Iran is banking on the fact that with the USA and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan and the drain on the military that the main Super Power and her ally would rather have a deal. In some respects this is a fact, but on the other hand no American President is going to allow Iran to become a nuclear threat not after the constant threat to Israel from its President. Thus we come to sanctions, as China and Russia have important economic links with Iran, think France and Iraq and you get the problem, thus soft sanctions nothing that would really damage their economic investment. The United States and the UK thus have a problem, allow Iran to become a nuclear power or to do something. The something is a problem, it should be noted that Reagan was placed by in the Neo Conservative group by Francis Fukuyama but Reagan was willing to talk to Iran, he thought he was in discussion with Moderates, but in the end this was an illusion, the generic population might want peace with the West but the powers behind the government don’t, Iran is an Islamic run nation, and its been a major problem for the West since the 1979 Revolution, which removed the Monarchy. It should be recalled that after the 1917 revolution in Russia, that in the end for communist regimes only started in 1989 after decades of a Cold War. Reagan in the end bankrupted the communists system and since the foundation was weak it was finished by 1991 with the break up of the Soviet Union.

Although talking heads point out that a majority of the population was born after the revolution and want more freedom, this argument has been trotted out many times over the years, at this rate the population with be Old Age Pensioners before they react and remove the government themselves, but then they have something to fear. Iran is not San Francisco; if you step out of line they have enough prisons and worse. Thus the people of Iran are in the same position as those people in the Soviet Union for the early decades of the Cold War. The next option, the use of CIA and SIS to create local opposition and to arm them, possible, the Americans have enough bases around the area and regimes that don’t want a powerful Iran. But can the West wait and the regime develop nuclear weapons. Thus we come to the Neo Conservative option and to strike before Iran becomes a major problem.

This option has of course pro and cons, the USA – UK has military commitments already can it afford another long and costly mission in Iran. Should the Allies go with or without their European Partners and the blessing of the UN. The pros of such an operation is that, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, thus what ever the cost, massive bombing of all places of interest, nuclear, chemical, military, Intelligence, security services, in essence cut the leadership head off and allow the people the chance to raise against the government. It could be argued that the people under such a massive and constant attack would support the government. It would depend on the damage, keeping it to the above targets, making sure maps are up date and making sure no hospitals or any other public building are hit would allow the people to see that it was the government that the West was after. But those critical of military action have pointed out Iran could cause havoc in Iraq, either by supporting the insurgents or even should the West strike, invading, the Iran/Iraq war took up most of the 1980s. Any military action in Iran would come at a cost in men and machinery, as the latest action in Lebanon has shown, air power alone does not work, there has to be troops on the ground, either as in Afghanistan working with local opposition too help air strikes or a heavy military present for invasion. Thus this is the reason that all options when it comes to Iran are bad or worse.

In the end is there an answer to Iran that does not cost the use of military firepower. The first is of course the use of the UN, it’s a talking shop lets use it as such, it is a matter of finding what both sides can live with and what they cant lose in public. The United States can not seem to fall in to the trap that it did in the mid 1990s over North Korea, an agreement that fails and is seen overall as to made things worse in the end, Iran wants civil power and more access to world community. It really depends to use the old phrase where is the line in the sand, the USA and the UK will not tolerate Iran with Nuclear weapon, the threat is just too much, but they are willing for civil nuclear power and more economic development. It really depends what Iran wants, if she wants civil Nuclear power that is great and more access to the world economy that is also great but if she wants a nuclear weapon then the world will have another crisis. It could be argued that the West should give One month for talks with Iran, if Iran will or cant talk to the West, the should blockaded Iran, freeze her assets, support the opposition and the get the CIA in to have another operation Mongoose, if all that does not work, then give Iran a deadline. If by a certain date, the government of Iran will not place itself under the UN, in other words the UN would take over Iran and the Powers would run her like West Berlin during the Cold War and the old League of Nations Mandates. If this did not happen all force should be used to remove the regime once and for all and start from the start with Iraq and Iran and while at the start, set a firm framework for peace between Israel and Palestine.