Jay Reding.com

…are all things with higher approval ratings than Ehud Olmert. It is quite clear from the upcoming Winograd report on the war with Hizballah that the Olmert government deserves it’s utter lack of support. The war was horrendously mismanaged, and Olmert went to war with an army and a country that was woefully unprepared for what they were facing. While Israel was fortunately enough to have a qualified victory — they did hurt Hizballah — they never reached their goals of destroying Hizballah nor did they return their lost soldiers. The best that can be said about the Israeli incursion into Lebanon is that they didn’t completely lose.

Olmert deserves to resign. The only way he was able to salvage his government was by cozying up to the ultra-nationalist Avigdor Lieberman of the Y’Israel Beitanu Party, and even he would be deeply unwise to cling to that particular sinking ship. There’s no doubt that the Knesset will make a vote of no confidence that will probably lead to the ouster of Olmert and the accession of Tzipi Livni as Prime Minister. If she can’t hold the Kadima coalition together, than Binyamin Netanyahu will try to form a new government. Should he fail, then new elections will be called.

My guess is that this signals the end of Kadima. Without the leadership of Ariel Sharon, Kadima has itself been on life support. Sadly, neither are likely to recover. Parties based on the personal appeal of a single candidate rarely last in any democracy, and Kadima is no exception to that rule. It seems likely that in the wake of Israel’s perceived defeat in Lebanon, a hardliner like Netanyahu has enough political advantage to take power, although that is certainly not a given. Tzipi Livni has a chance to hold Kadima together, but despite her considerable skill, the disintegration of Kadima may be too much for anyone to handle.

The problem is that Netanyahu, while a smart man and an adept politician, will also be likely to be much more of a hardliner than Sharon was towards the end. The disengagement plan is the only way to ensure Israel’s security. Israel cannot fight off an attack by its enemies if its forces are spread thin trying to protect settlements. The disengagement from Gaza was a human tragedy, but it was a necessary one to preserve the security of the Israeli state. Netanyahu’s opposition is understandable, but ultimately wrong for Israel. Israel needs strength, to be sure, but it has to choose which battles are worth fighting.

The tragic incapacitation of Ariel Sharon has left Israeli politics in a state of flux. Sharon’s transformation from hardliner to pragmatist came at the right time. Sharon would not have fought the war in Lebanon more intelligently — or perhaps not at all. The inept leadership of Olmert and especially his Defense Minister Amir Peretz (which was a poor choice to begin with) led to an aimless war that alienated Israel’s potential allies in Lebanon and emboldened rather than dissuaded Iranian and Syrian ambitions in the region.

Olmert is promising to stay on — but his political career is over. The bigger question now is how Israeli politics will realign itself and whether Kadima will live in on some form or splinter into a host of minor parties. Neither Kadima nor Sharon seem likely to be coming back any time soon, and Israeli politics once again is in a state of uncertainty.

Former CIA Director George Tenet, who presided over some of the biggest bungles in the history of American intelligence is trying to to hawk his memoirs before they end up on the remainder bin with the rest of the Washington tell-alls. In so doing, Mr. Tenet has invented a conversation with Richard Perle which could not have taken place and tries to argue that he wasn’t really responsible for the bad intelligence in Iraq — even though his own statements and history amply show otherwise.

Even former CIA agent Michael Scheuer doesn’t buy Tenets sudden mea culpa - and Scheuer is probably one of the most vocal critics of the “neocons” and the war.

Tenet should have been fired on September 12, 2001, and unfortunately his attempt to play to the anti-war side just further clouds the record of what really happen in the months leading up to the war in Iraq. Undoubtedly the only thing that Tenet wants to bring across is that nothing was really his fault — he was hoodwinked by those evil “neocons” like Richard Perle or Dick Cheney. However, Tenet’s faults run far deeper than that. In a time when a gathering storm was apparent, the CIA continue to be weak on human intelligence and far too timid in fighting terrorism. Had better choices been made in the 1990s when al-Qaeda was a growing threat, our world could have turned out quite different.

Tenet presided over a time when the CIA proved itself to be consistently wrong on a whole host of issues. While intelligence work is by nature inexact, nothing can excuse the stream of mistakes that were made by the CIA under Tenet’s watch. He can try to salvage his reputation with another supposed “tell-all” book, but the truth is what it is. Tenet failed to lead, and those failures had profound effects on this country. The fact that Bush didn’t fire him after September 11 is nearly inexcusable, and the fact that he didn’t do the honorable thing and resign demonstrates why Tenet was such a poor choice for that position in the first place.

Omar Fadhil wonders why the Democratic Party is so eager to throw him and his countrymen into the hands of terrorists and thugs:

I am an Iraqi. To me the possible consequences of this vote are terrifying. Just as we began to see signs of progress in my country the Democrats come and say, ‘Well, it’s not worth it.Time to leave’.

To the Democrats my life and the lives of twenty-five other million Iraqis are evidently not worth trying for. They shouldn’t expect us to be grateful for this.

For four years everybody made mistakes. The administration made mistakes and admitted them. My people and leaders made mistakes as well and we regret them.

But now, in the last two months, we have had a fresh start; a new strategy with new ideas and tactics. These were reached after studying previous mistakes and were designed to reverse the setbacks we witnessed in the course of this war.

This strategy, although its tools are not yet even fully deployed, is showing promising signs of progress.

General Petraeus said yesterday that things will get tougher before they get easier in Iraq. This is the sort of of fact-based, realistic assessment of the situation which politicians should listen to when they discuss the war thousands of miles away.

We must give this effort the chance it deserves. We should provide all the support necessary. We should heed constructive critique, not the empty rhetoric that the ‘war is lost.’

It is not lost. Quitting is not an option we can afford—not in America and definitely not in Iraq.

For the Democrats, this has nothing to do with Iraq. The Democrats don’t know much about Iraq, and as we’ve seen from Senator Reid’s disturbing comments, they don’t really want to learn anything. General Petraeus’ comments are irrelevant to them. Whether Iraq is going well, badly, or somewhere in between the only constant in the Democratic universe is the expansion of their political power. The constant vicious attacks on the President, the shadow foreign-policy grandstanding, the cowardice on Iraq, all of it is purely about appealing to a domestic audience. It is all about one thing and one thing only: the naked ambition for political power.

If America loses, the Democrats “win.” That is why the Democrats want American to lose in Iraq. That is why they want to force a withdrawal. It’s not about what’s best for the country — there’s no rational argument that handing al-Qaeda the greatest victory in their existence is in any way a win for America. It’s purely about taking down the Bush Administration and getting Democrats into power. What the consequences would be for the people of Iraq is irrelevant to Democratic policymaking — the Iraqis don’t vote, so their voices are irrelevant.

The truth is, at this point, both Iraqi and American democracy are deeply troubled. Both are rife with blind faction, both involve parties whose nakedly self-serving aims would tear both countries apart. Iraq is building a civil society. The United States is tearing its apart. The Iraqis are struggling to find freedom, while we Americans take it for granted. The trendlines are disturbing for both.

We got the Iraqi people involved in this war — and Senator Reid cannot cowardly walk away from his own choices. To run away and leave the Iraqis to their fates is the act of an arrogant and self-obsessed power. It is a political, tactical, and moral abomination. It is an act of cowardice. How dare we consider leaving 25 million people in the hands of the deranged few for our own political calculus. Should we engage in such a foolish act, the blood of every Iraqi slaughtered in the inevitable bloodbath to follow will be on all of our hands — especially those who voted to authorize this conflict, Republican and Democrat alike.

There was a time when America was the ally of democracy worldwide, when we stood strongly for our friends, and when the thought of abandoning our allies was unthinkable. If that is no longer the case, then we are living our borrowed time. Our democratic values are worth nothing if we are unwilling to stand up for them wherever they may be challenged. If we believe in a code of universal human rights, how can we say that the Iraqis are undeserving of them? If we pull out of Iraq, how can we then argue for intervening in Darfur? After all, if America will never take sides in a civil war, what business is it of ours that black Africans are being raped and murdered by the Arab janjaweed militias?

The Democrats aren’t asking the hard question — all they seem to want is political victory in 2008. Of course, if they win through such reprehensible means, all they will have is power — the moral authority that used to come with being a leader in America will have been sold out.

This is something you probably do not want to listen to in public — not only because of the language, but because it’s so funny you will won’t want to disturb others with your laughter.

And, since it’s Friday, consider this an open thread…

Mitch Berg notes Rudy Giuliani’s latest address on the global war on terrorism. Giuliani pulls no punches in elucidating just what the stakes are in this conflict:

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

Giuliani is right. The Democratic position on the war is to try and avoid dealing with anything but the political consequences at all costs. The reality is that their idea of how to “win” the war on terror is ultimately counterproductive. As an example of this, Michael Totten spoke with Kurdish leader Mam Rostam. Rostam gives us a prescient warning of what would happen if the US pulls out of Iraq:

“If America pulls out of Iraq, they will fail in Afghanistan,” Mam Rostam said.

Hardly anyone in Congress seems to consider that the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan might become much more severe if similar tactics are proven effective in Iraq.

“And they will fail with Iran,” he continued. “They will fail everywhere with all Eastern countries. The war between America and the terrorists will move from Iraq and Afghanistan to America itself. Do you think America will do that? The terrorists gather their agents in Afghanistan and Iraq and fight the Americans here. If you pull back, the terrorists will follow you there. They will try, at least. Then Iran will be the power in the Middle East. Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism. They support Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Ansar Al Islam. You know what Iran will do with those elements if America goes away.”

Rostam is right. What would happen to the thousands of foreign jihadis who are now in Iraq once the US pulls out? Some of them may stay to wreak havoc with the Iraqi government — but many of them would continue to fight the United States. We have roughly 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. If the Taliban got the level of support that al-Qaeda has been putting into Iraq, Afghanistan would be the next domino to fall. It’s much more difficult to fight in the mountainous and rugged terrain of Afghanistan than the largely flat desert of Iraq. The jihadis are not going to give up and go home if we leave Iraq. They will continue to fight us until we leave Afghanistan and then they will continue to fight us wherever we are — including the United States. If the Democrats want to make the argument that Afghanistan is the “real” war on terrorism, they don’t get any benefit there by pulling out of Iraq.

The Democrats don’t want to face reality. We’re facing an enemy that is determined to kill as many of us as possible. Diplomatic negotiations with hostile regimes such as Iran and Syria are pointless. They know we can give them carrots, but they have no reason to fear any sticks — certainly not from a Democratic Congress. Groups like al-Qaeda have bet their future on the idea that Americans can be pushed around and forced to retreat. The Democrats would play right into that hand.

Giuliani is absolutely right. The Democrats would make us less safe. We cannot win this war by playing defensively — all it takes is one lucky hit and the terrible events of September 11 would be nothing more than a prelude. We have to offensively deal with the infrastructure and ideology that feeds terrorism. That requires a sustained, vigorous, and unyielding commitment to fighting terrorism on all fronts, political, economic, and military. The Democrats do not wish to do that, and while the Bush Administration has done a poor job in many areas, the Democrats have already shown that they are not only inept, but dangerously inept. We can’t afford a party that lives in a September 10 world, and every day the Democratic Party proves that they’re not cognizant of the realities of the world we live in today. Whether Mr. Giuliani is the right leader or not is a subject for debate, but one thing is certain: whoever leads this country in 2009 must not shirk their responsibility in fighting this war. If they do, the consequences to this country and the rest of the world will be severe.