Tony Blair - Tougher than Bush !

Well, if the free world is going to be saved from fascist extremism in the 21st century, perhaps it will once again take a British leader to do it, since my man W. sure isn't going to be the one to get the job done. Blair speaks the plain truth about Iran:

In an address to business leaders and journalists in Dubai, Blair said combating extremism and the violence it foments was the greatest challenge of the 21st century. He said the lesson he had drawn from his five-day Mideast trip was "startlingly real, clear and menacing."

"We have to wake up. These forces of extremism - based on a warped and wrongheaded misinterpretation of Islam - aren't fighting a conventional war. But they are fighting one, against us - and us is not just the West, still less simply America and its allies," Blair said

Blair said there were "elements of the government of Iran, openly supporting terrorism in Iraq to stop a fledgling democratic process; trying to turn out a democratic government in Lebanon; flaunting the international community's desire for peace in Palestine - at the same time as denying the Holocaust and trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability; and yet a large part of world opinion is frankly almost indifferent. It would be bizarre if it weren't deadly serious.

"We must recognize the strategic challenge the government of Iran poses," Blair added. "Not its people, possibly not all its ruling elements, but those presently in charge of its policy."

Thank you Tony! The active support of the Iraqi insurgents by the Iranian government is the primary reason it still even exists at all. It has been well-known for some time that over the past year most American and British causalties in Iraq were caused by IED's built in Iran. In any other war, this would be cause for cross-border expeditions and strategic bombings in order to halt the flow of cross-border weaponry. But for some reason, Bush prevaricates on Iran, and Coalition forces take unnecessary deaths. Imagine if we had taken early but decisive military action againt both Iranian arms smuggling and Syria's blind eye towards terrorist movement across its borders....yet instead, we beg Assad for talks (and apparently, he is setting the terms)while Iran builds nukes. Any wonder why a Western victory in Iraq is uncertain? When you fight a war, fight it, and don't fret about the whiny editorial pages in the national newspapers. Seems as if Blair has come to that understanding, if not Bush...but is it already too late?

Michale Ledeen spreads the blame around for our current predicament:

I think the self-blinding of the West took place at a higher, and more political, level. I blame the intelligence community and the diplomats. They were the ones who refused to accept information from proven sources, because that information was in total conflict with the alternate version of reality they sold to the president: that Iran had been helpful to us in Afghanistan, that there were “moderates” in Tehran with whom we could work, and that a “grand bargain” could be struck, if only we made nice to the mullahs.

And of course I blame the president and his people–from his personal staff to the National Security Council people in charge of the region and the war—who bought the alternate reality. They had numerous opportunities to listen to the truth, and invariably declined.

With the right amount of bravery and intestinal fortitude, we can certainly achieve victory in the current Iraq/Iran war. We must fight a few battles simultaneously:

-first, can we please fight to win in Iraq? Let's boost up the troop levels, and engage in town to town, hand to hand combat with the Iraqi insurgancy, including the Sadr army. Once a town is cleared and secured, let's hand it over to the Iraqi forces. They must be able, six weeks from now, to at least have the operational ability to "hold" a sector. Will there be American and civilian deaths? Absolutely. But of course, had we adopted this policy two years ago, we would never had reached the friendly/military casualty levels we see today.

-Iran must be squeezed hard. Sanctions must be strictly enforced; by air and sea if necessary. Russsia and China may be miffed, but they won't be sending forces over to Persia to defend the mullahs, either. We already have them surrounded on two sides; let's move our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Iranian border and make our presence known. All it will take will be a handful of seizures of IED's and other Iraqi support material to allow coalition forces to justify deeper raids. And with France now leaving Afghanistan (likely moving troops to the Lebanese border to engage in some good old fashioned Jew-killin'), that's one less enemy we need to concern ourselves with. But let it be said that if our forces are unable operationally to spread themselves out along this front, than we really need to rethink the compostion and makeup of the American military.

-a firm hand with terrorist "governments", please. No quarter for Hezbollah; they started the summer war with Israel and hid behind civilians for cover (which Kofi Annan and his UN cronies were more than happy to give them). Nor Hamas, who despite having been handed over the whole of Gaza, comes up with a new excuse every day to launch rockets at civilian targets inside of Israel's 1948 borders! Groups like these must be held to the same standards of human decency and behavior as all other national leadership groups; applying a double standard to these hate groups only allows new ones to spring up and demand the same considerations. Govern responsibly, control your borders, or be held responsible.

That's it. Three simple steps that can win the Middle East in less than eighteen months; both Blair and Bush can step down as warrior-heroes, and the world may be bought a greater period of peace than can be purchased by appeasment with the likes of Hezbollah's butcher Imad Mughniyah, Iraq's menacing al-Sadr, Syria's bumbling Assad, and Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Seems like Tony Blair finally gets it, and is on the right track. Will it trickle down to Bush, and can these two weakened leaders front a strong military strategy of this type?

The fate of the future may lay in the balance....