The decision to try KSM in a civilian court may impact the 2010 elections, Politico explains:
“The narrative is playing out against the backdrop of the Illinois senate race — for the seat President Barack Obama once held — and the tri-state region surrounding New York City, where contentious campaigns are revisiting the politics of the post-Sept. 11 era, when GOP candidates regularly forced Democrats on the defensive by framing them as soft on terror.
In the wake of the Obama administration decision to try the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a civilian court in downtown Manhattan and the announcement that the administration is considering housing additional Al Qaeda terrorists in an Illinois correctional facility, Republicans are claiming that Democrats are naively placing ideology ahead of national security and undermining the war on terrorism.
And turning up the heat, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who is running for governor in Michigan, will try to bring to the House floor his Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, which seeks to “slow Obama’s ability to bring terrorists to U.S. soil by forcing state legislatures and governors to approve the transfer.”
The decision to give KSM all the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen and then potentially house him and other terrorists in the U.S. may prove to be one of those few national-security issues that vaults to the top of the list of voters’ concerns and makes a difference (as the Iraq war did in the 2006 congressional elections). Not surprisingly, with initial polling showing that the decision is exceptionally unpopular, Republicans in multiple Senate and House races are making hay of the issue.
As a smart legal guru reminds me, Senate Democrats voted yesterday to provide funding for “new military facilities in the United States, or [to] modify existing ones here, to bring Guantanamo detainees to the United States (rejecting Senator Inhofe’s amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds for this purpose).” Just 12 days ago the Senate Democrats voted on funding to bring terrorists to the U.S. for trial (rejecting Senator Graham’s amendment that would have kept them in a military commission). It will be hard for Senate Democrats in 2010 then to argue that they are not facilitators in what many regard as one of the worst national-security gambits in U.S. history. The voters will get to render their verdict.
America’s obsession with the Iraq war has diverted valuable resources and attention from other important regions: Latin America and Asia. Iran is also actively involved in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Now there’s something to watch out as well. The assocaition of the two big powers, China and Russia, and central Asian countries can do a lot of harm to the West.
There are many people who do not like the American hegemony.
Oy vey. The sky is falling again. It must be nerve-wracking to live in Gordon Chang’s world.
Iran’s porxy, Hezbollah, can do some nasty things in some places in Latin America if it chooses to do so, given that there’s a substantial Arab population in Brazil and elsewhere, albeit mostly Christian.
I’m not impressed with the danger, though, on the military and diplomatic fronts, as feckless as our Latin American diplomacy has been for at least 50 years. Brazilians are turning Pentecostal, not Shiite.
Nor is the Monroe Doctrine in danger. That forbids colonization by a European power, not diplomacy and trade.
As anyone familiar with the history of the FBI would tell you, during WWII German infiltration of Latin America was real, and unlike the Iranian threat, was based on shared attributes of ethnicity, and, in instances like Juan Peron, politics. (During the 1940s, US efforts to counter this mostly Nazi presence was entrusted to the FBI.) With memories of the pre-WWI Zimmerman memos, the concern was chiefly an unstable Mexico and control of the Panama Canal.
But that was a far more discretely geo-political age and to this extent, Gordon is right. To strike at American interests, Iran doesn’t need to destabilize Mexico or wrest control of the Canal. In G4 Warfare, all Iran needs are relatively few but deeply placed logistics centers and people-pipelines into the US for the purpose of inserting a steady stream of Hezbollah suicide terrorists. Such teams would blanket major malls, transportation centers, office buildings and so forth. The object is is only to kill enough Americans on American soil to convince US elites that whatever we’re defending isn’t worth price.
Given the nature of today’s American elites, that’s not a terribly difficult job—one has only to witness the “loyal” opposition’s lack of resolve as more time passed since 9-11. And with Iranians able to “launch” human missiles from South American bases is a chump change operation well within the means of the RevGuards.
Dear Grumpy, thanks for your comment. Let me answer your broad point about fallling skies and nerve-wracking worlds. Most problems solve themselves, of course. Those that do not, however, result in multi-continent wars, global pandemics, and world-wide depressions.
Because of the nature of today’s society, the problems we face are potentially far graver than the ones in the past. Events occur faster, our weapons are more powerful, our communities more interdependent and vulnerable. Do we really want to let matters fester at this moment?
Gordon,
Thanks for your courtesy. I pound you pretty hard from time to time, and your responses are invariably civil and deal with the merits.
I have spent a lot of time in Brazil. Although often inefficient and corrupt, it’s a mature country in many ways. I doubt that even the Brazilian left, which has become quite pragmatic, is going to be seduced by Twelver Shiites. Will an increasingly self-sufficient (efficient ethanol production, for one thing) Brazil challenge the U.S.? Of course. Will they give a fruit-juice cocktail party for the Iranian ambassador? Sure? Will they ally themselves with Iran? Don’t make me laugh.
Most of the risks are localized, for example to the Paraguay border areas, which are quite lawless and where there is an émigré Arab population that’s a potential security problem.
We could do a much better job diplomatically in Latin America, especially with Brazil, now a significant regional power. Is there an Iranian challenge in any way equivalent to the Cold War challenge of communism? I think not.
In reading Commentary bloggers and columnists, I always have an uneasy feeling that Israeli and Zionist concerns about Iran, which are quite legitimate although sometimes overly intense, are confused with the remoter US national interest in the matter. Nukes or not, Iran can cause problems for Israel, and has done so through proxies. It’s convenient for militant Israelis and their friends to see a global struggle for democracy against Islamism (“Islamofascism”) in which Israeli and US interests are totally aligned and in which there’s no daylight between Israeli and US interests. Unfortunately, this convenient vision does not depict reality. Israel is an island in a sea of hostile Muslims. Iran, being Shi’ite and not a front-line state, can afford to take a radical stance without fearing a visit from IDF tanks. The U.S. is pretty far from this action, and its vital strategic interests just aren’t at stake in the same way.
Grumpy: I have to disagree with you on this last point. While U.S. and Israeli interests are quite different, to acknowledge this is not to suggest that America has no vital interests. Iran has clearly defined its hegemonic aspirations in a sum-zero context—they believe that they cannot gain without a corresponding U.S. loss of regional influence. Under the terms of 4GW, which I believe now dictates a good percentage of what the Iranians believe that can do short of risking a large-scale U.S. counter-strike, their threats to “unleash” Hezbollah-type actions against our interests worldwide must be taken seriously—there is no other rationale for their aggressive bridge-and-base building to and in Latin America.
An analogy for how this works might be inferred from a recent headline. It was reliably reported last week that head of Hezballah Nasrallah was ordered removed (by Iran) as head of Hezballah’s military wing. The reason? His provocation of Israel in the summer of ’06 provoked an Israeli action that, no matter how incompetently handled, seriously damaged not just Hezballah per se but Iran’s potential use of Hezballah as a deterrent/counterforce for use against Israel in the event that Israel and Iran found themselves genuinely on the brink of war. It had taken Iran years to develop, supply, and fortify Hezballah’s armed wing; much of this work was blown last year.
The Iranians have proven quite adept at demoralizing Western elites. How many “Marine barrack” attacks on U.S. soil would it take before editorial, academic, congressional and possibly White House interests would “vote” in favor of appeasement, to the detriment of friendly Sunni allies and oil flow from the Gulf? These last two are the vital American interests—to Iranians, whipping up public hatred of Israel is only the noise machine that operates as a distraction.
Mr. Chang;
I hope you do realize that “From the sublime to the Ridiculous is only one step”.
Recently the Irans has been compared from the Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union and her indubitous leader Mr. Ahmadinejad to Hitler and Stalin.
A study the history of Hitler’s Germany and the USSR is undoubtedly calleed for. Even a shadow of a comparison in this case is absured.
To mention just a minor fact; there were 9 Nobel Laureats sitting accusd of war crimes at the Nurenberg trials. This fact is the clear evidence of Nazi Germany’s all around capabilities. I invite Mr. Gordon that instead of going along with the hypes of the Israeli hawks and their stooges MEK, to take the trouble of looking for himself at the industrial, technical and accademic capacity of Iran. This will probably make the writer to think twice before writing the article, unless it is specifically intended for the gullible and is a part of the present fear mongering polities
I repeat “From the Sublime to the Ridiculous is only one step”.
Or as my American friends would put it simpler “Who are you really trying to kid?