The "Global War on Terrorism" is a religious war, right?
Islamists and their armed force, the jihadists, are fighting for religious reasons, right?
Must be.
All sorts of bloviators, politicians, journalists, academics say so. We are warned against the dangers of something called Islamophobia by defenders of sensitivity and multiculturalism. We are cautioned against the dangers of discriminating against religious beliefs and believers. We are urged to recognise the great contributions to human civilization made by members of all religious faiths.
The Geek has to blow the whistle. It's time to get a grip on a few historical realities.
Religion has often been used as a motivator for war. It has been used to rile up societies, gin up the troops, and head a country into war.
Now comes the big "but."
But, the wars fought under the banner of religion when examined with the cynical eye of history show themselves to have been fought for the usual reason. Politics.
First, a rule of the thumb, historically justified definition of the word "politics." Politics means quite simply the acquisition, expansion, or defense of authority over the population of a defined territory. To make it simpler: politics describes the struggle for power.
Take as an example the war(s) so often invoked rhetorically by Islamists--the Crusades. When Urban II preached the First Crusade, he used "liberation" of the Christian holy sites in and around Jerusalem as the hot button to motivate the population of Europe to go to war.
While that might have been one reason, it was not the primary one either for the papacy or the secular rulers who organised the armies, waged the war, and waded through the bloody streets of Jerusalem. The primary reason was the expansion of power. The papacy sought to extend its power over the several secular rulers of Europe. These secular princes and kings sought to expand the extent of territory under their sway.
How about the grunts of the day, the knights and men-at-arms? Their goal wasn't necessarily power per se. They were men with a firm, hard eye fixed on the main chance. The chance for land, wealth, status, glory--and power.
The same may be fairly argued about the Islamic figures who waged the Counter-crusade. Salah al Din may have been a good Muslim, the Geek is not in a position to evaluate that. He can say that Sala al Din was a man ambitious for both military glory and political power.
The ebb and sway of Crusaders and Counter-crusaders over the years following the final ejection of the Christians from the lands conquered during the First Crusade show (as does the original Muslim expansion across the Mideast, the southern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, and the Iberian peninsula) the same political goal under religious garb.
Politics, the struggle for power over the people of a given piece of real estate, was the reality. Not the greater glory of any given religion. Religion was simply the cosmetics on the face of war.
Flash forward to the bloody century (more or less) between Martin Luther's nailing of his theses on the cathedral door in Wittenberg to the end of the Thirty Years War. This was the period of the Reformation and Counter-reformation. It's often called the the time of the Wars of Religion.
Get a grip!
The wars were political. They were waged for power. Protestantism and Catholicism were cosmetics. Even a man such as Philip II of Spain, who was at least as devout a Catholic as the Pope, was more concerned about maintaining and expanding the political power of the Spanish Empire than about the destination post mortem of his immortal soul.
(And, there is no doubt but this king was quite worried about getting his ticket punched for heaven.)
When Phillip took on Queen Elizabeth and England, it was against the background of the long-standing, bloody insurgency waged by the Dutch against Spain. Sure, Henry VIII had broken with the Catholic Church. Sure, Bloody Mary hadn't lived long enough to reclaim the apostate English for the Holy Mother Church. True, Elizabeth had declined marriage (and subsequent conversion to Catholicism) with Phillip.
The reason for the Armada was quite simply to take out England as the "over-the-horizon" external sponsoring power of the Dutch insurgents. The Spanish equation was simple. Dutch rebels minus English support equalled Spanish victory. Holland would be maintained in the Spanish Empire--and England gained.
Doesn't that hit you as a purely political calculation?
The same sort of calculus can be seen at work under the cloak of religion in the Thirty Years War. Sweden didn't head south into the cockpit of the German States out of a sense of Protestant solidarity. No. The move was defensive of Swedish royal authority at home. At the same time it was offensive--a seeking to expand the scope of Swedish power.
The grunts, the guys who did the fighting and dying, as well as most of the commanders were not after power in its own right as they were men with an eye on the main chance--the chance for loot, booty, land, status, glory--and the power those might bring in their wake.
In recent years, conflicts such as those in Northern Ireland used religion as a means of choosing sides and motivating combatants as well as those who supported them. Nonetheless, the reason for fighting was political.
Who would have the power over whom? That was the question over which bullets whined, bombs exploded, and people died. The same dynamic existed in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion.
Regardless of what Osama bin Laden and his coterie might believe and say, the multi-party war during and after the Soviet invasion was all about politics. Taliban eventually triumphed over the others because religion is a very good way to assure both group coherence and sufficient combat effectiveness.
Right now and into the future there is no religious war being waged. It's the same old, same old. It is as Karl von Clausewitz correctly stated, "continuation of politics by violent means."
The enemies are not religious. They are ideological, that is to say of antipodal political views. On one side is the defining ideology of the West with its emphasis on the free individual: dynamic differences of political, social, economic and cultural views, electoral processes, and a functional separation between the institutions of religion and those of the state. On the other is Islamism with its emphasis upon the collective: subordination of the individual to authority, and a complete melding of religion and state.
The war can be (and should be) primarily of the "cold" variety. However, the initiative to make it "hot" lies with the Islamists, not the West, not the US.
If the jihadists, the men with an eye on the main chance--the chance for glory, family status enhancement, a perceived avenue out of a life of self-ascribed meaninglessness and impotence--and those who give the orders and make the plans, choose to make the war hot, we have no option except to defeat them. As we fight them in the field and take the war to their lairs, we also must wage the "cold" side of the conflict.
To do that it is necessary to remember that this struggle is not about religion. It is every bit as political as past wars--both hot and cold--which we Americans and our allies have fought and won.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
The Iranian Parliament Doesn't Get The List Right
Today the Iranian parliament, adopting the role usually played by a yapping small dog with delusions of adequacy, declared the US Army and CIA to be "terrorist organizations." The resolution is currently nonbinding, but that could change if it is stamped good-for-go by the Council of Experts, which is a collection of mullahs.
"Well," says the Geek, "I'll be gosh-darned! Ain't that a hoot."
Of course the US Army is a "terrorist organization" if you define the term terrorist so loosely that it has no meaning. So is the US Marine Corps.
Can't help wondering why the sagacious statesmen of the Iranian parliament left the leathernecks off the list. The USMC has always featured a top rank placement with previous adversaries of the US.
During WW II the Japanese claimed repeatedly that to become a Marine, a man had to kill at least one member of his family. Now, that's a real terrorist, wouldn't you agree?
During the Korean War, the Chinese termed the Marines, "gangsters" and recycled the old Japanese charge. Not much inventiveness there, but it was a nice effort.
A decade or so later Hanoi played echo chamber for the "family killer" and "gangster" charges while adding that Marines were fed drugs so they would be "zombies" behind the trigger.
Wow! That's enough to make the Geek shiver.
Come on, Iranians! Can't you at least add the Marine Corps to your little list?
Then, what about the Air Force?
Heck, they were the bunch who used the most depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, which seems to have you lads so upset. On top of that, where is your knowledge of military history?
The American Air Force along with that of Great Britain engaged in a prolonged terror campaign against the civilian population centers of Germany. It was even admitted as being just that in formerly classified high-level documents.
Then, it was the Air Force (admittedly still part of the Army at that time, but straining to break free of ground pounder control) that delivered the atomic bombs on Japanese cities. It was the Strategic Air Command of the USAF that kept the bombers flying and the missiles standing by during the Cold War--and still does today.
Gosh, as Ross Perot used to say, "The devil is in the details."
Better add the Air Force to your list before you send it upstairs to the mullahs.
Perhaps you ought to add the US Navy to it as well. Aren't all those missile launching submarines enough to make you shudder--even a little? And, what about all those aircraft carriers? You might even want to consider the Navy's SEAL component. Can't you give those boys enough credit at black operations to feel even a little scared?
Now that a case has been made for expanding your "terrorist list," the Geek respectfully suggests that you take CIA off.
The Agency's primary function is the provision of intelligence. You might not know it, but nearly ninety percent of all raw information coming into the intelligence component of CIA is from open sources. Most of the rest comes from technical means. Only a teeny bit comes from classic spies. That's not too scary is it? Hardly causes you a shiver--unless you're hopelessly paranoid.
Oh! The Geek gets it! You guys are shaking in your collective sandals because of the Agency's clandestine/covert action capacity. That's what has you holding your breath with flat footed fear.
Chill out, fellows. Let ole doc Geek give you a historical tranquilizer. As the "family jewels" documents make clear, CIA has never been big on the concept of assassination. Not for moral reasons. No. For purely pragmatic considerations with "it doesn't work" on the top of the list.
(If the Agency's heart and soul had really been in the Kennedy brothers desire to kill Castro, the Cuban jefe would have been examining the root systems of daisys for the past forty-five years.)
Sure, Agency personnel and contract employees have trained paramilitary forces. Agency people have even (perish the thought) conducted such operations themselves over the years.
Now, wise and deep thinking parliamentarians of Tehran, get a grip on this!
As you ought to bloody well know courtesy of your own al-Quds Force and your Hezbollah proxies, to be a terrorist organization a simple standard must be met.
For your edification and deliction here is the standard. Through the use of violence or the threatened use of violence against civilian and governmental targets, the organization or its members must seek to alter the policies or structure of the target government and society.
For your further edification, the US military and intelligence community alike do not target civilians or even distinct personalities within a hostile regime. Indeed, the post-World War II history of US military operations both ground and air show an extreme effort to minimise civilian casualties.
So, upon consideration of the last two easily documentable historical realities, why don't you just withdraw your resolution? The Geek knows it must feel good to yap and yammer. Try to grow up just a bit and get a grip on reality.
This resolution of yours is as wrong as a soup sandwich.
"Well," says the Geek, "I'll be gosh-darned! Ain't that a hoot."
Of course the US Army is a "terrorist organization" if you define the term terrorist so loosely that it has no meaning. So is the US Marine Corps.
Can't help wondering why the sagacious statesmen of the Iranian parliament left the leathernecks off the list. The USMC has always featured a top rank placement with previous adversaries of the US.
During WW II the Japanese claimed repeatedly that to become a Marine, a man had to kill at least one member of his family. Now, that's a real terrorist, wouldn't you agree?
During the Korean War, the Chinese termed the Marines, "gangsters" and recycled the old Japanese charge. Not much inventiveness there, but it was a nice effort.
A decade or so later Hanoi played echo chamber for the "family killer" and "gangster" charges while adding that Marines were fed drugs so they would be "zombies" behind the trigger.
Wow! That's enough to make the Geek shiver.
Come on, Iranians! Can't you at least add the Marine Corps to your little list?
Then, what about the Air Force?
Heck, they were the bunch who used the most depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, which seems to have you lads so upset. On top of that, where is your knowledge of military history?
The American Air Force along with that of Great Britain engaged in a prolonged terror campaign against the civilian population centers of Germany. It was even admitted as being just that in formerly classified high-level documents.
Then, it was the Air Force (admittedly still part of the Army at that time, but straining to break free of ground pounder control) that delivered the atomic bombs on Japanese cities. It was the Strategic Air Command of the USAF that kept the bombers flying and the missiles standing by during the Cold War--and still does today.
Gosh, as Ross Perot used to say, "The devil is in the details."
Better add the Air Force to your list before you send it upstairs to the mullahs.
Perhaps you ought to add the US Navy to it as well. Aren't all those missile launching submarines enough to make you shudder--even a little? And, what about all those aircraft carriers? You might even want to consider the Navy's SEAL component. Can't you give those boys enough credit at black operations to feel even a little scared?
Now that a case has been made for expanding your "terrorist list," the Geek respectfully suggests that you take CIA off.
The Agency's primary function is the provision of intelligence. You might not know it, but nearly ninety percent of all raw information coming into the intelligence component of CIA is from open sources. Most of the rest comes from technical means. Only a teeny bit comes from classic spies. That's not too scary is it? Hardly causes you a shiver--unless you're hopelessly paranoid.
Oh! The Geek gets it! You guys are shaking in your collective sandals because of the Agency's clandestine/covert action capacity. That's what has you holding your breath with flat footed fear.
Chill out, fellows. Let ole doc Geek give you a historical tranquilizer. As the "family jewels" documents make clear, CIA has never been big on the concept of assassination. Not for moral reasons. No. For purely pragmatic considerations with "it doesn't work" on the top of the list.
(If the Agency's heart and soul had really been in the Kennedy brothers desire to kill Castro, the Cuban jefe would have been examining the root systems of daisys for the past forty-five years.)
Sure, Agency personnel and contract employees have trained paramilitary forces. Agency people have even (perish the thought) conducted such operations themselves over the years.
Now, wise and deep thinking parliamentarians of Tehran, get a grip on this!
As you ought to bloody well know courtesy of your own al-Quds Force and your Hezbollah proxies, to be a terrorist organization a simple standard must be met.
For your edification and deliction here is the standard. Through the use of violence or the threatened use of violence against civilian and governmental targets, the organization or its members must seek to alter the policies or structure of the target government and society.
For your further edification, the US military and intelligence community alike do not target civilians or even distinct personalities within a hostile regime. Indeed, the post-World War II history of US military operations both ground and air show an extreme effort to minimise civilian casualties.
So, upon consideration of the last two easily documentable historical realities, why don't you just withdraw your resolution? The Geek knows it must feel good to yap and yammer. Try to grow up just a bit and get a grip on reality.
This resolution of yours is as wrong as a soup sandwich.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Is Blackwater Training the US Army?
Blackwater USA rankles the Geek no end. He considers the company to be nothing but a collection of robo-killers, trigger-pullers without adult supervision. He has repeatedly urged that the blood lust ridden band of condittore known as Blackwater and any other "security" company with a similar record of quick-to-draw-down and fast-to-bust-a-cap on someone be heaved out of Iraq instantly, if not sooner.
Blackwater's record as dusters of many has been documented by State Department figures. If you trust the MSM, take a dekko at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/world/middleeast/28contractors.html?th&emc=th. It appears that in this year alone, Blackwater's shooters are twice as quick to push the cancel button than their nearest rivals for the title of Mad Blaster of Iraq.
This single statistic, which ignores all other indicators showing Blackwater USA is run by a bunch of kill-em-all-and-let-the-deity-sort-it-out, wild-eyed boys, should have convinced the US Secretary of State to cancel their contract. That she has demanded a "full" investigation is not at all reassuring.
All too often the pages of US political history are littered with "full investigations" which turn out to be exercises in duplicity, obfuscation, and flat out cover and concealment.
Does the State Department want a success to emerge from the rubble of Iraq? The Geek certainly hopes so. But, he is sorely tasked to figure out why the Department, which contains many highly competent individuals, is so collectively gripless on the Blackwater bandits.
There is no doubt in the Geek's semi-military mind that the US could dredge up sufficient well-qualified military personnel to replace the Blackwater robo-shooters.
Wait one!
That thought brings up another bothersome little thing.
A court martial. See, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-zT8WvZY-uYK3d-CARtfDJgnR-wD8RUHFJ00.
A court martial in Iraq acquitted Specialist Jorge Sandoval on charges of premeditated murder arising from Specialist Sandoval's role as a sniper. Sandoval shot and killed an Iraqi farmer after being ordered to do so by his sniper team leader, one Sergeant Hensley.
Hensley (who has yet to stand trial) apparently had determined to his personal satisfaction that the farmer was actually an insurgent who had been fighting only minutes earlier and was now attempting to disguise himself as a peace loving agriculturalist. He then ordered Sandoval to shoot the man and plant a roll of "command wire" (the type of electrical wire used for detonating command detonated mines) by the body as justification.
A key witness in the Sandoval matter was Sergeant Evan Vela, who is charged in another shooting case dating back to May. Sergeant Vela was ordered by Hensley to kill an unarmed Iraqi civilian who had stumbled across the snipers' position. When the first shot failed to kill the man, who had been holding his hands up, Hensley ordered Vela to finish the job. Vela did. Hensley then reportedly put an AK-47 next to the body.
Hensley, Vela, and Sandoval should be working for Blackwater. Or, perhaps they were trained by the same gripless people who train and supervise (if that is the right word) the Blackwater forces in the field.
Killing unarmed civilians, even if they are suspected insurgents is (or should be) an absolute no-no of the first rank. It is counterproductive to the max. It helps the bad guys. It hurts the cause of stability. It can even assure future friendly deaths.
Letting Sandoval off because he was only following orders was as supremely stupid as letting Blackwater's brigands stay in operation.
The Geek spent years in an insurgent environment. He is well aware of the ambiguities which exist in the insurgent-counterinsurgent farrago. He faced tough choices made in fractions of a second on whether or not to pull the trigger.
It is from this basis as well as his long and comprehensive study of the dynamics of insurgency and the requirements of successful counterinsurgency that the Geek is disturbed, deeply disturbed by the actions of Hensley, Vela, and Sandoval as well as the latter's acquital on the "following orders" ploy.
The Geek can't help but remember that the defense of following a superior's orders was specifically disallowed by the International Military Tribunal following World War II. He can't help but note that US military law provides for a subordinate to ignore a clearly illegal order.
If Sergeant Hensley's orders weren't illegal, the Geek has no idea what might be.
After Sandoval's acquittal, one of his military lawyers, Captain Craig Drummond said, "Today what the panel concluded was justice. This soldier is not guilty."
The captain was wrong. The verdict was folly. It hurt the US effort in Iraq. In some slight way, it hurt the US position throughout the world.
The continuation of Blackwater's operations in Iraq hurts our efforts. Blackwater's seeming support by the US State Department more than the actions of a single court martial of a single individual hurts the status of the US throughout the world.
The Geek has a message for Secretary of State Rice: Throw the bloody Blackwater bastards off your payroll!
Blackwater's record as dusters of many has been documented by State Department figures. If you trust the MSM, take a dekko at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/world/middleeast/28contractors.html?th&emc=th. It appears that in this year alone, Blackwater's shooters are twice as quick to push the cancel button than their nearest rivals for the title of Mad Blaster of Iraq.
This single statistic, which ignores all other indicators showing Blackwater USA is run by a bunch of kill-em-all-and-let-the-deity-sort-it-out, wild-eyed boys, should have convinced the US Secretary of State to cancel their contract. That she has demanded a "full" investigation is not at all reassuring.
All too often the pages of US political history are littered with "full investigations" which turn out to be exercises in duplicity, obfuscation, and flat out cover and concealment.
Does the State Department want a success to emerge from the rubble of Iraq? The Geek certainly hopes so. But, he is sorely tasked to figure out why the Department, which contains many highly competent individuals, is so collectively gripless on the Blackwater bandits.
There is no doubt in the Geek's semi-military mind that the US could dredge up sufficient well-qualified military personnel to replace the Blackwater robo-shooters.
Wait one!
That thought brings up another bothersome little thing.
A court martial. See, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-zT8WvZY-uYK3d-CARtfDJgnR-wD8RUHFJ00.
A court martial in Iraq acquitted Specialist Jorge Sandoval on charges of premeditated murder arising from Specialist Sandoval's role as a sniper. Sandoval shot and killed an Iraqi farmer after being ordered to do so by his sniper team leader, one Sergeant Hensley.
Hensley (who has yet to stand trial) apparently had determined to his personal satisfaction that the farmer was actually an insurgent who had been fighting only minutes earlier and was now attempting to disguise himself as a peace loving agriculturalist. He then ordered Sandoval to shoot the man and plant a roll of "command wire" (the type of electrical wire used for detonating command detonated mines) by the body as justification.
A key witness in the Sandoval matter was Sergeant Evan Vela, who is charged in another shooting case dating back to May. Sergeant Vela was ordered by Hensley to kill an unarmed Iraqi civilian who had stumbled across the snipers' position. When the first shot failed to kill the man, who had been holding his hands up, Hensley ordered Vela to finish the job. Vela did. Hensley then reportedly put an AK-47 next to the body.
Hensley, Vela, and Sandoval should be working for Blackwater. Or, perhaps they were trained by the same gripless people who train and supervise (if that is the right word) the Blackwater forces in the field.
Killing unarmed civilians, even if they are suspected insurgents is (or should be) an absolute no-no of the first rank. It is counterproductive to the max. It helps the bad guys. It hurts the cause of stability. It can even assure future friendly deaths.
Letting Sandoval off because he was only following orders was as supremely stupid as letting Blackwater's brigands stay in operation.
The Geek spent years in an insurgent environment. He is well aware of the ambiguities which exist in the insurgent-counterinsurgent farrago. He faced tough choices made in fractions of a second on whether or not to pull the trigger.
It is from this basis as well as his long and comprehensive study of the dynamics of insurgency and the requirements of successful counterinsurgency that the Geek is disturbed, deeply disturbed by the actions of Hensley, Vela, and Sandoval as well as the latter's acquital on the "following orders" ploy.
The Geek can't help but remember that the defense of following a superior's orders was specifically disallowed by the International Military Tribunal following World War II. He can't help but note that US military law provides for a subordinate to ignore a clearly illegal order.
If Sergeant Hensley's orders weren't illegal, the Geek has no idea what might be.
After Sandoval's acquittal, one of his military lawyers, Captain Craig Drummond said, "Today what the panel concluded was justice. This soldier is not guilty."
The captain was wrong. The verdict was folly. It hurt the US effort in Iraq. In some slight way, it hurt the US position throughout the world.
The continuation of Blackwater's operations in Iraq hurts our efforts. Blackwater's seeming support by the US State Department more than the actions of a single court martial of a single individual hurts the status of the US throughout the world.
The Geek has a message for Secretary of State Rice: Throw the bloody Blackwater bastards off your payroll!
The Race Down The Tube--Which Country Will Win?
In an excellent piece in the Jamestown Foundations Terrorism Monitor, Hassan Abbas dissects the increasing loss over the seven Tribal Agencies by the Pakistani government. It is well worth a careful reading. http://mail.google.com/mail/?auth=DQAAAHgAAAAPFJhzd4Tq1IRsqILlyiDcGKJ3HlJUcPcXmTd1Hmua78fQGMk4YDG2dApnConq87C3FPjN27yqnbuyTJr8H3WjZJddXsDELFx29l-D_wF-H0ZI9UCNP6JqskpYporZ3rmCUVY8mgU-qHNkOgTdDK7JZJILS-RmaBg0w9l-zUA1Ig&shva=1
The increasing effectiveness of Taliban and Taliban-like groups in establishing authority over these Agencies (which include North and South Waziristan) has been highly worrisome. Taken in conjunction with the evident demoralization of the Pakistani army units operating or based in the Agencies, it is a strong sign of a failed state in the making.
That's bad news. Very bad news.
But, there is another related factor.
Afghanistan. Or, to err on the side of accuracy, the capacity of the Afghan National Army.
General Dan McNeill, the American commander of the 35,000 troops of the NATO force operating in Afghanistan has warned that the impressive gains made against anti-government forces in recent months can be lost without significant improvements in the Afghan army. So far, the Afghan national force has shown little ability to hold territory or protect civilians against Taliban.
Rather wistfully it seemed to the Geek, General McNeil commented to Reuters, "It would be nice if the Afghan national security force could hold it (the Helmand River valley, a Taliban heartland and prime opium producing area), then there is less of a chance that we'll have to do it again." http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-09-28T102516Z_01_L28295682_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AFGHAN-GENERAL.xml&src=nl_uktopnewsmid
The "it" referred to is the tough job of slogging through Helmand again, shooting Taliban and assorted foreign jihadists off the mountain tops along the way. This is a type of war which shows counterinsurgency at its worst. Hard yomps, hard combat, civilians littering the battlefield, and insurgents hiding in the homes of the uncommitted has been the name of the game.
Only an effective Afghan national army and a reasonably legitimate Afghan national government can prevent a replay of the past weeks and months in Helmand.
Taliban has been heaved onto the ropes militarily during the offensive sweeps by US and NATO forces as well as by the few relatively competent and motivated Afghan units. This conclusion is buttressed by the shift in Taliban tactics last spring from actions directed against foreign military forces first to those with Afghan police and military units in the crosshairs and then to suicide bombing of soft civilian targets.
Taliban quickly found out that the intentional killing of civilians was even more counterproductive than inadvertent or collateral killing such as results from US or NATO airstrikes. With the death of Terrorist-in-Chief, Mullah Abdullah, Taliban literally went back to the mountains and their heartland in Helmand on the border with Pakistan.
There has been well-rooted reason for guarded optimism about the "regime change" in Afghanistan. That is true as long as Pakistan, and, more specifically, the Tribal Agencies can be left out of the equation.
Leaving either out of the mix is impossible. Anyone who does is not well oriented in space and time.
As the British well understood during the years of the Raj, the Northwest Frontier, that is the area now known as the seven Tribal Agencies, is the key to Afghanistan. Effective control of the Northwest Frontier made domination of Afghanistan a possibility. Without it, Afghanistan is open to all comers.
Pakistan is the portal to Afghanistan. Like all portals it can be either open or closed. Right now, the door is open to Taliban and its cognates. Right now, the door is closed to us and our allies.
As long as the Tribal Agencies are more under the sway of Islamists and only under the control of the Pakistani central government in name only, there is no long term hope of successfully achieving the goals established by the "regime change" in Kabul.
Get a grip on this less-than-heartening reality.
There are very real limits to what the US or other Western powers can do in Pakistan. Right now neither more pressure nor more inducements will help the current regime in Islamabad. General Musharraf may have the necessary votes to be elected as president. That does not mean he has widespread support among the population.
Musharraf may have moved supporters into the crucial positions of Deputy Chief of Staff and head of Interservices Intelligence. That doesn't mean his writ runs far or deep within either the army or ISI. Both are heavily laden with Islamists or sympathisers with Islamist ideology.
Admiral Fallon, the Commander-in-Chief of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), which has military responsibility for Northwest Asia and the Persian Gulf, said recently that the increasingly bellicose rhetoric concerning Iran was "unhelpful." He has a wary eye on Pakistan.
He (and we) have to. Pakistan is teetering politically, socially, and ideologically on the edge of collapse. A Musharraf "victory" in the upcoming election won't change that. At least not right away.
Should Pakistan collapse, should it become another failed state, the challenges for the US and others will be immense. Not only would the failure of Pakistan make all the efforts and blood spent in Afghanistan nugatory, it would assure that Afghanistan went down the Taliban tube.
On the upside, the failure of Pakistan as a functional state would assure that the US administration wouldn't have to worry about the Iranians making atomic bombs or enriching uranium. Pakistan already has both. A collapsed Pakistan would allow nuclear leakage right quick.
Nature may abhor vacuums, but political vacuums attract the ambitious.
No one has ever accused the mullahocracy in Tehran with lacking ambitions.
What does this mean to us?
Among other things, the possible (even probable) Talibanization of Pakistan means that the US will need a larger ground combat force than it possesses at the moment. Perhaps it is the contemplation of unpleasant looming possibilities that has propelled SecDef Gates to urge the funding of a larger army in the very near-term.
Robert Gates is a supreme realpolitiker. He must be worried by the impending reality he sees.
If Gates is worried, so is the Geek. You should be too.
The increasing effectiveness of Taliban and Taliban-like groups in establishing authority over these Agencies (which include North and South Waziristan) has been highly worrisome. Taken in conjunction with the evident demoralization of the Pakistani army units operating or based in the Agencies, it is a strong sign of a failed state in the making.
That's bad news. Very bad news.
But, there is another related factor.
Afghanistan. Or, to err on the side of accuracy, the capacity of the Afghan National Army.
General Dan McNeill, the American commander of the 35,000 troops of the NATO force operating in Afghanistan has warned that the impressive gains made against anti-government forces in recent months can be lost without significant improvements in the Afghan army. So far, the Afghan national force has shown little ability to hold territory or protect civilians against Taliban.
Rather wistfully it seemed to the Geek, General McNeil commented to Reuters, "It would be nice if the Afghan national security force could hold it (the Helmand River valley, a Taliban heartland and prime opium producing area), then there is less of a chance that we'll have to do it again." http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-09-28T102516Z_01_L28295682_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AFGHAN-GENERAL.xml&src=nl_uktopnewsmid
The "it" referred to is the tough job of slogging through Helmand again, shooting Taliban and assorted foreign jihadists off the mountain tops along the way. This is a type of war which shows counterinsurgency at its worst. Hard yomps, hard combat, civilians littering the battlefield, and insurgents hiding in the homes of the uncommitted has been the name of the game.
Only an effective Afghan national army and a reasonably legitimate Afghan national government can prevent a replay of the past weeks and months in Helmand.
Taliban has been heaved onto the ropes militarily during the offensive sweeps by US and NATO forces as well as by the few relatively competent and motivated Afghan units. This conclusion is buttressed by the shift in Taliban tactics last spring from actions directed against foreign military forces first to those with Afghan police and military units in the crosshairs and then to suicide bombing of soft civilian targets.
Taliban quickly found out that the intentional killing of civilians was even more counterproductive than inadvertent or collateral killing such as results from US or NATO airstrikes. With the death of Terrorist-in-Chief, Mullah Abdullah, Taliban literally went back to the mountains and their heartland in Helmand on the border with Pakistan.
There has been well-rooted reason for guarded optimism about the "regime change" in Afghanistan. That is true as long as Pakistan, and, more specifically, the Tribal Agencies can be left out of the equation.
Leaving either out of the mix is impossible. Anyone who does is not well oriented in space and time.
As the British well understood during the years of the Raj, the Northwest Frontier, that is the area now known as the seven Tribal Agencies, is the key to Afghanistan. Effective control of the Northwest Frontier made domination of Afghanistan a possibility. Without it, Afghanistan is open to all comers.
Pakistan is the portal to Afghanistan. Like all portals it can be either open or closed. Right now, the door is open to Taliban and its cognates. Right now, the door is closed to us and our allies.
As long as the Tribal Agencies are more under the sway of Islamists and only under the control of the Pakistani central government in name only, there is no long term hope of successfully achieving the goals established by the "regime change" in Kabul.
Get a grip on this less-than-heartening reality.
There are very real limits to what the US or other Western powers can do in Pakistan. Right now neither more pressure nor more inducements will help the current regime in Islamabad. General Musharraf may have the necessary votes to be elected as president. That does not mean he has widespread support among the population.
Musharraf may have moved supporters into the crucial positions of Deputy Chief of Staff and head of Interservices Intelligence. That doesn't mean his writ runs far or deep within either the army or ISI. Both are heavily laden with Islamists or sympathisers with Islamist ideology.
Admiral Fallon, the Commander-in-Chief of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), which has military responsibility for Northwest Asia and the Persian Gulf, said recently that the increasingly bellicose rhetoric concerning Iran was "unhelpful." He has a wary eye on Pakistan.
He (and we) have to. Pakistan is teetering politically, socially, and ideologically on the edge of collapse. A Musharraf "victory" in the upcoming election won't change that. At least not right away.
Should Pakistan collapse, should it become another failed state, the challenges for the US and others will be immense. Not only would the failure of Pakistan make all the efforts and blood spent in Afghanistan nugatory, it would assure that Afghanistan went down the Taliban tube.
On the upside, the failure of Pakistan as a functional state would assure that the US administration wouldn't have to worry about the Iranians making atomic bombs or enriching uranium. Pakistan already has both. A collapsed Pakistan would allow nuclear leakage right quick.
Nature may abhor vacuums, but political vacuums attract the ambitious.
No one has ever accused the mullahocracy in Tehran with lacking ambitions.
What does this mean to us?
Among other things, the possible (even probable) Talibanization of Pakistan means that the US will need a larger ground combat force than it possesses at the moment. Perhaps it is the contemplation of unpleasant looming possibilities that has propelled SecDef Gates to urge the funding of a larger army in the very near-term.
Robert Gates is a supreme realpolitiker. He must be worried by the impending reality he sees.
If Gates is worried, so is the Geek. You should be too.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
On What Planet Does Salon.com Live?
Mark Benjamin, the Washington correspondent for Salon is quite evidently disturbed, bordering on distraught about the support given by Democratic presidential candidates generally for an increase in the size of US ground combat forces. Writing today he asks rhetorically if this means the army is preparing for more wars of the Iraq/Afghanistan type. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/27/bigger_army/index.html?source=newsletter
The Geek has an answer. It's short. Simple. The answer is. "Yes."
Benjamin references the new joint Army/Marine Corps Field Manual on counterinsurgency with, at least, faint alarm. Specifically bothering him is that the new manual acknowledges the fundamental reality which separates counterinsurgency from wars between organized forces using conventional tactics and equipment such as World War II, the Korean War, or the several wars between Israel and the Arab states.
"What's the difference?" You ask.
As the Geek has written before it is both simple and all important. Counterinsurgency, in common with all other stability oriented operations such as peacekeeping, has as its focus demobilizing actual or potential support from the insurgents and remobilizing it to the side countering the gunslingers.
In sharp contrast, conventional military operations focus on destroying the enemy's forces in the field as well as its material capacity to wage war.
To make it simpler. Conventional war has as its goal killing people and breaking things. Stability operations, including counterinsurgency, seek to kill less, break as little as possible, and win on the battlefield of the mind.
Correct counterinsurgency doctrine seeks a Sun Tzu victory. It seeks to convince. It seeks to demoralize the enemy--not kill him. Sure, killing is necessary. But, correct doctrine insists on killing only those who need killing and not anyone who happens to be in the impact zone.
The new doctrine is available commercially and should be read by anyone who wants to be informed on the type of war the US is most likely to be waging in the next several years. If read carefully, a person should not be alarmed but rather gratified.
The Geek has read it and is gratified by what he read.
Throughout the Nineties, the Geek along with others wrote, lectured, and hectored on two topics. The first was the necessity of a proper counterinsurgency doctrine since the needs of counterinsurgency were almost precisely opposite to the requirements for conventional war. The second point harped on was that the most likely type of war for the US in the upcoming decades was that generally called stability operations including peacekeeping and counterinsurgency.
To say the military resisted the message is to put it mildly. The task of convincing the services to accept that there were two antipodal types of war and that they would be tasked with fighting the kind they least enjoyed considering was not unlike selling the mullahocracy in Tehran on the necessity of becoming Southern Baptists.
Now, between the forces of argument over more than a decade and several years of floundering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ground forces can take legitimate satisfaction in finally having created a doctrine that is not a recipe for defeat. Thumbs up from the Geek.
Why is Mr Benjamin so disturbed? Intuitively the Geek would think that a man of the left would be pleased that the American military has chucked its addiction to shooting, moving, and communicating so as to find, fix, and destroy the enemy. He should be happy that the military sees a creative and effective alternative to killing its way to victory over a landscape of blasted ruins.
He's not. He's fretting instead. Fretting over the fact that the world is not a pleasant place filled with peace, love, unicorns, and other nice warm, soft fuzzies.
He's bothered because the army might be larger tomorrow than it is today.
The Geek replies, "It damn well better be larger--and smarter. Stability operations will continue as an urgent, necessary requirement for US capabilities. Democratic candidates as well as Republican seem to recognise this harsh reality."
Stability operations generally and counterinsurgency in particular, as the Geek has written before, are of necessity quite manpower heavy in their requirements. As the Geekmo has pointed out ad nauseum, if the US had placed enough boots on the ground initially in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the wars would have been quashed before they grew.
Mr Benjamin just doesn't get it. (Perhaps he should read the Geek's earlier posts on the subject. They ain't half-bad, if he does say so himself.)
Perhaps Mr Benjamin is worried that should the ground forces of the US gain sufficient manpower to actually implement the new doctrine successfully there will be rooms full of senior officers, all licking their lips with eager anticipation as they stare at maps with one eye and at CNN with the other eye seeking a country to "stabilize" or a regime to change.
Get a grip, Mr Benjamin.
As a (presumed) seasoned observer of Washington, Mr Benjamin ought to know that the military does not decide what country to invade or what regime to change. Only the civilians do that. The Commander Guy and his coterie. Not the military.
Having enough boots to put on the ground and possessing a less incompetent doctrine for placing the boots should provide future administrations of either party with a more effective mechanism not only for making our diplomacy more credible but for conducting stability operations at a lower cost in lives, treasure, and time.
What is so darn scary about that?
Perhaps Mr Benjamin would be more comfortable with an American military so berift of intellectual and manpower resources like that which after much huffing, puffing, planning and rehearsing brought the world the five star production, Debacle at Desert One. Maybe he is so gripless that he is happy with a Pentagon so devoid of ideas and capacities that we could respond to al-Qaeda outrages only by flinging megabuck Tomahawks at empty mud huts.
Now, that is scary.
The Geek has an answer. It's short. Simple. The answer is. "Yes."
Benjamin references the new joint Army/Marine Corps Field Manual on counterinsurgency with, at least, faint alarm. Specifically bothering him is that the new manual acknowledges the fundamental reality which separates counterinsurgency from wars between organized forces using conventional tactics and equipment such as World War II, the Korean War, or the several wars between Israel and the Arab states.
"What's the difference?" You ask.
As the Geek has written before it is both simple and all important. Counterinsurgency, in common with all other stability oriented operations such as peacekeeping, has as its focus demobilizing actual or potential support from the insurgents and remobilizing it to the side countering the gunslingers.
In sharp contrast, conventional military operations focus on destroying the enemy's forces in the field as well as its material capacity to wage war.
To make it simpler. Conventional war has as its goal killing people and breaking things. Stability operations, including counterinsurgency, seek to kill less, break as little as possible, and win on the battlefield of the mind.
Correct counterinsurgency doctrine seeks a Sun Tzu victory. It seeks to convince. It seeks to demoralize the enemy--not kill him. Sure, killing is necessary. But, correct doctrine insists on killing only those who need killing and not anyone who happens to be in the impact zone.
The new doctrine is available commercially and should be read by anyone who wants to be informed on the type of war the US is most likely to be waging in the next several years. If read carefully, a person should not be alarmed but rather gratified.
The Geek has read it and is gratified by what he read.
Throughout the Nineties, the Geek along with others wrote, lectured, and hectored on two topics. The first was the necessity of a proper counterinsurgency doctrine since the needs of counterinsurgency were almost precisely opposite to the requirements for conventional war. The second point harped on was that the most likely type of war for the US in the upcoming decades was that generally called stability operations including peacekeeping and counterinsurgency.
To say the military resisted the message is to put it mildly. The task of convincing the services to accept that there were two antipodal types of war and that they would be tasked with fighting the kind they least enjoyed considering was not unlike selling the mullahocracy in Tehran on the necessity of becoming Southern Baptists.
Now, between the forces of argument over more than a decade and several years of floundering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ground forces can take legitimate satisfaction in finally having created a doctrine that is not a recipe for defeat. Thumbs up from the Geek.
Why is Mr Benjamin so disturbed? Intuitively the Geek would think that a man of the left would be pleased that the American military has chucked its addiction to shooting, moving, and communicating so as to find, fix, and destroy the enemy. He should be happy that the military sees a creative and effective alternative to killing its way to victory over a landscape of blasted ruins.
He's not. He's fretting instead. Fretting over the fact that the world is not a pleasant place filled with peace, love, unicorns, and other nice warm, soft fuzzies.
He's bothered because the army might be larger tomorrow than it is today.
The Geek replies, "It damn well better be larger--and smarter. Stability operations will continue as an urgent, necessary requirement for US capabilities. Democratic candidates as well as Republican seem to recognise this harsh reality."
Stability operations generally and counterinsurgency in particular, as the Geek has written before, are of necessity quite manpower heavy in their requirements. As the Geekmo has pointed out ad nauseum, if the US had placed enough boots on the ground initially in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the wars would have been quashed before they grew.
Mr Benjamin just doesn't get it. (Perhaps he should read the Geek's earlier posts on the subject. They ain't half-bad, if he does say so himself.)
Perhaps Mr Benjamin is worried that should the ground forces of the US gain sufficient manpower to actually implement the new doctrine successfully there will be rooms full of senior officers, all licking their lips with eager anticipation as they stare at maps with one eye and at CNN with the other eye seeking a country to "stabilize" or a regime to change.
Get a grip, Mr Benjamin.
As a (presumed) seasoned observer of Washington, Mr Benjamin ought to know that the military does not decide what country to invade or what regime to change. Only the civilians do that. The Commander Guy and his coterie. Not the military.
Having enough boots to put on the ground and possessing a less incompetent doctrine for placing the boots should provide future administrations of either party with a more effective mechanism not only for making our diplomacy more credible but for conducting stability operations at a lower cost in lives, treasure, and time.
What is so darn scary about that?
Perhaps Mr Benjamin would be more comfortable with an American military so berift of intellectual and manpower resources like that which after much huffing, puffing, planning and rehearsing brought the world the five star production, Debacle at Desert One. Maybe he is so gripless that he is happy with a Pentagon so devoid of ideas and capacities that we could respond to al-Qaeda outrages only by flinging megabuck Tomahawks at empty mud huts.
Now, that is scary.
Don't Be Messin' With The Monks!
Evidently the junta which has been running Burma (or, if you really insist, Myanmar) must have read the Thoughts of Chairman Mao. It's equally evident that these thugs in uniform have never acquainted themselves with the recent history of Southeast Asia.
The Geek is certain that the Burmese junta must have the (in)famous dictum of Mao's, "All power comes from the barrel of a gun," emblazoned on their office walls. Of course, this particular thought from the Great Helmsman has only limited utility.
It served to gain the junta power nineteen years ago when the army repressed street demonstrations in a hail of bullets and a flood of blood.
Now they are hoping it will work again.
Just as their diplomatic supporters, the Peoples' Republic of China, did back in 1989 after the demonstrators in Beijing got too uppity, the junta trucked in troops from the hinterlands to the capital. The Burmese soldiers were drawn primarily from the hills where one of the planet's longest running insurgencies is still in progress. Just like the Chinese peasant soldiers brought in from the far marches of the Middle Kingdom who were both unaware of the causes of the demonstration and disinclined to support them, these Burmese troops do not have any particular sense of identity with the people they are ordered to shoot.
The approach worked in China. The "Pro-Democracy" demonstrations disappeared in the night and the fog of blood.
The soldiers shot yesterday in Rangoon (or if you really, really insist, Yangon). Low body count results, less than a dozen killed. Not even up to the butcher's bill presented by the average suicide bomber.
Actually, the shooting of protesters is less important by far than what had happened a few hours earlier. In a series of cliched "pre-dawn raids" the army invaded a pair of Buddhist temple and monastery complexes. Scores of monks were hauled off in military trucks.
Here is where the pistol packing junta overlooked the recent history of Southeast Asia. Time to get a grip on it, the grip the junta lacks.
First, a couple of matters of context. Buddhist monks enjoy great prestige in Burma as in other countries of the region.
This fact is underscored by the fact that the protests in Burma only took on force and numbers as the monks became involved, culminating in nearly 100,000 citizens marching behind a phalanx of rust red robed monks.
It is important to note that contrary to the popular American view of Buddhism and Buddhist clerics as being otherworldly and detached from the realities of political or social concerns, in actuality Buddhist monks and other prelates can be and have been extremely focused on changing repressive regimes.
Forty plus years ago the classic case of the power of Buddhist protest occurred in South Vietnam. The regime of "our man in Saigon," President Ngo Dinh Diem and his secret police chief brother, Nhu, was, to put it as charitably as possible, repressive. One or another of Diem's or Nhu's lame-brained schemes hacked off enough South Vietnamese to reach a critical mass.
Demonstrations occurred in major cities including Hue and the capitol, Saigon.
At first the security forces left the streets to the demonstrators. The demonstrations continued. Grew slowly in size. No surprise there.
Then the Buddhist monks joined in with protests of their own. (In many US media of the day this was portrayed as a religious dispute between the Buddhists and the Catholics Diem and Nhu. Talk about the out-to-lunch bunch!)
Nhu's police and South Vietnamese Army units under the command of Catholic refugees from North Vietnam responded with force. Heads were cracked. Bullets met rocks. Blood stained the pavement.
Next the troops and cops raided the monasteries and temples.
Then came the move that changed South Vietnamese (and American) politics and history.
The new move has a nice, sanitary name: self-immolation.
A monk (or nun, Buddhism does not impose gender discrimination in this act) shows supreme commitment to the cause of political reform or regime change by committing suicide publicly and painfully.
The individual, accompanied by fellow clerics and after proper ritual, proceeds to a public place.
Next, the individual sits in a lotus position, pours gasoline over his/her head. Lights a match.
Burns to death.
Without a twitch or tremor, without a grimace of pain, burns until the half-consumed corpse collapses through its wreath of flame. A wilted lotus.
Back then there were no videophones, no satellite television relays, no Internet. It took hours for grainy black and white photographs to make it to the US media.
Even though the images were far from real-time, their emotional impact was awesome. The picture of a calm, composed human being, sitting cross-legged as the flames licked at the face,
shocked and repelled the American public. Protests flooded Washington. The flood reached Biblical proportions after Madam Nhu, wife of the secret police chief, made a comment on an American TV show while here on a good-will visit.
Her comment?
She referred to the self-immolations. (There had been several in the preceding days.) Madam Nhu called them, "Buddhist barbecues."
The feces hit the fan. President Kennedy halted US military shipments. That wasn't enough.
The Saigon regime kept on repressing. Harder and harder.
The Buddhists responded with more self-immolations.
The American public put more pressure on the White House and Congress.
Finally Kennedy made a most fateful decision. He instructed the new US Ambassador to South Vietnam to cooperate with one or another of the several coup plotting groups in the country. The outcome was a successful coup against Diem and the deaths of Diem and Nhu.
Another result was the further disintegration of South Vietnam with an increase in the success of the Viet Cong insurgents. (And, of course, the decisions which led to the US troop commitment.)
There is a lesson here. It is most appropriate to the Burmese junta. But, we should learn it as well.
The lesson is simple.
True, history never repeats itself. Burma today is not at all like South Vietnam in 1963. The world is not at all the same.
Still, the lesson is compelling. When Buddhist monks decide that regime change is a moral imperative, they are willing to die for that decision.
They may not be willing to kill for it. But, they are willing to die.
Get a grip on this. There are times and places where the power to die far outweighs the power of the gun to kill.
Burma is one of those places. Now could be one of those times.
The Geek is certain that the Burmese junta must have the (in)famous dictum of Mao's, "All power comes from the barrel of a gun," emblazoned on their office walls. Of course, this particular thought from the Great Helmsman has only limited utility.
It served to gain the junta power nineteen years ago when the army repressed street demonstrations in a hail of bullets and a flood of blood.
Now they are hoping it will work again.
Just as their diplomatic supporters, the Peoples' Republic of China, did back in 1989 after the demonstrators in Beijing got too uppity, the junta trucked in troops from the hinterlands to the capital. The Burmese soldiers were drawn primarily from the hills where one of the planet's longest running insurgencies is still in progress. Just like the Chinese peasant soldiers brought in from the far marches of the Middle Kingdom who were both unaware of the causes of the demonstration and disinclined to support them, these Burmese troops do not have any particular sense of identity with the people they are ordered to shoot.
The approach worked in China. The "Pro-Democracy" demonstrations disappeared in the night and the fog of blood.
The soldiers shot yesterday in Rangoon (or if you really, really insist, Yangon). Low body count results, less than a dozen killed. Not even up to the butcher's bill presented by the average suicide bomber.
Actually, the shooting of protesters is less important by far than what had happened a few hours earlier. In a series of cliched "pre-dawn raids" the army invaded a pair of Buddhist temple and monastery complexes. Scores of monks were hauled off in military trucks.
Here is where the pistol packing junta overlooked the recent history of Southeast Asia. Time to get a grip on it, the grip the junta lacks.
First, a couple of matters of context. Buddhist monks enjoy great prestige in Burma as in other countries of the region.
This fact is underscored by the fact that the protests in Burma only took on force and numbers as the monks became involved, culminating in nearly 100,000 citizens marching behind a phalanx of rust red robed monks.
It is important to note that contrary to the popular American view of Buddhism and Buddhist clerics as being otherworldly and detached from the realities of political or social concerns, in actuality Buddhist monks and other prelates can be and have been extremely focused on changing repressive regimes.
Forty plus years ago the classic case of the power of Buddhist protest occurred in South Vietnam. The regime of "our man in Saigon," President Ngo Dinh Diem and his secret police chief brother, Nhu, was, to put it as charitably as possible, repressive. One or another of Diem's or Nhu's lame-brained schemes hacked off enough South Vietnamese to reach a critical mass.
Demonstrations occurred in major cities including Hue and the capitol, Saigon.
At first the security forces left the streets to the demonstrators. The demonstrations continued. Grew slowly in size. No surprise there.
Then the Buddhist monks joined in with protests of their own. (In many US media of the day this was portrayed as a religious dispute between the Buddhists and the Catholics Diem and Nhu. Talk about the out-to-lunch bunch!)
Nhu's police and South Vietnamese Army units under the command of Catholic refugees from North Vietnam responded with force. Heads were cracked. Bullets met rocks. Blood stained the pavement.
Next the troops and cops raided the monasteries and temples.
Then came the move that changed South Vietnamese (and American) politics and history.
The new move has a nice, sanitary name: self-immolation.
A monk (or nun, Buddhism does not impose gender discrimination in this act) shows supreme commitment to the cause of political reform or regime change by committing suicide publicly and painfully.
The individual, accompanied by fellow clerics and after proper ritual, proceeds to a public place.
Next, the individual sits in a lotus position, pours gasoline over his/her head. Lights a match.
Burns to death.
Without a twitch or tremor, without a grimace of pain, burns until the half-consumed corpse collapses through its wreath of flame. A wilted lotus.
Back then there were no videophones, no satellite television relays, no Internet. It took hours for grainy black and white photographs to make it to the US media.
Even though the images were far from real-time, their emotional impact was awesome. The picture of a calm, composed human being, sitting cross-legged as the flames licked at the face,
shocked and repelled the American public. Protests flooded Washington. The flood reached Biblical proportions after Madam Nhu, wife of the secret police chief, made a comment on an American TV show while here on a good-will visit.
Her comment?
She referred to the self-immolations. (There had been several in the preceding days.) Madam Nhu called them, "Buddhist barbecues."
The feces hit the fan. President Kennedy halted US military shipments. That wasn't enough.
The Saigon regime kept on repressing. Harder and harder.
The Buddhists responded with more self-immolations.
The American public put more pressure on the White House and Congress.
Finally Kennedy made a most fateful decision. He instructed the new US Ambassador to South Vietnam to cooperate with one or another of the several coup plotting groups in the country. The outcome was a successful coup against Diem and the deaths of Diem and Nhu.
Another result was the further disintegration of South Vietnam with an increase in the success of the Viet Cong insurgents. (And, of course, the decisions which led to the US troop commitment.)
There is a lesson here. It is most appropriate to the Burmese junta. But, we should learn it as well.
The lesson is simple.
True, history never repeats itself. Burma today is not at all like South Vietnam in 1963. The world is not at all the same.
Still, the lesson is compelling. When Buddhist monks decide that regime change is a moral imperative, they are willing to die for that decision.
They may not be willing to kill for it. But, they are willing to die.
Get a grip on this. There are times and places where the power to die far outweighs the power of the gun to kill.
Burma is one of those places. Now could be one of those times.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Press TV Doesn't Know Diddly About US History
There they go again! The Iranian agency, Press TV, warps, distorts, and mutilates US history as it gins out propaganda under the guise of "objective reporting."
We're all used to the media distorting fact to meet the requirements of propensity, prejudice, and predilection. Nothing new about it. US media--both mainstream and alternative--have been known to commit felonious assault upon American history. It seems to come with the territory.
The Geek usually just shakes his head sadly as he reads or hears yet one more nauseating twisting of historical reality to fit present needs.
It's different this time. This time the Geek is flatly rankled. This time the self-proclaimed reclaimer of media purity from the icky, nasty liars of the Western media has sliced and diced the realities of American history to meet the propaganda needs of the mullahocracy.
Worse, Press TV has chosen a subject--biological and chemical warfare research--which is both highly emotional and has a history poorly understood by the vast majority of even well-educated people. Choosing this subject for propagandistic treatment is a cheap shot. A low blow.
The Geek, who is, after all, a military historian who has lived in more archives than he cares to remember, pouring over the most recently declassified documents, has some expertise in the area of biological and chemical warfare. He is equipped by virtue of his education and experience to comment on the warped account provided by Press TV.
The problem is that space prohibits taking on more than a few of the specifics of Press TV's fabrications through misrepresentation. But, first take a look at the Iranian bill of particulars. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=24716§ionid=3510303.
Now, The Geek Talks Back! Or, Truth In History Is A Good Thing.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study really happened. You can read the whole, sad, sick story in Jones, Bad Blood. This book came out a quarter century ago. It was written by a professor of history at the University of Houston. Jones and his book had a brief moment in the celebrity spotlight. It contains the cliched "rest of the story" which eluded Press TV
The lads in Tehran have the problem of pellagra wrong. In 1935, as the result of a pioneering study conducted on both black and white citizens in the so-called Pellagra Belt in the American south, the cause of the metabolic disorder was determined and effective countermeasures through diet change were developed. The difficulty came in convincing people to change time honored dietary customs.
The malaria experiments of 1940 and many successive years conducted on convicts in a number of state and federal prisons were done with the individual's consent and for the valid reason of determining effective prophylactic measures other than quinine. The results spared many US personnel in the South Pacific and other theaters of war from the debilitating disease. As the war moved toward Japan, the local populations also benefited.
You bet we, like the British, experimented in protective measures to counter toxic weapons such as mustard gas. Military personnel, conscientious objectors, and convicts were all used. While the Geek has real problems with the concept "informed consent" in this work, it was critically necessary and certainly better than the German and Japanese practice of conducting experiments on concentration camp inmates.
To show how out-to-lunch the crew at Press TV are, get a grip on this. The British, Canadian, and American governments pressed ahead with research, development, testing, and production of biological weapons, such as anthrax during World War II. Churchill had to be actively resisted in his stated desire to use anthrax on German cities in early 1944. (The winning argument was the truth. Not enough had been produced yet. And, the target cities might be uninhabitable for fifty years.)
Had Press TV been aware of history, the merry bunch could have used this one fact instead of the reams of misinterpretation and falsification they did use.
Had enough? The Geek has.
One last howler though, if you would indulge the ole Geekmo. He isn't much of a techno-wonk, but even the Geek knows that there is a vast difference between uranium hexafluoride gas used in the gaseous diffusion method of enrichment and fluorine.
(BTW, Press TV dudes, fluoride is a specific compound including fluorine. It is not a chemical element,)
Fluorine gas is very nasty since it is a highly active oxidant. Because it is active, fluorine can be combined with a number of other substances. Some are quite toxic. Others are not. The devil is in the details. Fluoridation of drinking water may be controversial but it does not and never did involve the old Atomic Energy Commission.
The Geek is officially bored with beating down the evil little straw men put up by one component of the Iranian noise machine. If you want, go over the roster of Press TV claims. Pick one you like and pass it on to the Geek.
The we can play Truth In History again.
We're all used to the media distorting fact to meet the requirements of propensity, prejudice, and predilection. Nothing new about it. US media--both mainstream and alternative--have been known to commit felonious assault upon American history. It seems to come with the territory.
The Geek usually just shakes his head sadly as he reads or hears yet one more nauseating twisting of historical reality to fit present needs.
It's different this time. This time the Geek is flatly rankled. This time the self-proclaimed reclaimer of media purity from the icky, nasty liars of the Western media has sliced and diced the realities of American history to meet the propaganda needs of the mullahocracy.
Worse, Press TV has chosen a subject--biological and chemical warfare research--which is both highly emotional and has a history poorly understood by the vast majority of even well-educated people. Choosing this subject for propagandistic treatment is a cheap shot. A low blow.
The Geek, who is, after all, a military historian who has lived in more archives than he cares to remember, pouring over the most recently declassified documents, has some expertise in the area of biological and chemical warfare. He is equipped by virtue of his education and experience to comment on the warped account provided by Press TV.
The problem is that space prohibits taking on more than a few of the specifics of Press TV's fabrications through misrepresentation. But, first take a look at the Iranian bill of particulars. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=24716§ionid=3510303.
Now, The Geek Talks Back! Or, Truth In History Is A Good Thing.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study really happened. You can read the whole, sad, sick story in Jones, Bad Blood. This book came out a quarter century ago. It was written by a professor of history at the University of Houston. Jones and his book had a brief moment in the celebrity spotlight. It contains the cliched "rest of the story" which eluded Press TV
The lads in Tehran have the problem of pellagra wrong. In 1935, as the result of a pioneering study conducted on both black and white citizens in the so-called Pellagra Belt in the American south, the cause of the metabolic disorder was determined and effective countermeasures through diet change were developed. The difficulty came in convincing people to change time honored dietary customs.
The malaria experiments of 1940 and many successive years conducted on convicts in a number of state and federal prisons were done with the individual's consent and for the valid reason of determining effective prophylactic measures other than quinine. The results spared many US personnel in the South Pacific and other theaters of war from the debilitating disease. As the war moved toward Japan, the local populations also benefited.
You bet we, like the British, experimented in protective measures to counter toxic weapons such as mustard gas. Military personnel, conscientious objectors, and convicts were all used. While the Geek has real problems with the concept "informed consent" in this work, it was critically necessary and certainly better than the German and Japanese practice of conducting experiments on concentration camp inmates.
To show how out-to-lunch the crew at Press TV are, get a grip on this. The British, Canadian, and American governments pressed ahead with research, development, testing, and production of biological weapons, such as anthrax during World War II. Churchill had to be actively resisted in his stated desire to use anthrax on German cities in early 1944. (The winning argument was the truth. Not enough had been produced yet. And, the target cities might be uninhabitable for fifty years.)
Had Press TV been aware of history, the merry bunch could have used this one fact instead of the reams of misinterpretation and falsification they did use.
Had enough? The Geek has.
One last howler though, if you would indulge the ole Geekmo. He isn't much of a techno-wonk, but even the Geek knows that there is a vast difference between uranium hexafluoride gas used in the gaseous diffusion method of enrichment and fluorine.
(BTW, Press TV dudes, fluoride is a specific compound including fluorine. It is not a chemical element,)
Fluorine gas is very nasty since it is a highly active oxidant. Because it is active, fluorine can be combined with a number of other substances. Some are quite toxic. Others are not. The devil is in the details. Fluoridation of drinking water may be controversial but it does not and never did involve the old Atomic Energy Commission.
The Geek is officially bored with beating down the evil little straw men put up by one component of the Iranian noise machine. If you want, go over the roster of Press TV claims. Pick one you like and pass it on to the Geek.
The we can play Truth In History again.
Countries! Do You Know Where Your Atoms Are?
The Nuclear Threat Initiative which is co-chaired by former Senator Sam Nunn (one of the few former congresswallahs for whom the Geek has respect) has sponsored a report which should cause more than a few sleepless nights for those outside government who concern themselves with the potential of terrorist actions using nuclear or radiological weapons. A precis of the study can be found at http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL2689204420070926.
While all too many have been hyperventilating over the prospect of Iran gaining nuclear weapons, a far more real and immediate threat has been ignored. For years it has been well known within the national security community that in addition to nuclear materials unaccounted for (MUF), there are a large number of research reactors using highly enriched uranium (HEU) for fuel.
Not only are there reactors using HEU which have no more security than a rent-a-cop and a fence, there are a number of high-level radioactive waste storage and reprocessing facilities with the same minimalist approach to security.
Feeling a bit nervous, bucko?
Hang on, there's more.
Only 102 of the 140 reactors using HEU have reasonably adequate physical security. And, physical security is not enough. Guards and barriers cannot stop the theft or diversion of nuclear materials. This has been shown in Russia where a former general has been arrested on suspicion of assisting or attempting to assist in the theft of fissionable material suitable for making bombs.
In Pakistan, which, unlike India has not yet ratified the international convention requiring governments to criminally prosecute individuals or groups possessing nuclear or radiological material without proper authorization, there have been credible reports that as many as forty canisters containing weapons grade uranium have gone missing.
Even though slightly more than half of the fissionable and radiological storage sites in the former Soviet Union have been upgraded in their security largely due to US funding, disagreement exists regarding the quantity of MUF. Any amount is too much.
Even the US, which has employed stringent security procedures for decades, has a MUF problem. No one is willing to discuss its extent.
Many of those in the loop have been willing to dismiss the MUF question as one which is irrelevant. No real possibility of diversion we have been assured. It's all a matter of accounting errors or atoms lost in processing.
And, the entire Enron debacle was simply a matter of accounting errors.
Perhaps the same accountants were on the job in the Soviet Union. And Pakistan.
The Geek hasn't read the Nuclear Threat Initiative sponsored study performed by Harvard University's Managing the Atom Project, so he doesn't know if any consideration was given to high-level radwaste and reprocessing facilities. If not, it would be a major lapse.
High level radioactive waste isn't simply an obnoxious set of substances like unburied decomposing garbage. It is the source of very lethal isotopes waiting to be let loose.
Making a gun-type uranium bomb of the type that leveled Hiroshima isn't that difficult. The basic process of making a very photogenic mushroom cloud is well understood and does not require advanced technology. All that is needed is two sub-critical masses of HEU, some lead, a tube, and a small not-very-high explosive charge.
Heck, the plans are widely available in print, and, for all the Geek knows, on the web.
But, while atomic bombs of the Hiroshima variety are worrisome, the higher potential of a radiological weapon is much more so. Rad weapons are easier to make. The radioactive material is easier to acquire than HEU. Once a wannabe terrorist has some of the nasty atoms, all he needs in addition is a vehicle and a few tens of kilos of explosive.
Gamma emitting radwaste dispersed over a target by a vehicle bomb would ruin the day for whoever was in the vicinity. Additionally, since the atoms don't just go away after dispersion, they present a massive decontamination problem.
Radiological weapons may not be as sexy as genuine atomic bombs, but they kill and wound people just as well, perhaps even better given the persistence of radioactivity. And, they are so darn easy to make.
Just mosey on down to the local radwaste site (they aren't hard to find, even in the US).
Knock off the place. (That's not difficult. Security isn't much more than at the local Stop-and-Rob.)
Add the stuff to the previously fabricated vehicle bomb. (Do it fast since you won't be feeling too well in pretty quick order.)
Drive to the populated area of your choice. (Fast, but not too fast. You don't want to pulled over for speeding, do you?)
Push the button. (The explosion will kill you, but that's good. Radiation poisoning is a very, very icky-poo way to check out.)
Sure, setting off your own atomic bomb would be more emotionally satisfying. Yet, if all that is desired is the hitting of a soft, high-value target with large casualties and the production of much fear, the radiological weapon is the way to go.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative report is to be commended for (hopefully) focusing public attention on the very real challenge of properly protecting HEU using reactors. It may also have the desirable effect of bringing the question of MUF back into the open.
To make sure that all of us can sleep a little more soundly in years to come, the same attention has to be paid to radwaste sites and the commercial use of gamma emitting isotopes.
Maybe that is too much to ask for. Perhaps we should use the default position. Pretend that every country knows where all its atoms are.
Great idea. Keep it in mind as you watch your hair fall out while puking your guts out.
While all too many have been hyperventilating over the prospect of Iran gaining nuclear weapons, a far more real and immediate threat has been ignored. For years it has been well known within the national security community that in addition to nuclear materials unaccounted for (MUF), there are a large number of research reactors using highly enriched uranium (HEU) for fuel.
Not only are there reactors using HEU which have no more security than a rent-a-cop and a fence, there are a number of high-level radioactive waste storage and reprocessing facilities with the same minimalist approach to security.
Feeling a bit nervous, bucko?
Hang on, there's more.
Only 102 of the 140 reactors using HEU have reasonably adequate physical security. And, physical security is not enough. Guards and barriers cannot stop the theft or diversion of nuclear materials. This has been shown in Russia where a former general has been arrested on suspicion of assisting or attempting to assist in the theft of fissionable material suitable for making bombs.
In Pakistan, which, unlike India has not yet ratified the international convention requiring governments to criminally prosecute individuals or groups possessing nuclear or radiological material without proper authorization, there have been credible reports that as many as forty canisters containing weapons grade uranium have gone missing.
Even though slightly more than half of the fissionable and radiological storage sites in the former Soviet Union have been upgraded in their security largely due to US funding, disagreement exists regarding the quantity of MUF. Any amount is too much.
Even the US, which has employed stringent security procedures for decades, has a MUF problem. No one is willing to discuss its extent.
Many of those in the loop have been willing to dismiss the MUF question as one which is irrelevant. No real possibility of diversion we have been assured. It's all a matter of accounting errors or atoms lost in processing.
And, the entire Enron debacle was simply a matter of accounting errors.
Perhaps the same accountants were on the job in the Soviet Union. And Pakistan.
The Geek hasn't read the Nuclear Threat Initiative sponsored study performed by Harvard University's Managing the Atom Project, so he doesn't know if any consideration was given to high-level radwaste and reprocessing facilities. If not, it would be a major lapse.
High level radioactive waste isn't simply an obnoxious set of substances like unburied decomposing garbage. It is the source of very lethal isotopes waiting to be let loose.
Making a gun-type uranium bomb of the type that leveled Hiroshima isn't that difficult. The basic process of making a very photogenic mushroom cloud is well understood and does not require advanced technology. All that is needed is two sub-critical masses of HEU, some lead, a tube, and a small not-very-high explosive charge.
Heck, the plans are widely available in print, and, for all the Geek knows, on the web.
But, while atomic bombs of the Hiroshima variety are worrisome, the higher potential of a radiological weapon is much more so. Rad weapons are easier to make. The radioactive material is easier to acquire than HEU. Once a wannabe terrorist has some of the nasty atoms, all he needs in addition is a vehicle and a few tens of kilos of explosive.
Gamma emitting radwaste dispersed over a target by a vehicle bomb would ruin the day for whoever was in the vicinity. Additionally, since the atoms don't just go away after dispersion, they present a massive decontamination problem.
Radiological weapons may not be as sexy as genuine atomic bombs, but they kill and wound people just as well, perhaps even better given the persistence of radioactivity. And, they are so darn easy to make.
Just mosey on down to the local radwaste site (they aren't hard to find, even in the US).
Knock off the place. (That's not difficult. Security isn't much more than at the local Stop-and-Rob.)
Add the stuff to the previously fabricated vehicle bomb. (Do it fast since you won't be feeling too well in pretty quick order.)
Drive to the populated area of your choice. (Fast, but not too fast. You don't want to pulled over for speeding, do you?)
Push the button. (The explosion will kill you, but that's good. Radiation poisoning is a very, very icky-poo way to check out.)
Sure, setting off your own atomic bomb would be more emotionally satisfying. Yet, if all that is desired is the hitting of a soft, high-value target with large casualties and the production of much fear, the radiological weapon is the way to go.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative report is to be commended for (hopefully) focusing public attention on the very real challenge of properly protecting HEU using reactors. It may also have the desirable effect of bringing the question of MUF back into the open.
To make sure that all of us can sleep a little more soundly in years to come, the same attention has to be paid to radwaste sites and the commercial use of gamma emitting isotopes.
Maybe that is too much to ask for. Perhaps we should use the default position. Pretend that every country knows where all its atoms are.
Great idea. Keep it in mind as you watch your hair fall out while puking your guts out.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Golly! The Iranians Don't Think We're Hospitable
Not surprisingly the Iranian noise machine has cranked up into full volume regarding Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's introductory remarks and questions to Orator-in-Chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance on campus yesterday. The International Herald Tribune's account http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/25/africa/tehran.php offers the explanation that ideas of hospitality were insulted by Bollinger.
The newspaper also speculates that the university president's "sardonic" tone was meant to deflect some of the criticism he has received for allowing the Orator-in-Chief to appear at Columbia. The IHT further dilates on the possibility that the Bollinger comments and questions might "backfire" by engendering sympathy for Ahmadinejad even from people who would not normally be inclined toward sympathy.
The Geek should be forgiven for doubting this. Of course, he acknowledges, the Iranians are noted for their hospitality. He is certain that any of the American diplomatic personnel who enjoyed over four hundred days of "hospitality" from the Iranian "students" would attest to the attentiveness and concern to say nothing of affability of their "hosts." That view would, the Geek is sure, be echoed by the dual citizenship holders who have recently been housed in Tehran's Evin prison.
(In the past the usual journalistic modifiers preceding Evin prison have been "infamous" or "notorious.")
In an open letter ten university chancellors in Iran have posed ten questions to Bollinger. The IHT only printed two of them. If the rest are similar, they wouldn't be a tough test for any semi-literate individual who is reasonably up to speed with recent history.
One of the questions is, "Why did the U.S. support the bloodthirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran?"
That's a real tough one. The US "tilted" to Iraq for a couple of simple reasons. The more obvious was the Iranian hostage taking at the US embassy and the Revolutionary Government's complete unwillingness to bring it to a swift conclusion. That lack of action made the new Iranian government both unpredictable and untrustworthy in its international dealings.
The second reason is not quite so self-evident. In keeping with past US policy which was only briefly and partially abrogated by the Kissinger Doctrine during the Ford Administration, the US was not willing to allow any single country to emerge as the regional hegemon in the Persian Gulf area.
It was anticipated in Washington that the two countries would fight each other to a peace of exhaustion. That was seen as desirable. Iraq was the weaker of the two powers despite Saddam Hussein's delusions of adequacy. As a result we tilted toward Iraq.
The tilt was not complete. Nor was it inflexible. This reality is adequately documented in the strange dealings known popularly as the "Iran-Contra Scandal."
In the end, both Iraq and Iran were weakened by the massive bloodletting of the war. However, neither was as weakened as some of the planners and decision makers in the Reagan Administration had hoped. (Wished?)
The second question reprinted in the IHT from the Iranian university chiefs was, "Why has the U.S. military failed to find Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment?"
The short, but accurate, answer to that is: The advanced equipment, the high-tech gizmos themselves. If the US had relied more upon boots on the ground and less on eyes in the skies as our forces entered Tora Bora, there would have been a much greater chance of nabbing or killing Osama bin Laden and others of the al-Qaeda leadership cadre.
We, or, more properly, Rumsfield and crew, opted for gadgets over boots. It was the wrong call both strategically and tactically. We have been on the wrong side of the power curve ever since.
The situation has not been helped by geography, by topography. If the learned men of the Iranian universities would merely take a look at Google Earth, they would quickly see that the tribal areas on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border make the backside of the moon seem like mellow, easy terrain in comparison.
This does not mean that the US (and its allies) could not bring the cadre at the core of al-Qaeda to bay. It means the job requires more men than have been allotted to the task. It also means that the cooperation of the Pakistani military and government would be required. That has not yet been forthcoming in a meaningful enough manner.
(What will happen after the scheduled elections is hazy in the Geek's cracked crystal ball.)
Beyond that, gentlemen of the Iranian academy, the capture or killing of bin Laden can correctly be viewed as non-essential. It can even be seen as counterproductive.
A symbol, and that is what bin Laden is, cannot be killed. It can only be martyred, which is to say, made more potent.
The idea of capturing Osama bin Laden and bringing him to trial would be risible if the inevitable consequences were not so thoroughly unpleasant to contemplate. A martyr in chains is simply a call for redoubled jihad. Arguably, that is not in American interests, much as it might be desired by the mullahocracy.
If the other eight questions are similar in nature, the Geek, being a hospitable sort of chap, invites the Iranians to send the rest of the questions to him. He promises a quick, courteous response.
The Geek is all for hospitality provided it doesn't involve Evan prison or dining with a guy wearing a bomb in his belt.
The newspaper also speculates that the university president's "sardonic" tone was meant to deflect some of the criticism he has received for allowing the Orator-in-Chief to appear at Columbia. The IHT further dilates on the possibility that the Bollinger comments and questions might "backfire" by engendering sympathy for Ahmadinejad even from people who would not normally be inclined toward sympathy.
The Geek should be forgiven for doubting this. Of course, he acknowledges, the Iranians are noted for their hospitality. He is certain that any of the American diplomatic personnel who enjoyed over four hundred days of "hospitality" from the Iranian "students" would attest to the attentiveness and concern to say nothing of affability of their "hosts." That view would, the Geek is sure, be echoed by the dual citizenship holders who have recently been housed in Tehran's Evin prison.
(In the past the usual journalistic modifiers preceding Evin prison have been "infamous" or "notorious.")
In an open letter ten university chancellors in Iran have posed ten questions to Bollinger. The IHT only printed two of them. If the rest are similar, they wouldn't be a tough test for any semi-literate individual who is reasonably up to speed with recent history.
One of the questions is, "Why did the U.S. support the bloodthirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran?"
That's a real tough one. The US "tilted" to Iraq for a couple of simple reasons. The more obvious was the Iranian hostage taking at the US embassy and the Revolutionary Government's complete unwillingness to bring it to a swift conclusion. That lack of action made the new Iranian government both unpredictable and untrustworthy in its international dealings.
The second reason is not quite so self-evident. In keeping with past US policy which was only briefly and partially abrogated by the Kissinger Doctrine during the Ford Administration, the US was not willing to allow any single country to emerge as the regional hegemon in the Persian Gulf area.
It was anticipated in Washington that the two countries would fight each other to a peace of exhaustion. That was seen as desirable. Iraq was the weaker of the two powers despite Saddam Hussein's delusions of adequacy. As a result we tilted toward Iraq.
The tilt was not complete. Nor was it inflexible. This reality is adequately documented in the strange dealings known popularly as the "Iran-Contra Scandal."
In the end, both Iraq and Iran were weakened by the massive bloodletting of the war. However, neither was as weakened as some of the planners and decision makers in the Reagan Administration had hoped. (Wished?)
The second question reprinted in the IHT from the Iranian university chiefs was, "Why has the U.S. military failed to find Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment?"
The short, but accurate, answer to that is: The advanced equipment, the high-tech gizmos themselves. If the US had relied more upon boots on the ground and less on eyes in the skies as our forces entered Tora Bora, there would have been a much greater chance of nabbing or killing Osama bin Laden and others of the al-Qaeda leadership cadre.
We, or, more properly, Rumsfield and crew, opted for gadgets over boots. It was the wrong call both strategically and tactically. We have been on the wrong side of the power curve ever since.
The situation has not been helped by geography, by topography. If the learned men of the Iranian universities would merely take a look at Google Earth, they would quickly see that the tribal areas on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border make the backside of the moon seem like mellow, easy terrain in comparison.
This does not mean that the US (and its allies) could not bring the cadre at the core of al-Qaeda to bay. It means the job requires more men than have been allotted to the task. It also means that the cooperation of the Pakistani military and government would be required. That has not yet been forthcoming in a meaningful enough manner.
(What will happen after the scheduled elections is hazy in the Geek's cracked crystal ball.)
Beyond that, gentlemen of the Iranian academy, the capture or killing of bin Laden can correctly be viewed as non-essential. It can even be seen as counterproductive.
A symbol, and that is what bin Laden is, cannot be killed. It can only be martyred, which is to say, made more potent.
The idea of capturing Osama bin Laden and bringing him to trial would be risible if the inevitable consequences were not so thoroughly unpleasant to contemplate. A martyr in chains is simply a call for redoubled jihad. Arguably, that is not in American interests, much as it might be desired by the mullahocracy.
If the other eight questions are similar in nature, the Geek, being a hospitable sort of chap, invites the Iranians to send the rest of the questions to him. He promises a quick, courteous response.
The Geek is all for hospitality provided it doesn't involve Evan prison or dining with a guy wearing a bomb in his belt.
It's Easy, Too Easy To Be Against A War
Bill Richardson is to be credited with one plus in his run for the White House. He is completely, absolutely opposed to keeping any troops in Iraq beyond the normal Embassy security force of US Marines. No waffling. No yes-but's. No equivocation.
This sets him apart from his first tier rivals. Senators Clinton and Obama are not committed to a zero tolerance policy. Neither is ex-Senator Edwards.
Apparently a firm, unmistakable position is attractive to bloggers. Three front porch dogs of the blogosphere have signed on to the Richardson Zero Troops In Iraq policy. While they did not endorse Richardson, the thumbs up to his central message is tantamount to endorsement. See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/bloggers-endorse-leadership-in-richardson-ad/.
The Geek is not one of the front porch dogs of blogging. Heck, he isn't really allowed onto the back porch. Even so, he is willing to risk his infinitesimal reputation on the assertion that the Geek, unlike the Big Three Bloggers and Governor Richardson, is willing to reject the easy course of decrying the ongoing war in Iraq.
History shows that realism in foreign policy is never easy. It involves making difficult choices from the base of an accurate understanding of both national interest and the threats or opportunities confronting national interest. Realism in foreign policy requires the utmost of intellectual and moral courage. It demands that an individual see the world as it is, not as he either wishes it to be or fears it might be. Additionally, realism in foreign affairs challenges the individual to act upon his understanding regardless of any negative effects upon his personal fortunes or career.
The current administration demonstrated its lack of realism in foreign affairs six and a half years ago with the invasion of Iraq. The pack of neocon ninnies in the bowels of the Pentagon and White House showed that they collectively could not face the world as it actually was and made decisions based upon a witch's brew of fear, neocon ideology, and hallucination.
The gripless crew threw away American credibility and the world's trust and sympathy, which had accrued over preceding years and in the aftermath of the Islamist attacks of 9/11. The deep thinkers of the Right forced a war upon us which was neither necessary nor relevant to the actual conflict with Islamism and its practictioners of terror tactics.
The time to have had a zero troops in Iraq policy was the day before the first missiles struck Iraqi targets. Before the first Made in the USA boot hit the sands of Iraq. Six and a half years ago the time came and quickly passed for opposition to the war and a demand that the troops, all the troops, come home.
Once the US invaded, once the conventional forces of Iraq were defeated, once the multi-party insurgency commenced, it was too late to back out. To leave now, to leave prematurely will assure that the only non-losers in the Iraq cockpit will be the Islamists, including those of the mullahocracy.
Wait one! The Geek knows he has beaten that horse before. He will refrain from hitting that target again. At least in this post.
The Geek is not in favor of war. He most assuredly is against the one in Iraq. At the same time, a realistic view of the world today, including the emergence and continued growth of Islamism as a potent and hostile ideology, does not permit the feel-good luxury of telling Iraq, "Get thee behind me." It does not allow the politically appealing and emotionally satisfying "Zero Troops in Iraq" notion advocated by Governor Richardson and his Big Time Bloggers supporters.
There are two very bad ideas bruited about currently. One is the Bring the Boys and Girls Home scheme. The other is the Blast Iran Back to the Stone Age weirdness.
Wars, history shows, should never be entered into lightly. If you don't believe that, check out the blithe way European statesmen let loose the cannons of August 1914 or the eagerness with which members of the House and Senate pushed for a war in Vietnam back in 1965.
Once war is commenced, it should never be abandoned easily. By the criteria of evident success, cost-benefit ratio, or unpopularity with We the People, the American War of Independence would have been abandoned shortly after the British took New York City. By those criteria the North would have given the South its independence in 1863. Even the Korean War, arguably the most important hot zone of the Cold War, would have been cast off within the first ninety days of US involvement or, failing that, during the long period of trench stalemate in 1952 and 1953.
Wars are fought to bring about a better state of peace. Indeed, it is antipodal understandings of what constitutes a better state of peace that calls war into existence. From the American perspective, considering only American interests, both short and longer-term, a better state of peace consists of credibly drawing a line over which the forces of Islamism cannot cross.
That was the real function of the Korean War. The better state of peace which came in the wake of the Korean Armistice was not peace undefiled. It was not such a good state of peace that the troops, all the troops could come home for once and for all.
The Korean Armistice ushered in an era of good-enough-peace. It assured another two generations of Cold War. It allowed for a misguided war in Vietnam. It also provided the basis for the effective containment of Soviet ambitions. It laid the foundation for the dying of the Marxist-Leninist faith.
In short, the Korean War, unpopular as it was with We the People and seemingly inconclusive as its end might have been, brought about a better state of peace, which eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Governor Richardson and his supporters, blogger and otherwise, are to be commended for taking a firm stance on Iraq. Unfortunately, their stance is as wrong as grilled watermelon.
Leaving Iraq too soon would be like having left Korea before the Armistice. It is to abandon the necessity of drawing a line. It is to forsake the goal of successfully countering Islamism. It is to lose faith in us and our future.
This sets him apart from his first tier rivals. Senators Clinton and Obama are not committed to a zero tolerance policy. Neither is ex-Senator Edwards.
Apparently a firm, unmistakable position is attractive to bloggers. Three front porch dogs of the blogosphere have signed on to the Richardson Zero Troops In Iraq policy. While they did not endorse Richardson, the thumbs up to his central message is tantamount to endorsement. See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/bloggers-endorse-leadership-in-richardson-ad/.
The Geek is not one of the front porch dogs of blogging. Heck, he isn't really allowed onto the back porch. Even so, he is willing to risk his infinitesimal reputation on the assertion that the Geek, unlike the Big Three Bloggers and Governor Richardson, is willing to reject the easy course of decrying the ongoing war in Iraq.
History shows that realism in foreign policy is never easy. It involves making difficult choices from the base of an accurate understanding of both national interest and the threats or opportunities confronting national interest. Realism in foreign policy requires the utmost of intellectual and moral courage. It demands that an individual see the world as it is, not as he either wishes it to be or fears it might be. Additionally, realism in foreign affairs challenges the individual to act upon his understanding regardless of any negative effects upon his personal fortunes or career.
The current administration demonstrated its lack of realism in foreign affairs six and a half years ago with the invasion of Iraq. The pack of neocon ninnies in the bowels of the Pentagon and White House showed that they collectively could not face the world as it actually was and made decisions based upon a witch's brew of fear, neocon ideology, and hallucination.
The gripless crew threw away American credibility and the world's trust and sympathy, which had accrued over preceding years and in the aftermath of the Islamist attacks of 9/11. The deep thinkers of the Right forced a war upon us which was neither necessary nor relevant to the actual conflict with Islamism and its practictioners of terror tactics.
The time to have had a zero troops in Iraq policy was the day before the first missiles struck Iraqi targets. Before the first Made in the USA boot hit the sands of Iraq. Six and a half years ago the time came and quickly passed for opposition to the war and a demand that the troops, all the troops, come home.
Once the US invaded, once the conventional forces of Iraq were defeated, once the multi-party insurgency commenced, it was too late to back out. To leave now, to leave prematurely will assure that the only non-losers in the Iraq cockpit will be the Islamists, including those of the mullahocracy.
Wait one! The Geek knows he has beaten that horse before. He will refrain from hitting that target again. At least in this post.
The Geek is not in favor of war. He most assuredly is against the one in Iraq. At the same time, a realistic view of the world today, including the emergence and continued growth of Islamism as a potent and hostile ideology, does not permit the feel-good luxury of telling Iraq, "Get thee behind me." It does not allow the politically appealing and emotionally satisfying "Zero Troops in Iraq" notion advocated by Governor Richardson and his Big Time Bloggers supporters.
There are two very bad ideas bruited about currently. One is the Bring the Boys and Girls Home scheme. The other is the Blast Iran Back to the Stone Age weirdness.
Wars, history shows, should never be entered into lightly. If you don't believe that, check out the blithe way European statesmen let loose the cannons of August 1914 or the eagerness with which members of the House and Senate pushed for a war in Vietnam back in 1965.
Once war is commenced, it should never be abandoned easily. By the criteria of evident success, cost-benefit ratio, or unpopularity with We the People, the American War of Independence would have been abandoned shortly after the British took New York City. By those criteria the North would have given the South its independence in 1863. Even the Korean War, arguably the most important hot zone of the Cold War, would have been cast off within the first ninety days of US involvement or, failing that, during the long period of trench stalemate in 1952 and 1953.
Wars are fought to bring about a better state of peace. Indeed, it is antipodal understandings of what constitutes a better state of peace that calls war into existence. From the American perspective, considering only American interests, both short and longer-term, a better state of peace consists of credibly drawing a line over which the forces of Islamism cannot cross.
That was the real function of the Korean War. The better state of peace which came in the wake of the Korean Armistice was not peace undefiled. It was not such a good state of peace that the troops, all the troops could come home for once and for all.
The Korean Armistice ushered in an era of good-enough-peace. It assured another two generations of Cold War. It allowed for a misguided war in Vietnam. It also provided the basis for the effective containment of Soviet ambitions. It laid the foundation for the dying of the Marxist-Leninist faith.
In short, the Korean War, unpopular as it was with We the People and seemingly inconclusive as its end might have been, brought about a better state of peace, which eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Governor Richardson and his supporters, blogger and otherwise, are to be commended for taking a firm stance on Iraq. Unfortunately, their stance is as wrong as grilled watermelon.
Leaving Iraq too soon would be like having left Korea before the Armistice. It is to abandon the necessity of drawing a line. It is to forsake the goal of successfully countering Islamism. It is to lose faith in us and our future.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Is Ahmadinejad a "Petty And Cruel" Dictator?
Columbia University President Bollinger challenged Iranian Orator-in-Chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as possessing the hallmarks of a "petty and cruel dictator" prior to the Orator's speech today. The Geek questions the accuracy of president Bollinger's description.
"Hold on there, Geek! You about to defend that Iranian creep?" You ask as you roll up your sleeves.
"Ease off, partner." The Geek replies. "No way am I going to switch sides on this one."
And there isn't anyway that a defense of Ahmadinejad can be offered without insult to reality, the reality of history and the reality of today. Neither can the Orator be characterised as a dictator, cruel or otherwise, without offense to the reality of Iran today.
In simple fact Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no power that is not purely derivative from the Chief Cleric and Protector of the Revolution, Ayatollah Kahmenei. As long as the ayatollah supports Ahmadinejad, the fifty year old president has some semblance of power. The instant the (prayer) rug is pulled out from under Mahmoud, his seeming power is one with that of the late Shah.
A couple of years ago when Mahmoud was stumping for the Iranian presidency he posed as a reformer, a man of the future. Heck, as the Geek recalls it, the Ahmadinejad of the campaign days promised such reforms as allowing women to attend soccer matches. That would have been a major shakeup for the mullahocracy.
Too much of a shakeup, it appears.
Once Ahmadinejad had been elected, the reforms became, like most American campaign rhetoric, something to be forgotten--as quickly as possible. It may be that Mahmoud was honest in his reformist guise. That's not for the Geek to decide on the information currently available.
Even if the man had been honest as he sought election, he would have discovered very, very quickly that his office came empty. Empty of power that is. Empty of any power except that which was granted by two sources. The first, most important source is the Protector of the Revolution (to use one of the most important job titles) Ayatollah Khamenei. The other fountain of power can be charitably described as "public opinion" but is more accurately understood as "the opinion of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps."
Although Ahmadinejad's grasp of some minor matters such as the reality of history, particularly that of the Nazi committed Holocaust, is nonexistent and his grip on some matters of present reality, such as the right of Israel to exist or the nature of the United States, is no better, his understanding of the actual nature of power in Iran is quite good.
At least it is good enough that Ahmadinejad realises that his outrageous statements (his shows of bellicosity alternating with fox-guarding-the-chicken coop protestations of loving peace) are guaranteed to do two things: Twist Uncle Sam's beard and be crowd pleasers back home.
The Geek has no difficulty visualizing the Protector of the Revolution and the capo de tutti capos of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps stomping their feet with pure delight every time some high US official hyperventilates over the latest Ahmadinejad verbal assault. Even some Iranian "politicians" who voted for Ahmadinejad-the-Fearless-Reformer state they regret having done so nonetheless give him thumbs-up for his performance as National Orator.
The combination of Ahmadinejad's oratory and the reactions by the US and other governments which give the words a reality they would otherwise lack have combined to invoke the law of unintended consequences.
The what?
The law of unintended consequences, an often overlooked component of life which rivals the law of gravity in importance.
You see, by pretending that Ahmadinejad is an independent locus of power in Iran, he is given a status that he doesn't deserve. He is not a center of power in the sense that the president of the United States or prime minister of the UK is.
Ahmadinejad's power is bestowed. We give it to him. We make him useful to the Ayatollah Khamenei and the mullahocracy. Our reactions make the Orator-in-Chief useful as a crowd pleaser, a diversion for the Iranian people from the very real problems that confront them today.
Far from presiding over a period of reform as he promised (and perhaps hoped), Ahmadinejad is overseeing an economy that is in near meltdown, to say nothing of a society in which the heavy hand of the moral purity wing of the mullahocracy weighs heavier by the passing week. The only force that keeps Ahmadinejad in "power" is his value as a diversion.
The Iranian "president" is no dictator, no tyrant. He is as far from Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin as possible to imagine. The real power, the actual dictator, the genuine tyrant, is the Protector of the Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei.
Get a grip on this. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an orator, which is to say an amusing or infuriating puppet. In so far as we, Americans and others, huff, puff, and bloviate about Mahmoud, The Threat to Peace or The Insidious Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Evil Genius, we make him a useful tool for the dictator(s) pulling his strings.
Ahmadinejad is a celebrity of sorts. Like all celebs without real talent, he needs constant publicity to continue in celebrity status. If he were ever to be ignored for a month or two, he would go away.
That would make the Protector of the Revolution and the mullahocracy more visible--at least until they found another stooge.
"Hold on there, Geek! You about to defend that Iranian creep?" You ask as you roll up your sleeves.
"Ease off, partner." The Geek replies. "No way am I going to switch sides on this one."
And there isn't anyway that a defense of Ahmadinejad can be offered without insult to reality, the reality of history and the reality of today. Neither can the Orator be characterised as a dictator, cruel or otherwise, without offense to the reality of Iran today.
In simple fact Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no power that is not purely derivative from the Chief Cleric and Protector of the Revolution, Ayatollah Kahmenei. As long as the ayatollah supports Ahmadinejad, the fifty year old president has some semblance of power. The instant the (prayer) rug is pulled out from under Mahmoud, his seeming power is one with that of the late Shah.
A couple of years ago when Mahmoud was stumping for the Iranian presidency he posed as a reformer, a man of the future. Heck, as the Geek recalls it, the Ahmadinejad of the campaign days promised such reforms as allowing women to attend soccer matches. That would have been a major shakeup for the mullahocracy.
Too much of a shakeup, it appears.
Once Ahmadinejad had been elected, the reforms became, like most American campaign rhetoric, something to be forgotten--as quickly as possible. It may be that Mahmoud was honest in his reformist guise. That's not for the Geek to decide on the information currently available.
Even if the man had been honest as he sought election, he would have discovered very, very quickly that his office came empty. Empty of power that is. Empty of any power except that which was granted by two sources. The first, most important source is the Protector of the Revolution (to use one of the most important job titles) Ayatollah Khamenei. The other fountain of power can be charitably described as "public opinion" but is more accurately understood as "the opinion of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps."
Although Ahmadinejad's grasp of some minor matters such as the reality of history, particularly that of the Nazi committed Holocaust, is nonexistent and his grip on some matters of present reality, such as the right of Israel to exist or the nature of the United States, is no better, his understanding of the actual nature of power in Iran is quite good.
At least it is good enough that Ahmadinejad realises that his outrageous statements (his shows of bellicosity alternating with fox-guarding-the-chicken coop protestations of loving peace) are guaranteed to do two things: Twist Uncle Sam's beard and be crowd pleasers back home.
The Geek has no difficulty visualizing the Protector of the Revolution and the capo de tutti capos of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps stomping their feet with pure delight every time some high US official hyperventilates over the latest Ahmadinejad verbal assault. Even some Iranian "politicians" who voted for Ahmadinejad-the-Fearless-Reformer state they regret having done so nonetheless give him thumbs-up for his performance as National Orator.
The combination of Ahmadinejad's oratory and the reactions by the US and other governments which give the words a reality they would otherwise lack have combined to invoke the law of unintended consequences.
The what?
The law of unintended consequences, an often overlooked component of life which rivals the law of gravity in importance.
You see, by pretending that Ahmadinejad is an independent locus of power in Iran, he is given a status that he doesn't deserve. He is not a center of power in the sense that the president of the United States or prime minister of the UK is.
Ahmadinejad's power is bestowed. We give it to him. We make him useful to the Ayatollah Khamenei and the mullahocracy. Our reactions make the Orator-in-Chief useful as a crowd pleaser, a diversion for the Iranian people from the very real problems that confront them today.
Far from presiding over a period of reform as he promised (and perhaps hoped), Ahmadinejad is overseeing an economy that is in near meltdown, to say nothing of a society in which the heavy hand of the moral purity wing of the mullahocracy weighs heavier by the passing week. The only force that keeps Ahmadinejad in "power" is his value as a diversion.
The Iranian "president" is no dictator, no tyrant. He is as far from Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin as possible to imagine. The real power, the actual dictator, the genuine tyrant, is the Protector of the Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei.
Get a grip on this. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an orator, which is to say an amusing or infuriating puppet. In so far as we, Americans and others, huff, puff, and bloviate about Mahmoud, The Threat to Peace or The Insidious Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Evil Genius, we make him a useful tool for the dictator(s) pulling his strings.
Ahmadinejad is a celebrity of sorts. Like all celebs without real talent, he needs constant publicity to continue in celebrity status. If he were ever to be ignored for a month or two, he would go away.
That would make the Protector of the Revolution and the mullahocracy more visible--at least until they found another stooge.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The Purpose of Terrorism--Colin Powell Gets It Right
A few days ago the Geek dissected the nature of terrorism. The main point is simply that history has shown that terrorism is a successful tactic only when people allow themselves to be terrorised. To put it another way, terror works only with the willing cooperation of members of the target population.
People face lethal risks all the time. We know that. We accept that reality everytime we get behind the wheel. If we keep an eye on the news we are quite aware that people are murdered every day.
What the hey? Golfers can be seen on the course even with the thunderstorm almost overhead, electricity attracting clubs held on high.
None of these threats any more than the slippery bottom of bathtub or shower terrorise us. They are all accepted as part of life. They are even accepted with the casual denial shown by a combat infantryman.
The next guy will get wasted. Not me.
Perhaps it is his experience with war forty years ago that propelled former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell to make just this point not only in his interview published in GQ magazine but in recent speeches. He insists, correctly, that while terrorists may destroy buildings and kill people, they are powerless to destroy a nation or force a change in that nation's policies.
Only the citizens with their reactions to terror attacks can do that. If enough members of We the People willingly identify with the immediate victims of an attack and say to themselves, "I'm terrorized," then policies will change. Only then will the nation be truly threatened.
"Wait one!" The Geek hears you say.
"Have at it," the Geekmo replies.
You do. "In all the threats of everyday life, I'm in control. I drive my car. I step into the shower. I'm in charge. And, I'm too good at what I do to allow an accident to happen."
The Geek nods agreement.
You go on. "Terrorism is something different. I'm not in charge. There's nothing I can do. I'm just a target."
The Geek is quite willing to acknowledge that feeling. He's had the experience of trying to hide behind a small rock as distant mortar tubes went, "Chunk," and quivering as the incoming rounds hit nearer and nearer.
Feeling helpless sucks. Big time.
However, the historical record shows clearly and convincingly that terror tactics usually do not work. Londoners during the famed "Blitz" as well as Germans during the years of round the clock bombing by US and British aircraft prove that. In North Ireland and England the long years of the Provisional IRA terror attacks were ineffective because people refused to react with feelings of helplessness and fear.
If all that history isn't enough, then add the experience of the Israelis. No people have been the target of terror tactics for so long and in such lethal quantity. While the public has demanded and the government provided military responses of doubtful utility, there has been no pervasive sense of helplessness and fear among the Israelis.
"Wait one, Geek!" You interrupt. "What the hell choice do they have? Their existence is at stake. They gotta suck it up and press on."
True enough. For the Israelis the situation is existential. It is the same for any other people under the threat of terror attacks.
That includes us, bucko.
Get a grip on this. The goal of Islamist terrorists is, at the least, to achieve an American withdrawal not simply from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from the Mideast. At the most, the goal is to force a collapse of the US.
While the second, more expansive goal, is unlikely in the extreme, the first is always no more than an election away.
A terror attack at the wrong time can either alter--or seem to alter--the course of an election. The perceived impact of the Islamist bombing in Madrid upon the Spanish election no doubt has given Islamists the feeling that terror is a potent political weapon.
A weapon that might be useable against the United States with more positive effects from their point of view than the events of 9/11.
In so far as Osama bin Laden and others like him have any strategic perspective it is derived from their reading of American history and cultural values. The Islamists are convinced that the American public lacks the moral fortitude to withstand the combination of failure and dead bodies.
The Islamists got this idea from the US failure in the Vietnam War. They built it from the quick US departure from Somalia in the wake of the failed Ranger attack in Mogadishu. They reinforced their belief from the less than impressive American reactions to their bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as well as the later attack on the USS Cole.
The current debate over the war in Iraq must bolster the Islamist belief that the American people cannot withstand prolonged failure. This may well give rise to the conclusion that the time is ripe or nearly so for another round of attacks upon us.
The Geek has a high degree of confidence in the US intelligence community. In his view it is better today than it was six years ago. He is willing to say the same about portions of the internal security system.
No matter how good our off-shore detection and interdiction might be, no matter how effective our internal security agencies might have become, no system is unbeatable. After all, Israel has an enormously effective intelligence, defense, and internal security system. But, even so, the blackhats can and do penetrate with lethal consequences.
Only We the People, each and every one of us, can make the decision when the next attack occurs. Will we be terrorised? Or will we acknowledge along with General Powell that terror might destroy, maim, and kill, but only we can give it power over us.
People face lethal risks all the time. We know that. We accept that reality everytime we get behind the wheel. If we keep an eye on the news we are quite aware that people are murdered every day.
What the hey? Golfers can be seen on the course even with the thunderstorm almost overhead, electricity attracting clubs held on high.
None of these threats any more than the slippery bottom of bathtub or shower terrorise us. They are all accepted as part of life. They are even accepted with the casual denial shown by a combat infantryman.
The next guy will get wasted. Not me.
Perhaps it is his experience with war forty years ago that propelled former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell to make just this point not only in his interview published in GQ magazine but in recent speeches. He insists, correctly, that while terrorists may destroy buildings and kill people, they are powerless to destroy a nation or force a change in that nation's policies.
Only the citizens with their reactions to terror attacks can do that. If enough members of We the People willingly identify with the immediate victims of an attack and say to themselves, "I'm terrorized," then policies will change. Only then will the nation be truly threatened.
"Wait one!" The Geek hears you say.
"Have at it," the Geekmo replies.
You do. "In all the threats of everyday life, I'm in control. I drive my car. I step into the shower. I'm in charge. And, I'm too good at what I do to allow an accident to happen."
The Geek nods agreement.
You go on. "Terrorism is something different. I'm not in charge. There's nothing I can do. I'm just a target."
The Geek is quite willing to acknowledge that feeling. He's had the experience of trying to hide behind a small rock as distant mortar tubes went, "Chunk," and quivering as the incoming rounds hit nearer and nearer.
Feeling helpless sucks. Big time.
However, the historical record shows clearly and convincingly that terror tactics usually do not work. Londoners during the famed "Blitz" as well as Germans during the years of round the clock bombing by US and British aircraft prove that. In North Ireland and England the long years of the Provisional IRA terror attacks were ineffective because people refused to react with feelings of helplessness and fear.
If all that history isn't enough, then add the experience of the Israelis. No people have been the target of terror tactics for so long and in such lethal quantity. While the public has demanded and the government provided military responses of doubtful utility, there has been no pervasive sense of helplessness and fear among the Israelis.
"Wait one, Geek!" You interrupt. "What the hell choice do they have? Their existence is at stake. They gotta suck it up and press on."
True enough. For the Israelis the situation is existential. It is the same for any other people under the threat of terror attacks.
That includes us, bucko.
Get a grip on this. The goal of Islamist terrorists is, at the least, to achieve an American withdrawal not simply from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from the Mideast. At the most, the goal is to force a collapse of the US.
While the second, more expansive goal, is unlikely in the extreme, the first is always no more than an election away.
A terror attack at the wrong time can either alter--or seem to alter--the course of an election. The perceived impact of the Islamist bombing in Madrid upon the Spanish election no doubt has given Islamists the feeling that terror is a potent political weapon.
A weapon that might be useable against the United States with more positive effects from their point of view than the events of 9/11.
In so far as Osama bin Laden and others like him have any strategic perspective it is derived from their reading of American history and cultural values. The Islamists are convinced that the American public lacks the moral fortitude to withstand the combination of failure and dead bodies.
The Islamists got this idea from the US failure in the Vietnam War. They built it from the quick US departure from Somalia in the wake of the failed Ranger attack in Mogadishu. They reinforced their belief from the less than impressive American reactions to their bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as well as the later attack on the USS Cole.
The current debate over the war in Iraq must bolster the Islamist belief that the American people cannot withstand prolonged failure. This may well give rise to the conclusion that the time is ripe or nearly so for another round of attacks upon us.
The Geek has a high degree of confidence in the US intelligence community. In his view it is better today than it was six years ago. He is willing to say the same about portions of the internal security system.
No matter how good our off-shore detection and interdiction might be, no matter how effective our internal security agencies might have become, no system is unbeatable. After all, Israel has an enormously effective intelligence, defense, and internal security system. But, even so, the blackhats can and do penetrate with lethal consequences.
Only We the People, each and every one of us, can make the decision when the next attack occurs. Will we be terrorised? Or will we acknowledge along with General Powell that terror might destroy, maim, and kill, but only we can give it power over us.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Gov. Bill Richardson Is Second Tier--And Should Go Lower!
Governor Bill, as we New Mexicans affectionately--or not--call our governor is still off and running for president. As the Geek has written before, the man is not well qualified on the basis of his past jobs in foreign policy implementation for the presidency. As was once said of the French Marshall, Joffre, "He has forgotten nothing--and learned nothing."
The Geek watched the clip of an interview Governor Bill gave to AP in which the paunchy and not particularly articulate candidate gave his views on what he would do regarding Iraq, Afghanistan and the US military. http://player.clipsyndicate.com/view/130/399429. It's a hoot. Compared to the guv, John Edwards and Barrak Obama are strategic geniuses.
(Attention, please. This is not a mere personal rant. The Geek promises there is real substance. It comes at the tail end of the post.)
Richardson proposes to pull all US forces out of Iraq. He would leave a small "contingency" force of "Special Forces" in Kuwait, "where they are needed." He does not explicate the reasons why this contingency deployment is needed in Kuwait more than some other country in the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps it is because Richardson's advisers don't know the name of any other potential host in the region.
The Governor would send some of the withdrawn forces to Afghanistan. The number is uncertain but he says it would be "Whatever the military believes is necessary." It should be mentioned that the deep thinking Richardson and his team give no explanation as to why Afghanistan is more important to US interests than Iraq. Nor does he explain why it is so unnecessary or so remote to longer term American interests that we not finish cleaning up the mess we made in Iraq.
In an obvious bid to make himself look strong on American defense, the Governor states that he would mount a "recruiting drive" to "rebuild the "Army and Marines." He would also seek the purchase of new equipment.
Such obvious political pap needs (and deserves) no comment.
Suffice it to say that there is no apparent need to "rebuild" the ground combat forces of the US. The performance of the troops in the field has been good within the limits of current doctrine and command philosophy. What the governor might want to consider is that should the US prematurely withdraw from Iraq, the US might just need a considerable expansion of its ground combat capacities since there would be a better than excellent chance we would be facing an expanded threat from emboldened Islamists.
Bill Richardson, like the Geek, is a product of the Vietnam generation. Richardson evidently learned the wrong lesson from the Vietnam debacle. He learned that the US should never use force either in support of diplomacy or as the ultimate extension of diplomacy.
A military exists for the purposes of direct physical defense of critical national interests. Beyond that, it exists as the backer and extender of diplomacy. If Richardson actually was the diplomatic heavy hitter he so obviously thinks he is, then he would be aware of these twin, historically defined realities.
He would also be aware that, while the term "appeasement" was massively, and incorrectly overused to justify our failed effort in Vietnam, it is still a relevant term. While not the intent, the effect of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be the attempted appeasement of the Islamists in that country and elsewhere.
If Richardson was, as he thinks he is, the greatest gift to diplomacy since Talleyrand, he would know that appeasement is the international form of blackmail. The more that is given, the more that is demanded.
Get a grip, Governor Bill!
The Geek watched the clip of an interview Governor Bill gave to AP in which the paunchy and not particularly articulate candidate gave his views on what he would do regarding Iraq, Afghanistan and the US military. http://player.clipsyndicate.com/view/130/399429. It's a hoot. Compared to the guv, John Edwards and Barrak Obama are strategic geniuses.
(Attention, please. This is not a mere personal rant. The Geek promises there is real substance. It comes at the tail end of the post.)
Richardson proposes to pull all US forces out of Iraq. He would leave a small "contingency" force of "Special Forces" in Kuwait, "where they are needed." He does not explicate the reasons why this contingency deployment is needed in Kuwait more than some other country in the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps it is because Richardson's advisers don't know the name of any other potential host in the region.
The Governor would send some of the withdrawn forces to Afghanistan. The number is uncertain but he says it would be "Whatever the military believes is necessary." It should be mentioned that the deep thinking Richardson and his team give no explanation as to why Afghanistan is more important to US interests than Iraq. Nor does he explain why it is so unnecessary or so remote to longer term American interests that we not finish cleaning up the mess we made in Iraq.
In an obvious bid to make himself look strong on American defense, the Governor states that he would mount a "recruiting drive" to "rebuild the "Army and Marines." He would also seek the purchase of new equipment.
Such obvious political pap needs (and deserves) no comment.
Suffice it to say that there is no apparent need to "rebuild" the ground combat forces of the US. The performance of the troops in the field has been good within the limits of current doctrine and command philosophy. What the governor might want to consider is that should the US prematurely withdraw from Iraq, the US might just need a considerable expansion of its ground combat capacities since there would be a better than excellent chance we would be facing an expanded threat from emboldened Islamists.
Bill Richardson, like the Geek, is a product of the Vietnam generation. Richardson evidently learned the wrong lesson from the Vietnam debacle. He learned that the US should never use force either in support of diplomacy or as the ultimate extension of diplomacy.
A military exists for the purposes of direct physical defense of critical national interests. Beyond that, it exists as the backer and extender of diplomacy. If Richardson actually was the diplomatic heavy hitter he so obviously thinks he is, then he would be aware of these twin, historically defined realities.
He would also be aware that, while the term "appeasement" was massively, and incorrectly overused to justify our failed effort in Vietnam, it is still a relevant term. While not the intent, the effect of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be the attempted appeasement of the Islamists in that country and elsewhere.
If Richardson was, as he thinks he is, the greatest gift to diplomacy since Talleyrand, he would know that appeasement is the international form of blackmail. The more that is given, the more that is demanded.
Get a grip, Governor Bill!
Osama Videos Go Into Reruns--With a Twist
Al-Qaeda Video Productions has made an industry shaking change in its new approach to reruns. Combining previously released footage with a new audio track featuring favorite personality, Osama bin Laden, the new rerun format shows a new trend in Islamist Terror Entertainment.
While the format may be new, there is nothing fresh in the style and content. Sheik bin Laden's voice is almost as wooden as his face as he calls upon Pakistanis to wage jihad against their apostate Chief of State, General Pervez Musharraf. The script was stale, repetitive, and lacked imagination in its recycling of typical Islamist (and old style Communist) characterizations of Musharraf as a tool and lackey of the United States and its running dogs.
The uninspired production has been dismissed by spokesmen on behalf of the General. Even so, the Geek takes the rerun--poor production values and all--seriously. Four years ago, the purported Number Two in al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahari, released a similar tape.
It was followed by two very serious attempts on General Musharraf's life.
Additionally, there is little doubt but that bin Laden has a base of support among Pakistanis which extends far beyond the narrow wedge of Islamists political parties. There are a number of signs which indicate this.
The most disturbing of these indicators is the less than inspired performance of the Pakistani Army in the critical tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan. One example, there is strong reason to conclude that some, if not all, of the alleged "kidnappings" of Pakistani troops in the region were, in fact, mass surrenders to the al-Qaeda/Taliban fighters.
Another indicator of a crisis of confidence in the Pakistani Army comes from a close examination of the claim by the government that the army is "taking casualties." It is true that Pakistani soldiers are being killed and wounded by al-Qaeda/Taliban trigger pullers. That isn't what counts.
"What does count?" You ask.
Did the casualties happen during offensive operations or defensive? That's where the rubber hits the road. An examination of all available information points at the majority of the casualties resulting from enemy initiated actions.
An army that sits on the defensive is not showing an impressive willingness to close with and destroy the enemy. Without closing and killing there is no realistic possibility of defeating the enemy. Period.
The prize for al-Qaeda, Taliban, and bin Laden is not the death of Musharraf. (Although the Geek doubts any tears would be shed by these worthies if the General were to buy the farm.) The real prize sought is not even the assurance that Musharraf would lose the forthcoming elections. Of course that would be nice as Ms Bhutto is a denier of the Islamist threat.
The real prize at stake is simply the further reduction of Pakistani political will to control effectively the border areas. Those rugged, remote mountains where Taliban trains, al-Qaeda hides out, and bin Laden studies the mysteries of Islamist theology.
There is always the chance that some jihadist will succeed in whacking the General. The implications of a successful assassination are wide in scope. One thing is sure. None of the ramifications would be good from the American perspective.
Pakistan is the next thing to a failed state. It possesses nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and nuclear knowledge. Within the Pakistani military, intelligence service, and nuclear establishment exist a significant number of Islamists. A.Q, Khan, the most profligate prolifiater of nuclear weapons technology on record is still alive, kicking, and Islamist.
Then there is geography.
Pakistan borders both Afghanistan and Iran. What more do you need to know?
How about this?
Admiral Fallon, the Commander of Central Command, has noted pointedly in the past twenty-four hours that Iranian origin materials for roadside bombs have been shipped to Afghanistan. This is not the first time that an American senior commander has made reference to this factor in the ongoing Afghan war. The boringly repetitive Iranian denials like the statements made by "experts" that Iran has no truck with Taliban are simply not credible.
Should Pakistan collapse as a state or should an "Islamism denier" become president of Pakistan, the strategic balance in the Northwest Asian region would shift. A new and from the American perspective (and, in all probability, that of Russia, India and China), unpleasant alignment would likely emerge: Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan.
While this pessimistic outcome is unlikely, it is far from impossible. Whether it is the end desired by bin Laden and company is not for the Geek to surmise.
But, the Geek would be inclined to tell the Wizard of al-Qaeda to be careful what he asks for. He just might get it. Since al-Qaeda, Taliban, and the mullahocracy of Tehran would be even stranger than the classic Axis of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, the sheik might discover that not all jihads are good jihads
While the format may be new, there is nothing fresh in the style and content. Sheik bin Laden's voice is almost as wooden as his face as he calls upon Pakistanis to wage jihad against their apostate Chief of State, General Pervez Musharraf. The script was stale, repetitive, and lacked imagination in its recycling of typical Islamist (and old style Communist) characterizations of Musharraf as a tool and lackey of the United States and its running dogs.
The uninspired production has been dismissed by spokesmen on behalf of the General. Even so, the Geek takes the rerun--poor production values and all--seriously. Four years ago, the purported Number Two in al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahari, released a similar tape.
It was followed by two very serious attempts on General Musharraf's life.
Additionally, there is little doubt but that bin Laden has a base of support among Pakistanis which extends far beyond the narrow wedge of Islamists political parties. There are a number of signs which indicate this.
The most disturbing of these indicators is the less than inspired performance of the Pakistani Army in the critical tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan. One example, there is strong reason to conclude that some, if not all, of the alleged "kidnappings" of Pakistani troops in the region were, in fact, mass surrenders to the al-Qaeda/Taliban fighters.
Another indicator of a crisis of confidence in the Pakistani Army comes from a close examination of the claim by the government that the army is "taking casualties." It is true that Pakistani soldiers are being killed and wounded by al-Qaeda/Taliban trigger pullers. That isn't what counts.
"What does count?" You ask.
Did the casualties happen during offensive operations or defensive? That's where the rubber hits the road. An examination of all available information points at the majority of the casualties resulting from enemy initiated actions.
An army that sits on the defensive is not showing an impressive willingness to close with and destroy the enemy. Without closing and killing there is no realistic possibility of defeating the enemy. Period.
The prize for al-Qaeda, Taliban, and bin Laden is not the death of Musharraf. (Although the Geek doubts any tears would be shed by these worthies if the General were to buy the farm.) The real prize sought is not even the assurance that Musharraf would lose the forthcoming elections. Of course that would be nice as Ms Bhutto is a denier of the Islamist threat.
The real prize at stake is simply the further reduction of Pakistani political will to control effectively the border areas. Those rugged, remote mountains where Taliban trains, al-Qaeda hides out, and bin Laden studies the mysteries of Islamist theology.
There is always the chance that some jihadist will succeed in whacking the General. The implications of a successful assassination are wide in scope. One thing is sure. None of the ramifications would be good from the American perspective.
Pakistan is the next thing to a failed state. It possesses nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and nuclear knowledge. Within the Pakistani military, intelligence service, and nuclear establishment exist a significant number of Islamists. A.Q, Khan, the most profligate prolifiater of nuclear weapons technology on record is still alive, kicking, and Islamist.
Then there is geography.
Pakistan borders both Afghanistan and Iran. What more do you need to know?
How about this?
Admiral Fallon, the Commander of Central Command, has noted pointedly in the past twenty-four hours that Iranian origin materials for roadside bombs have been shipped to Afghanistan. This is not the first time that an American senior commander has made reference to this factor in the ongoing Afghan war. The boringly repetitive Iranian denials like the statements made by "experts" that Iran has no truck with Taliban are simply not credible.
Should Pakistan collapse as a state or should an "Islamism denier" become president of Pakistan, the strategic balance in the Northwest Asian region would shift. A new and from the American perspective (and, in all probability, that of Russia, India and China), unpleasant alignment would likely emerge: Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan.
While this pessimistic outcome is unlikely, it is far from impossible. Whether it is the end desired by bin Laden and company is not for the Geek to surmise.
But, the Geek would be inclined to tell the Wizard of al-Qaeda to be careful what he asks for. He just might get it. Since al-Qaeda, Taliban, and the mullahocracy of Tehran would be even stranger than the classic Axis of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, the sheik might discover that not all jihads are good jihads
Columbia University Does It Right
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Iran's Orator-in-Chief, will be spewing forth at Columbia University during his upcoming trip to the UN. Not surprisingly, his appearance at both institutions has provoked much spilling of venom, ink, and electrons.
The Geek is not prepared to comment on the calls for President Ahmedinejad's arrest on charges of his having violated anti-terrorism laws. The most the Geek will do regarding this issue is to say that it would set a very poor precedent particularly as more than a few academics, jurists, and journalists in Egypt and elsewhere in the Mideast have alleged that President Bush should face trial for crimes against humanity and war crimes alike.
On the matter of the invitation extended by Columbia University to Ahmedinejad, the Geek is prepared to take a principled, historically sanctioned position. The University is doing the right thing this year by not knuckling under to outside pressure and retracting the invitation.
Those who would prevent Ahmedinejad from speaking are committing the same wrong as the Islamists who seek to censor through intimidation. Those who might seek to stop the speech and ensuing question and answer session either before or during the event would be doing this country and the West generally a great disservice in our Cold War with the Islamists.
Freedom of expression, as the Geek has written before, is the Western value upon which so many others rest. It is one of our greatest strengths in the new Cold War. To the contrary, the willingness, no, the eagerness of Islamists and their supporters to squash expression is a sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Ahmedinejad has shown himself repeatedly to be a warper of historical reality almost without equal. His loose lipped, no-brain style has been alternately infuriating and (unintentionally) amusing. Ahmedinejad's denial of the slaughter of the Jews during World War II, like his call for the eradication of Israel from the map are infuriating. His sputtering threats against the US are amusing.
Combining humor and annoyance in equal measure are President Ahmedinejad's denial of Iranian involvement in Iraq, his protestations of friendship with the Iraqi people, and his rejection of any Iranian involvement with Hezbollah. It's OK for presidents to lie--it's one of the lesser publicised components of their job description--but Ahmedinejad carries it over the edge.
Actually, unlike New York mayor Bloomberg, the Geek would like to be in the audience when the Iranian Orator-in-Chief stands and delivers. The Geek would like to take an up-close and personal measure of Ahmedinejad's capacity to answer tough questions such as those promised by Columbia University's chancellor.
Ahmedinejad may never sit in the defendant's chair at a criminal trial. But, if Columbia University takes proper advantage of the opportunity, the Iranian will be coming close. The Geek would love to be there, front and center, to watch the man squirm, to smell the cloying odor of lies under production, to hear the answers--
And, to judge.
That is the real point of freedom of expression. It is the point the Islamists in their blind fear miss. By watching and listening to the flow of question and answer, each of us can judge. Each of us can decide where the truth exists and where it doesn't.
Get a grip on this--
Ahmedinejad must speak. He must answer questions. He must lie. We must give him the fullest possible opportunity to convict himself and his regime. To do anything less is to hurt ourselves and our values. More--it lets the Iranian head of government walk clear of the court of public opinion.
The Geek is not prepared to comment on the calls for President Ahmedinejad's arrest on charges of his having violated anti-terrorism laws. The most the Geek will do regarding this issue is to say that it would set a very poor precedent particularly as more than a few academics, jurists, and journalists in Egypt and elsewhere in the Mideast have alleged that President Bush should face trial for crimes against humanity and war crimes alike.
On the matter of the invitation extended by Columbia University to Ahmedinejad, the Geek is prepared to take a principled, historically sanctioned position. The University is doing the right thing this year by not knuckling under to outside pressure and retracting the invitation.
Those who would prevent Ahmedinejad from speaking are committing the same wrong as the Islamists who seek to censor through intimidation. Those who might seek to stop the speech and ensuing question and answer session either before or during the event would be doing this country and the West generally a great disservice in our Cold War with the Islamists.
Freedom of expression, as the Geek has written before, is the Western value upon which so many others rest. It is one of our greatest strengths in the new Cold War. To the contrary, the willingness, no, the eagerness of Islamists and their supporters to squash expression is a sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Ahmedinejad has shown himself repeatedly to be a warper of historical reality almost without equal. His loose lipped, no-brain style has been alternately infuriating and (unintentionally) amusing. Ahmedinejad's denial of the slaughter of the Jews during World War II, like his call for the eradication of Israel from the map are infuriating. His sputtering threats against the US are amusing.
Combining humor and annoyance in equal measure are President Ahmedinejad's denial of Iranian involvement in Iraq, his protestations of friendship with the Iraqi people, and his rejection of any Iranian involvement with Hezbollah. It's OK for presidents to lie--it's one of the lesser publicised components of their job description--but Ahmedinejad carries it over the edge.
Actually, unlike New York mayor Bloomberg, the Geek would like to be in the audience when the Iranian Orator-in-Chief stands and delivers. The Geek would like to take an up-close and personal measure of Ahmedinejad's capacity to answer tough questions such as those promised by Columbia University's chancellor.
Ahmedinejad may never sit in the defendant's chair at a criminal trial. But, if Columbia University takes proper advantage of the opportunity, the Iranian will be coming close. The Geek would love to be there, front and center, to watch the man squirm, to smell the cloying odor of lies under production, to hear the answers--
And, to judge.
That is the real point of freedom of expression. It is the point the Islamists in their blind fear miss. By watching and listening to the flow of question and answer, each of us can judge. Each of us can decide where the truth exists and where it doesn't.
Get a grip on this--
Ahmedinejad must speak. He must answer questions. He must lie. We must give him the fullest possible opportunity to convict himself and his regime. To do anything less is to hurt ourselves and our values. More--it lets the Iranian head of government walk clear of the court of public opinion.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Ah! A Refreshing Sound--The Voice of Realism, Robert Gates
For the last several years (and the past several months in particular) the Geek has flinched to the bombast of ideologues whether neo-con ninnies such as the Geek's favorite targets, Paul Wolfewitz, Doug Feith, Donald Rumsfield, and the ever gripless Dick Cheney or the Surrender, Now! crowd clustering like sheep around Senate Majority Leader Reid, Speaker of the House Pelosi, presidential wannebes Obama, Edwards, et al and John (The Mouth Without a Brain) Murtha. Oy veh! The cacophony of the mindless!
Comes now Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense and late of the brutally realistic world of intelligence. How the Commander Guy ever let a realpolitiker slip into the current administration will only become clear when (and if) the relevant documents are declassified.
In any event, thoughtful Americans should be pleased by Gates' presence in the administration. He is a man who has a firm grip on the realities of the world today--and the limits of US military power as shown in his recent speech at the College of William and Mary. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/defense_secretary_gatess_nonro.html
Long before Mr Gates took the helm at CIA, the Geek had heard the wry comment that when an intelligence officer smells flowers he looks for the coffin. Later, the Geek learned the same is true with historians.
It is not true to assert that intel folks and historians are pessimists. It is much more accurate to say that both occupations require submergence in the dreck of the human condition to such an extent that coffins are more expectable than flowers, rain more the order of the day than sunshine.
Both intelligence personnel and historians need disciplined imagination to connect the dots of ambiguous facts, factoids, anti-facts, and artifacts to create an accurate picture of complex events and personalities. What separates the two endeavors is the simple reality that the historian looks at the past and the intelligence officer must predict the future.
When disciplined imagination works, intelligence can accurately predict the future. This was the case time and time again in the fog covered swamp of Vietnam. CIA was so correct so often that the administration of Lyndon Johnson stopped reading the Agency's dreary, but accurate predictions concerning both the necessity and direction of the war. (Psst: The spooks said the war was unnecessary--and we were losing it.)
When disciplined imagination fails, or when its product is ignored, the results are rarely good for US interests. That has certainly been the case in Iraq and, to an only slightly lesser extent, Afghanistan.
This is why Mr Gates' presence in the administration gratifies the Geek. It is why Secretary Gates' words concerning Iran and the future of Iraq demand and deserve attention by all Americans.
The Secretary and the Geek are in tandem on several important matters. The first is that an attack upon Iranian facilities must be a measure of absolute last resort. On this critical policy decision, ideologues such as John Bolton, the former Ambassador to the UN and current globe trotting sage for the American Enterprise Institute, are as wrong as grilled watermelon.
For Mr Bolton's current line see the following story from Australia. It's a hoot says the Geek. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/19/2037418.htm
The Geek has little doubt that Secretary Gates would agree that the world could learn to live with a nuclear capable Iran. It wouldn't be comfortable, but as the Geek has argued in a previous post, life in a world where Iran joins the ranks of potential nuke slingers wouldn't be impossible.
War as the SecDef noted in his confirmation hearings is inherently unpredictable. Even every one's favorite German philosopher of matters military, Karl von Clausewitz, allowed, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."
Mr Gates would probably agree that while the US could wreak terrific havoc on the Iranian nuclear, military, governmental, and economic infrastructure, the problem of the day after would be well neigh unsolvable at any acceptable political, diplomatic, military, and economic cost. He might well counsel that war is like icy water--don't dive in, take it one toe at a time.
The Secretary is also refreshingly uncommitted to the absurd notion of exporting democracy to Iraq (or anywhere else) on the tip of an American bayonet. The Geek thought that was a well understood reality. Even the neo-con crew should have been aware that such attempts have been made before. They have failed.
President Woodrow Wilson tried to "teach those Mexicans to elect good men," by landing the Marines at Vera Cruz. The Mexicans ignored the old Princeton professor's lesson. After that splendidly ignored experience, we've tried in other places and other times. None have worked, at least after the US troops came home.
(Don't pull the Japan after World War II gambit on the Geek. That was a unique situation. It has not been repeated in Iraq. It would not be repeatable in Iran. Get a grip!)
What Iraq and the Iraqis need is stability. Stability over time. Our forces can provide stability in the short-term. But, they can and must leave. Thus, our bayonets cannot provide even the appearance of long-term order.
Only the Iraqis cannot do that. It may take the emergence of a strongman to assure that short term stability turns into long-term order. SecDef Gates is aware of that. He isn't disturbed by the knowledge.
The Geek agrees. Democracy works. But not for every country all the time. Iraq may need a strongman who can maintain stability, inculcate order, and provide a basis for the country's future development. We may not like authoritarian regimes. But, as long as they are neither overwhelmingly bloody at home or expansive abroad, we can share the planet with them.
Obnoxious regimes have been commonplace over recent generations. Few of them have merited military operations to force regime change. Even when some have, past administrations have touched a toe or two into the cold water of contemplated war--and backed out quickly.
There's an old cliche holding that a person should choose his enemies carefully. Like all cliches, it contains a large grain of truth. SecDef Gates is realist enough to recognise that it is even more important for a country to choose its wars very, very carefully.
He's got a grip.
Comes now Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense and late of the brutally realistic world of intelligence. How the Commander Guy ever let a realpolitiker slip into the current administration will only become clear when (and if) the relevant documents are declassified.
In any event, thoughtful Americans should be pleased by Gates' presence in the administration. He is a man who has a firm grip on the realities of the world today--and the limits of US military power as shown in his recent speech at the College of William and Mary. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/defense_secretary_gatess_nonro.html
Long before Mr Gates took the helm at CIA, the Geek had heard the wry comment that when an intelligence officer smells flowers he looks for the coffin. Later, the Geek learned the same is true with historians.
It is not true to assert that intel folks and historians are pessimists. It is much more accurate to say that both occupations require submergence in the dreck of the human condition to such an extent that coffins are more expectable than flowers, rain more the order of the day than sunshine.
Both intelligence personnel and historians need disciplined imagination to connect the dots of ambiguous facts, factoids, anti-facts, and artifacts to create an accurate picture of complex events and personalities. What separates the two endeavors is the simple reality that the historian looks at the past and the intelligence officer must predict the future.
When disciplined imagination works, intelligence can accurately predict the future. This was the case time and time again in the fog covered swamp of Vietnam. CIA was so correct so often that the administration of Lyndon Johnson stopped reading the Agency's dreary, but accurate predictions concerning both the necessity and direction of the war. (Psst: The spooks said the war was unnecessary--and we were losing it.)
When disciplined imagination fails, or when its product is ignored, the results are rarely good for US interests. That has certainly been the case in Iraq and, to an only slightly lesser extent, Afghanistan.
This is why Mr Gates' presence in the administration gratifies the Geek. It is why Secretary Gates' words concerning Iran and the future of Iraq demand and deserve attention by all Americans.
The Secretary and the Geek are in tandem on several important matters. The first is that an attack upon Iranian facilities must be a measure of absolute last resort. On this critical policy decision, ideologues such as John Bolton, the former Ambassador to the UN and current globe trotting sage for the American Enterprise Institute, are as wrong as grilled watermelon.
For Mr Bolton's current line see the following story from Australia. It's a hoot says the Geek. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/19/2037418.htm
The Geek has little doubt that Secretary Gates would agree that the world could learn to live with a nuclear capable Iran. It wouldn't be comfortable, but as the Geek has argued in a previous post, life in a world where Iran joins the ranks of potential nuke slingers wouldn't be impossible.
War as the SecDef noted in his confirmation hearings is inherently unpredictable. Even every one's favorite German philosopher of matters military, Karl von Clausewitz, allowed, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."
Mr Gates would probably agree that while the US could wreak terrific havoc on the Iranian nuclear, military, governmental, and economic infrastructure, the problem of the day after would be well neigh unsolvable at any acceptable political, diplomatic, military, and economic cost. He might well counsel that war is like icy water--don't dive in, take it one toe at a time.
The Secretary is also refreshingly uncommitted to the absurd notion of exporting democracy to Iraq (or anywhere else) on the tip of an American bayonet. The Geek thought that was a well understood reality. Even the neo-con crew should have been aware that such attempts have been made before. They have failed.
President Woodrow Wilson tried to "teach those Mexicans to elect good men," by landing the Marines at Vera Cruz. The Mexicans ignored the old Princeton professor's lesson. After that splendidly ignored experience, we've tried in other places and other times. None have worked, at least after the US troops came home.
(Don't pull the Japan after World War II gambit on the Geek. That was a unique situation. It has not been repeated in Iraq. It would not be repeatable in Iran. Get a grip!)
What Iraq and the Iraqis need is stability. Stability over time. Our forces can provide stability in the short-term. But, they can and must leave. Thus, our bayonets cannot provide even the appearance of long-term order.
Only the Iraqis cannot do that. It may take the emergence of a strongman to assure that short term stability turns into long-term order. SecDef Gates is aware of that. He isn't disturbed by the knowledge.
The Geek agrees. Democracy works. But not for every country all the time. Iraq may need a strongman who can maintain stability, inculcate order, and provide a basis for the country's future development. We may not like authoritarian regimes. But, as long as they are neither overwhelmingly bloody at home or expansive abroad, we can share the planet with them.
Obnoxious regimes have been commonplace over recent generations. Few of them have merited military operations to force regime change. Even when some have, past administrations have touched a toe or two into the cold water of contemplated war--and backed out quickly.
There's an old cliche holding that a person should choose his enemies carefully. Like all cliches, it contains a large grain of truth. SecDef Gates is realist enough to recognise that it is even more important for a country to choose its wars very, very carefully.
He's got a grip.
Throw the Bloody Blackwater Bastards Out!
Were the Geek the letter writing type, he would be tempted to write to the Iraq Ambassador to the United States. The purpose would be to offer advice.
The advice would be simple. Since the current American administration and Congress are both too spineless and too enamored of what Texans call big "bidness" to do the job, you have to do it. You have to evict Blackwater USA immediately and without undue ceremony.
It's in your country's best interests to kick Blackwater's gun-totting, rent-a-thugs out. Right now.
Because of the dilatory practices of the Pentagon, to say nothing of major Constitutional questions, the trigger-pullers responsible for the most recent unnecessary wasting of Iraqi civilian lives will never stand before a court-martial.
The Geek is certain that the Iraqi government was relieved a year or so back when Congress passed legislation placing employees of contractors such as Blackwater under military law. It seemed to be a step up from the regulation promulgated by Paul (I'm-in-charge-here) Bremer during his period as American pro-consul.
The Bremer regulation was redolent of extraterritoriality such as practiced by the US and other powers in China. Bremer, showing his usual ignorance of history and contempt for reality, dictated that employees of foreign contractors in Iraq would be exempt from Iraqi criminal jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, the neo-con nitwits at the Pentagon assured all who expressed a concern that this diktat was simply the equivalent to the many status-of-forces agreements extant between the US and host governments around the world.
That just ain't so.
The correct analogy would be the extraterritoriality treaties (aka unequal treaties) between the Great Powers and China. This get-out-of-jail-free agreements were justified by the bland assertion that citizens of "advanced" countries must not be subjected to the codes and processes of "lesser breeds without the law."
To mention that these treaties were resented by the government of the "lesser breed" would seem unnecessary.
While the Bremer voyage back to the "good old days" of extraterritoriality has ended, the court-martial alternative is unrealistic. No procedures have been established to implement the law. Severe Constitutional questions must be addressed at some time in the future to see if the law even passes muster.
In effect, extraterritoriality still exists! With a difference--the likelihood that any Blackwater gunslinger would ever stand trial in any American court is so close to zero that you would need an electron microscope to find it.
Of course, the Iraqi Ambassador would realize that jurisdiction would never be granted by Washington to an Iraqi court--even if a Blackwater shooter is seen plugging a baby on video. After all, the Iraqi's are one of those "lesser breeds without the law." It's OK with us if they string up Saddam, but throw one of our people in an Iraqi slam? Forget it!
While you're at it, Mr Ambassador, you might advise your government to take a hard look at the latest wrinkle in the security contracting bidness. Hiring East African nationals.
You read that right. US and other foreign providers of security services in Iraq are seeking to widen their profit margins by hiring less expensive personnel from Kenya and other East African nations (Somalia perhaps? Those boys have a lot of recent experience with security in a violent environment. Hmmm.)
Without some quick, accurate thinking and fast action, the Iraqi government might find itself with even more unhappy (and dead) civilians on its collective hands. What a vision to consider! Foreign companies hiring third country nationals to protect fourth country nationals in Iraq. With nobody from the shooters on the street to the bosses in the boardrooms having more than a theoretical legal accountability for their actions.
The Iraqi government may not be able to agree on oil revenue sharing, oil field development, power sharing among the various factions. But, it ought to be able to agree that Iraqi civilians dying as unaccountable foreigners put another notch on their weapons is a poor idea.
In short, throw the foreign security firms out. If the Coalition Forces including the Iraqi military and police forces cannot protect the necessary international civilian presence, then these people, including US Foreign Service and akin personnel have to take their chances. Or be withdrawn.
Congress and the current administration could act. Either or both could require the ending of private security contracts. The Geek won't hold his breath though. Congress and the current administration are responsible for the presence of Blackwater and other firms.
The current administration has the motto: "Our pencils have no erasers!" Congress has shown itself worthy of Theodore Roosevelt's famed quip, "I've met banana splits with more backbone."
Is it likely that either will step up and demand an end to both de facto extraterritoriality and the presence of private armies?
What do you think?
Get a grip on this.
Blackwater USA and others of its ilk don't protect US interests. Blackwater USA and its ilk don't help develop security and stability in Iraq.
Blackwater USA and others of its ilk only help al-Qaeda in Iraq and similar groups. Blackwater USA is in effect America's enemy.
The advice would be simple. Since the current American administration and Congress are both too spineless and too enamored of what Texans call big "bidness" to do the job, you have to do it. You have to evict Blackwater USA immediately and without undue ceremony.
It's in your country's best interests to kick Blackwater's gun-totting, rent-a-thugs out. Right now.
Because of the dilatory practices of the Pentagon, to say nothing of major Constitutional questions, the trigger-pullers responsible for the most recent unnecessary wasting of Iraqi civilian lives will never stand before a court-martial.
The Geek is certain that the Iraqi government was relieved a year or so back when Congress passed legislation placing employees of contractors such as Blackwater under military law. It seemed to be a step up from the regulation promulgated by Paul (I'm-in-charge-here) Bremer during his period as American pro-consul.
The Bremer regulation was redolent of extraterritoriality such as practiced by the US and other powers in China. Bremer, showing his usual ignorance of history and contempt for reality, dictated that employees of foreign contractors in Iraq would be exempt from Iraqi criminal jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, the neo-con nitwits at the Pentagon assured all who expressed a concern that this diktat was simply the equivalent to the many status-of-forces agreements extant between the US and host governments around the world.
That just ain't so.
The correct analogy would be the extraterritoriality treaties (aka unequal treaties) between the Great Powers and China. This get-out-of-jail-free agreements were justified by the bland assertion that citizens of "advanced" countries must not be subjected to the codes and processes of "lesser breeds without the law."
To mention that these treaties were resented by the government of the "lesser breed" would seem unnecessary.
While the Bremer voyage back to the "good old days" of extraterritoriality has ended, the court-martial alternative is unrealistic. No procedures have been established to implement the law. Severe Constitutional questions must be addressed at some time in the future to see if the law even passes muster.
In effect, extraterritoriality still exists! With a difference--the likelihood that any Blackwater gunslinger would ever stand trial in any American court is so close to zero that you would need an electron microscope to find it.
Of course, the Iraqi Ambassador would realize that jurisdiction would never be granted by Washington to an Iraqi court--even if a Blackwater shooter is seen plugging a baby on video. After all, the Iraqi's are one of those "lesser breeds without the law." It's OK with us if they string up Saddam, but throw one of our people in an Iraqi slam? Forget it!
While you're at it, Mr Ambassador, you might advise your government to take a hard look at the latest wrinkle in the security contracting bidness. Hiring East African nationals.
You read that right. US and other foreign providers of security services in Iraq are seeking to widen their profit margins by hiring less expensive personnel from Kenya and other East African nations (Somalia perhaps? Those boys have a lot of recent experience with security in a violent environment. Hmmm.)
Without some quick, accurate thinking and fast action, the Iraqi government might find itself with even more unhappy (and dead) civilians on its collective hands. What a vision to consider! Foreign companies hiring third country nationals to protect fourth country nationals in Iraq. With nobody from the shooters on the street to the bosses in the boardrooms having more than a theoretical legal accountability for their actions.
The Iraqi government may not be able to agree on oil revenue sharing, oil field development, power sharing among the various factions. But, it ought to be able to agree that Iraqi civilians dying as unaccountable foreigners put another notch on their weapons is a poor idea.
In short, throw the foreign security firms out. If the Coalition Forces including the Iraqi military and police forces cannot protect the necessary international civilian presence, then these people, including US Foreign Service and akin personnel have to take their chances. Or be withdrawn.
Congress and the current administration could act. Either or both could require the ending of private security contracts. The Geek won't hold his breath though. Congress and the current administration are responsible for the presence of Blackwater and other firms.
The current administration has the motto: "Our pencils have no erasers!" Congress has shown itself worthy of Theodore Roosevelt's famed quip, "I've met banana splits with more backbone."
Is it likely that either will step up and demand an end to both de facto extraterritoriality and the presence of private armies?
What do you think?
Get a grip on this.
Blackwater USA and others of its ilk don't protect US interests. Blackwater USA and its ilk don't help develop security and stability in Iraq.
Blackwater USA and others of its ilk only help al-Qaeda in Iraq and similar groups. Blackwater USA is in effect America's enemy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)