Leadership: For years, Barack Obama called Iraq “a dumb war.” But considering how that conflict undeniably scared Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi into ending his WMD program, the 2003 invasion has never looked smarter.

‘I don’t oppose all wars,” future President Barack Obama told Chicagoans Against War in Iraq during a 2002 rally. “What I am opposed to is a dumb war … a rash war … the cynical attempt by … armchair, weekend warriors in this (Bush) administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Obama called the plan to liberate Iraq an “attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us.” And he warned that it “will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida.”

Goading the then-commander in chief, Obama said: “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the U.N. (nuclear) inspectors can do their work … let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people.”

Today, after two years of President Obama, our “so-called allies” like Egypt are destabilized, or threatened, and in danger of becoming enemies — nothing “so-called” about it.

Turns out that if it hadn’t been for those “armchair warriors” and their “dumb war” in Iraq, Libya might well be a nuclear weapons power today. All the U.N. inspectors in the world wouldn’t be able to stop Gadhafi from using atomic and chemical weapons to slaughter tens or even hundreds of thousands of his own people to keep himself in power, instead of just conventional weapons to kill a fraction of that number.

Continue

Part 1:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Part 2:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In 1979, ‘students’ flooded the streets in Iran to protest the repressive regime of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. While the Shah was not perfect, he was a valuable ally of the West’s. Moreover, he lifted Iran into the 20th century. However, the Iranian people were unsatisfied with the tactics of the Shah’s police state, and they demanded ‘change.’

Carrying out the greatest blunder in American foreign policy history, President Carter refused to stop the Iranian revolution. Instead of saving a strategic ally, Jimmy Carter let the Shah fall. Because of Jimmy Carter’s ineptitude, today Iran is ruled by radical Muslims and is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world.

The lesson of Iran is pertinent to the current unrest in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, an organization who’s stated goal is: “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house,” is following the same playbook the radicals did in Iran. Unfortunately, President Obama and other Western leaders appear to have learned nothing from the miserable failures of the Carter regime.

In her 1979 essay, Dictatorships & Double Standards, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick explained the United States’ unfortunate habit of letting allies fall:

The pattern is familiar enough: an established autocracy with a record of friendship with the U.S. is attacked by insurgents, some of whose leaders have long ties to the Communist movement, and most of whose arms are of Soviet, Chinese, or Czechoslovak origin. The “Marxist” presence is ignored and/or minimized by American officials and by the elite media on the ground that U.S. support for the dictator gives the rebels little choice but to seek aid “elsewhere.” Violence spreads and American officials wonder aloud about the viability of a regime that “lacks the support of its own people.” The absence of an opposition party is deplored and civil-rights violations are reviewed. Liberal columnists question the morality of continuing aid to a “rightist dictatorship” and provide assurances concerning the essential moderation of some insurgent leaders who “hope” for some sign that the U.S. will remember its own revolutionary origins. Requests for help from the beleaguered autocrat go unheeded, and the argument is increasingly voiced that ties should be established with rebel leaders “before it is too late.” The President, delaying U.S. aid, appoints a special emissary who confirms the deterioration of the government position and its diminished capacity to control the situation and recommends various measures for “strengthening” and “liberalizing” the regime, all of which involve diluting its power.

The emissary’s recommendations are presented in the context of a growing clamor for American disengagement on grounds that continued involvement confirms our status as an agent of imperialism, racism, and reaction; is inconsistent with support for human rights; alienates us from the “forces of democracy”; and threatens to put the U.S. once more on the side of history’s “losers.” This chorus is supplemented daily by interviews with returning missionaries and “reasonable” rebels.

As the situation worsens, the President assures the world that the U.S. desires only that the “people choose their own form of government”; he blocks delivery of all arms to the government and undertakes negotiations to establish a “broadly based” coalition headed by a “moderate” critic of the regime who, once elevated, will move quickly to seek a “political” settlement to the conflict. Should the incumbent autocrat prove resistant to American demands that he step aside, he will be readily overwhelmed by the military strength of his opponents, whose patrons will have continued to provide sophisticated arms and advisers at the same time the U.S. cuts off military sales. Should the incumbent be so demoralized as to agree to yield power, he will be replaced by a “moderate” of American selection. Only after the insurgents have refused the proffered political solution and anarchy has spread throughout the nation will it be noticed that the new head of government has no significant following, no experience at governing, and no talent for leadership. By then, military commanders, no longer bound by loyalty to the chief of state, will depose the faltering “moderate” in favor of a fanatic of their own choosing.

In either case, the U.S. will have been led by its own misunderstanding of the situation to assist actively in deposing an erstwhile friend and ally and installing a government hostile to American interests and policies in the world. At best we will have lost access to friendly territory. At worst the Soviets will have gained a new base. And everywhere our friends will have noted that the U.S. cannot be counted on in times of difficulty and our enemies will have observed that American support provides no security against the forward march of history.

Besides the influence of the Soviet Union, Kirkpatrick’s analysis reads like it could have been written today. Letting allies, even unsavory ones, fall is doubly harmful to the United States. First, there is the fall of an ally, and the rise of an enemy. Second, every time the united States allows an ally to be overthrown, America’s other allies witness the United Sates’ lack of resolve.

Make no mistake, a revolution in Egypt will not end well. There are no moderates in the Muslim Brotherhood. On CNN, Protesters in Alexandria explained their motives:

Woman #1 sets the stage for Woman #2:

“All the people hate him. He’s supporting Israel! Israel is our enemy. We don’t like him…Israel and America supported him. We hate them all!”

Woman #1 then explains that they will accomplish the removal of Mubarak by “revolution.”

Then the guy that follows them takes it up a notch by explaining that when the people in Egypt are finally free they will be able to “destroy Israel.”

In 1979 President Carter’s UN representative, Andrew Young, said that in time, Ayatollah Khomeini would be viewed as “some kind of saint.” The Carter administration’s motto was “we can work with Khomeini.” That has not exactly worked out the way the Carterites thought it would.

The UK Telegraph reported this week that the United States has been actively supporting Egyptian ‘activists’ since President Obama has come to power. While president Obama’s democratic intentions are honorable, the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak at this time would be calamitous.

Mohamed ElBaradei, who the Muslim Brotherhood yesterday recommended as a go-between to negotiate a transfer of power, fits Kirkpatrick’s description of a moderate critic of the regime perfectly. ElBaradei’s elevation will set up a transfer of power to the worst elements in Egypt.

While some of the protesters in the streets in Cairo may be pro-democracy advocates, tired of being unemployed in a police state, should the Mubarak regime be toppled, the pro-democracy dupes will be enslaved in a radical Muslim tyranny, far more brutal than the darkest days of the Mubarak reign.

In the coming days President Mubarak will do all he can to remain in power. President Obama will have to make a decision: will he support an imperfect ally, or allow the devil we know to fall? Whatever Obama’s plan of action is, it will have far reaching consequences; forty years ago Iran was a resolute ally.

Remember the media pillorying President Bush over the term “Axis of Evil?” Turns out the decider may have been onto something.

This week’s Wall Street Journal featured an article by Jay Solomon entitled “North Korea Nuclear Find Raises Fear on Tehran.” From the article:

North Korea’s apparent upgrade to its nuclear-fuel production capabilities is raising fears among lawmakers and proliferation experts about Pyongyang’s potential role in supplying Iran and others with the sophisticated machinery.

Tehran and Pyongyang have developed expansive military ties over the past three decades and have collaborated in developing missile systems, submarines and small arms. U.S. and allied intelligence services have also interdicted a number of Iran-bound North Korean arms shipments, by sea and by air, in recent years.

Lawmakers and proliferation experts said North Korea, desperate for hard currency, could seek to expand on these military ties to aid Iran’s nuclear work—particularly at a time when Tehran is facing technical challenges in producing nuclear fuel.

“We don’t know exactly how coordinated it is, but it would be naïve to assume that they’re not cooperating on centrifuges,” said Pete Hoekstra (R.-Mich.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

A senior U.S. official said the Obama administration recognizes the proliferation risks but that new U.N. sanctions have significantly constricted Pyongyang’s ability to move materials.

The concerns were sparked by a report released Saturday by Stanford physicist Siegfried Hecker that he saw some 2,000 centrifuges organized in cascades at a North Korean facility he visited earlier this month. U.S. intelligence agencies and outside nuclear experts have cited the report, and its description of the size and scope of the centrifuges, to conclude they are so-called P-2 designs—a generation beyond what Iran is using.

“One has to assume that Iran either has the P-2 centrifuge from North Korea, or could get it very easily,” said Simon Henderson, a proliferation expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He also worries that North Korea could enrich uranium on Iran’s behalf.

What’s that? The atheistic communists are working with the religious fundamentalists against the United Sates? If you didn’t know any better you might be tempted to say that there is in fact an Axis of Evil, “arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

One area where President Bush never relented was prosecuting the Global War on Terror. In 2001, President Bush was right that the forces of evil, however diverse, would work together against the United States. North Korea and Iran working together to create nuclear weapons is further evidence vindicating President Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ pronouncement.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yes, he made one bad speech. That should not rule him out as a potential 2012 candidate. Governor Jindal is an articulate conservative governor, who has done a great job clearing out the deadwood in what was one of the most corrupt states in the Union. His demonstrated understanding of the issues, compounded with strong record and experience, should make him a force within the GOP – hopefully in 2012.

President Obama has pursued a course of peace through weakness and surrender. Obama’s gutting of the military is emboldening America’s enemies (as I have written about on previous occasions).

In 2001, Osama Bin Laden explained “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” Can anyone honestly say that President Obama’s apology/bow to dictators tour has made the United States look like the ‘strong horse’?

Instead, countries like China see the Obama presidency as an opportunity to fill the vacuum that the United States is creating.

If it is true that the ‘mystery missile’ fired off the California coast was indeed launched from a Chinese submarine, it would just be the latest provocation from the ChiComs.

A recent article in the LA Times, that appeared is this weeks Sunday Feature, detailed China’s increasing presence in the Middle East. China has been trading with and helping to fund regimes in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Now, China has an eye on expanding in Iraq, following the withdrawal of the United States. China’s funding of enemy regimes like Iran and Syria is no mistake.

As President Obama downsizes the United States military, the Chinese are expanding and modernizing their military. The Chinese are regularly shocking experts with their advanced military capabilities (see: U.S.S. Kitty Hawk stalking). Where is the money coming from for the Chinese to rapidly upgrade their military? American tax payers. According to Mark Steyn, by 2015 the entire Chinese military will be funded by American debt interest payments. To drive that point home, Steyn said, “when the Commies take Taiwan, suburban families in Connecticut and small businesses in Idaho will have paid for it.”

There are three important takeaways here:

The first lesson is that, as Secretary Rumsfeld said, “if we know anything, it is the weakness is provocative.” Cutting defense spending is always a terrible idea. The Chinese are assembling a 21st century military. The United States cannot afford to ever fall behind.

The second lesson is that President Obama’s planned withdrawal from a world at war is dangerous, reckless and inexcusable. The power vacuum an American retreat from the Middle East would create will have disastrous results. It is absolutely not in America’s best interest to cede power to the ChiComs, especially in the tinderbox region that is the Middle East.

The third lesson is that the national debt is a deadly serious issue. The United States cannot continue funding the expansion of the Chinese military. After WWII the entire world was seemingly in debt to the United States. Now the United States is the world’s largest debtor. The United States’ largest creditor is China. At this time it is undeniable that the national debt is a national security threat.

These are serious times that require a strong leader; something Barack Obama is not.

Listen Online:

Strictly Right 72

Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.