The Only New Aspect Of Honduras Is Obama

Senator Lugar (R) is considered one of the Senate's foremost experts in foreign policy. That high esteem often seems less merited by the Senator's insights and understandings than by the generally dismal level of senatorial grip on either the fundamentals of foreign affairs or the nuances of diplomacy.

This time Senator Lugar is in the right. He has written SecState Clinton asking a clarification as to the basis and goal of American diplomacy in the contretemps pitting two-thirds of the Honduran government--the judiciary and the legislature--against the third--deposed President Zelaya.

The question--and the response--are long overdue. To say that US policy regarding the Affair Zelaya is confused is akin to calling the yowls and screeches of a cat fight melodic.

Getting a grip on the ground truths in Honduras does not require a PhD from Georgetown University's foreign affairs institute. It is straightforward, simple, nothing to it.

Zelaya ran as a moderate conservative. He was elected. He moved sharply to the left. On his watch crime flourished along with poverty. Even Zelaya's base--large sections of the country's poorest citizens, lost ground rather than gained it as they expected.

Zelaya was, to put it undiplomatically but accurately, an inept boob in office. He nuzzled ever closer to Hugo Chavez, the self-proclaimed successor to Fidel Castro, and Daniel Ortega, the one time far, far left guerrilla leader and, more recently, elected president of Nicaragua. These friendships apparently ignited previously dormant ambitions in the heart of Sr Zelaya.

He suddenly discovered in the last year of his constitutionally permitted term that he was The Man of Destiny. To achieve that destiny Sr Zelaya proposed a referendum on the term limit provision in the Honduran Constitution.

Start of "crisis." The Supreme Court of Honduras said, "No way." The referendum was ordered squashed and the printed ballots were ordered seized. Zelaya, perhaps inspired by the ghost of President Andrew Jackson, who famously said when confronted with a Supreme Court decision with which he disagreed, "Mr Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." The hot tempered South Carolinian backed down quickly and obeyed the court order.

But Sr Zelaya was made of sterner stuff. He, in essence, told the Supreme Court, "Stuff it."

The Court, not at all amused, ordered the Honduran army to seize the ballots. Sr Zelaya sacked the Chief of Staff in an effort to prevent the seizure. The Court then deposed Sr Zelaya as apparently is provided by the constitution. It ordered the army to arrest the now ex-president.

The army did so. Probably with some degree of joy, at least in the higher ranks. Sr Zelaya was defenestrated via private plane.

The legislature joined the fray. Not only did it second the Supreme Court's action, it installed an interim government. Again, all relevant constitutional processes seem to have been followed.

The conservative elite of Honduras--not surprisingly--approved. So also did every media outlet. The Catholic Church did as well. So, and here is the surprise, did a large chunk of Sr Zelaya's old base, the poor peasantry and urban workers.

In the "we disapprove" column were Sr Zelaya's running buddies with Hugo Chavez baying in the vanguard. The UN became involved because Nicaragua's one-time ForMin is now the President of the General Assembly. The OAS also disapproved--as they usually do whenever a regime is changed without an election monitored by Jimmy Carter, unless, of course, the new regime is headed by a bona fide denizen of the progressive sort.

Most importantly, the US, or more correctly, the progressives of the Obama administration disapproved. Mightily. Fervidly. Vocally. Repeatedly.

In the past our protests to changes in government (provided they were not to the far left) were generally pro forma. A gesture for the record as it were. Then Washington got on with business as usual since that was the reason our government has a State Department.

Not this time. The Obama administration has huffed, puffed, hyperventilated as if the Honduran generals had taken over at gun point. This, as the record shows clearly, was not the case. All along the way, constitutional processes were followed by all hands--except Sr Zelaya.

This time the Obama administration has suspended aid. It has cancelled the diplomatic visas of Honduran diplomats. It has almost declared the interim executive of Honduras to be the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein. One would be forgiven for thinking that perhaps Hugo Chavez was offering behind the scenes guidance to the administration.

Not having a PhD in clinical psychology, the Geek is not one to speculate on the motives of President Obama. However, it is of more than passing interest that the Nice Young Man From Chicago ran as a moderate liberal. Was elected on that premise. And, then turned sharply to the left.

There is an old cliche that holds, "By his friends a man is known." And, cliches always grow around a germ of truth.

The Israeli Brief--It's Quite Convincing

There has been any amount of hand-wringing and tooth gnashing over the IDF's Operation Cast Lead. To all too many in the human rights community, the progressive wing of politics, and the entire cast of those impatient with Israel, the general view has been that the IDF went after civilians in an almost barbaric way.

There have been allegations almost without end that the IDF violated the Laws of Land Warfare. That the IDF used indiscriminate means, targeted civilians, used "illegal" weapons such as white phosphorus, shot women and children while grinning, and similar acts of a wanton and abandoned nature. At the same time, the responsibility of Hamas for intentional attacks on civilian targets using weapons of inherently low accuracy was overlooked or downplayed. Similarly, the responsibility of Hamas as the de facto government of the Gaza Strip to take all appropriate measures to remove civilians under their control from areas of impending or actual military operations was pooh-poohed.

Finally the Israelis have released their brief for the defense. It is 164 pages of densely argued, intensively documented evidence and argument countering all the myriad accusations made by Hamas, its Arab supporters, and apologists worldwide. Proceeding from the Doctrine of Inherent Military Probability as the Geek often does, the brief for the defense is sufficient to mark Operation Cast Lead as "Case Closed."

There can be no doubt in the mind of any reader who is not possessed of an anti-Israel predilection that the government of Israel (GOI) and IDF made every effort possible to conduct military operations so as to both follow the assorted international conventions and customs of land warfare and minimise civilian death and destruction. In parallel, the brief gives no room to doubt the contention that Hamas intentionally and repeatedly violated the same laws and customs on a level which boggles the mind.

The Geek, as has been demonstrated in numerous posts, is not a reflexive supporter of GOI and the IDF. Quite the contrary, he has levelled historically valid criticisms at both. Repeatedly.

This time Israel was and is in the right. Period. Balancing this, Hamas was and is in the wrong. Absolutely and completely.

The IDF fought a war within the boundaries of both custom and convention. Yes, civilians were killed and injured. Their property was destroyed and damaged. That is the way war goes. All the relevant international conventions recognise this brutal ground truth concerning war. The mere fact that civilians died, were injured, or became terrified is too bad, but it does not and never has constituted a war crime or a crime against humanity.

The Geek must applaud the IDF and the government which controls it for the restraint shown, care taken, means used to limit and lower the inevitable harm which befell civilians in the Strip. At the same time he must condemn Hamas for its intentional, wanton, and cynically self-serving placement of the civilians under their control at risk, great risk, deadly risk.

Hamas, in common with other Islamist jihadist entities, is a criminal conspiracy which dons the colors of religiously inspired, ethnically based identity politics. There is nothing political in the intentional, repeated placing in hazard of the civilians unfortunate enough to exist under Hamas' sway. Nor is this conduct sanctioned by the Quran except by the most tortured, artificial, tendentious interpretations of clerics who are actually ideologues.

It is time for the tender hearted, the human rights activists, the progressives to get a grip on reality. It is time for these folks and all others who have an interest in both truth and the reduction of the unnecessary civilian butcher's bill in the Mideast to tell it like it is. Hamas is a collection of war criminals, violators of the basic laws seeking to make war something other than the mere slaughter of any and all.

It is time to put the real offender in the dock. The name of that perpetrator is Hamas.

The Great North Carolina Jihad Caper (Or Hoax)

The Geek worked for several years in North Carolina so tales of the Tarheel State continue to interest him. Add in the spice of "home grown" jihadism and the Geek runs after the yarn like a platoon of cats after the fish wagon.

At first sight the tale of Daniel Patrick Boyd, his sons and their associates makes for a Stephen King experience. Shivers and shakes, terror in our midst, unknown, hiding behind the facade of a dry wall contractor, good neighbor and all around regular family man. All with the additional zest of fighting in Afghanistan, facing the loss of right hand and left foot for a bank "robbery" in Peshawar, and a veiled woman with piercing eyes.

If the media reports and quotes from the Federal indictment are correct, it would be fair for the reader to react with a sigh of relief and a, "Thank God for the Feds." A danger narrowly averted.

While the feds allege that Dan and Company were preparing for "foreign violent jihad," there are at least some in the counterterrorism community who hint of darker probabilities--terror hits here in the USA. Uhh! Double, no, triple the shivers, shakes, and so on.

While there may well be something behind the fed's action, there are more than a few problems with the narrative they have written in the indictment. And, even more in the treatment given that narrative by the media.

The Geek has a more than nodding acquaintance with the US efforts in Afghanistan albeit from before the 1989-92 period when Mr Boyd, senior, was allegedly being trained as a terrorist and trigger puller by one of another of the jihadi groups in and around Peshawar. American wannabe jihadists were about as rare as a black man at a Klan Konvention. Few showed up in the wild wild world of the Khyber Pass and far, far fewer were chosen.

Frankly the Afghan jihadists of every stripe were loath to accept even Arab wannabes unless, like Osama bin Ladin, they came with oodles of cash. Americans were even lower on the totem pole of desirability and then would be read in to the jihadist camp only if they were of Arab or better, Afghan or Pakistani descent.

A nineteen year old American white guy of recent conversion to the One True Faith would be about as welcome in the jihadist camp as a Feeb at the Islamist Terrorist Convention. The pimply faced kid would have been dispatched with a swift kick in the butt and told to do something useful--like raise money.

The Geek's impression of reality was born out by a later well informed CIA man quoted in a recent CQ Politics article. The Geek was relieved to find out that the jihadists had not turned soft in later years.

Bearing out the improbability of the fed's assertion that Boyd was the recipient of "military style training" in and around Peshawar is the fact that a dispute with a local bank escalated into charges of bank robbery for which Boyd and his brother were sentenced to lose their right hands and left feet according to Sharia justice. Had either Dan or his brother been jihadi in Afghanistan all they would have had to do in order to beat the rap was to say so. Heroic Warriors of Allah would never have been brought into court let alone destined to the chopping block.

Instead the US State Department played mood music, massaged those in need of massaging, and the Boyds were let loose on appeal to the Pakistani Supreme Court. Nowhere in the press coverage of the incident here in the US was any mention made of Dan's service in the jihad against the Soviets.

Hanging out in Peshawar? For sure. At a terrorist training camp? Doubtful. But what the heck, bringing in the alleged Afghan jihadist connection makes a better story for the public and eventually the jury.

Then there is the roster of firearms of which much was made by the media coverage. A scan of either the indictment or the linked CQ Politics piece shows that the Boyd arsenal is neither particularly unusual or threatening in either its size or makeup. There are more than a few good old boys in the Tarheel State (or here in the Land of Enchantment) that have larger, more diversified armament holdings. None of the listed weapons is either illegal or (stand by for the dread and quite inaccurate phrase) an "assault weapon."

Then there is the purported demonstration of how to use an AK-47. Was it really, really an actual honest-to-Allah selective fire, capable of full automatic AK-47 or was it one of the many knock off, or look-alike pieces such as the run-of-the-mill SKS? The feds say it was the real deal, but if that were the case, where is this ghost weapon now? The feds, if they know, ain't talking, see.

Nor is the fed's accusation that Boyd and his son went to Israel in order to contact jihadists in Gaza convincing. Even when backed by Israel's having denied them admission on one occasion, the federal narrative is easily challenged as it has been by Boyd's wife.

Her version is that father and son were on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. She added that initially another son was to have gone as well but he was killed in a traffic accident. Indeed, her alternative gains force when it is taken together with the dirty trick the FBI played on her in the course of arresting her family.

The two narratives will fight it out in court--eventually. However, unless the Federal prosecutors can address effectively the inconsistencies in their version of reality it will not matter if they can convince a jury that Boyd and Company are guilty. The larger, longer, and vastly more exacting court of history will have the final say on whether a verdict of guilty meant a reality of guilt.

Oh, well, as Allah wills

Iraq--Time To Declare Victory And Go Home

Colonel Timothy Reese was, quite a few years ago, a very smart captain. He has gone up in rank. And, stayed high in both intellect and, more importantly by far, intellectual and moral courage.

Intellect and the courage to act upon it regardless of any possible negative impact on the career trajectory abound in a (leaked) memo published in today's NYT. Although those further up the food chain in Iraq immediately claimed that the memo represented only one man's view and was not a statement of policy, Colonel Reese delivered hot metal on target regarding the state of play in Iraq at present.

In essence he contends that the US has done about all it can do and further efforts whether in US combat operations or in holding the hands of the Iraqis will be more likely to backfire than not. He does believe that the Iraqi armed and security forces are now capable of containing and expunging the remaining insurgent threats.

While that is on the optimistic side in the Geek's view, it in no way militates against either the accuracy or the trenchant nature of the colonel's core argument. His supporting architecture comes in two parts.

The first portion focuses on the present weaknesses and liabilities of the government of Iraq (GOI). Most of the points he makes in his memo are well known and have been for some time. Taken together they point to the potential of ongoing political turmoil, but not to the necessary expansion of violence. The GOI is at the very best an extremely weak reed on which to place hopes of a stable prosperous state. But that is not to argue that Iraq is already a failed state in the making.

The second line of argument focuses more concretely on the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). In dealing with the military side of the equation, Reese not only comments on longer standing matters but the "changes in attitude" which resulted after Maliki declared "victory" over the Americans on 30 June 09.

As armed forces reflect accurately the polity and society which created and maintains them, it comes as no surprise that Colonel Reese identifies the majority of chronic problems in the ISF as being legacies of the Baathist/Saddam era. The ISF is at root a Soviet style force with all that implies. All the US efforts to date including "massive partnering" with the ISF have not eradicated the pernicious effects of this reality.

As a result the ISF lack initiative, flexibility, forward planning, good officer-NCO-enlisted relationship dynamics, an emphasis on MOS skill training, operational rehearsals or even after action analysis. The ISF C2 is rigid and centralised in the Soviet manner--a form of political control that not only suited the Baathists and Saddam but would fit the desires of any ambitious political chieftan such as al-Maliki. (Truth in Blogging requires the Geek to admit the last was his assessment and is not contained in the Reese Memo.)

Regardless of all American urgings, the senior command and political leadership of Iraq are unable or unwilling to root out fundamental blocks to the development of a non-political, professional military. Cronyism, corruption, and political interference run rampant as does laziness and a general inability or unwillingness to acquire even the rudiments of a professional force. None of this will change, the colonel maintains, regardless of the presence or absence of US advisers or combat partners.

In his profoundly negative evaluation, the colonel is both writing in tandem with other knowledgeable observers and showing a blunt honesty not commonplace in US experience over the past few decades. It is, as Colonel Reese notes, remarkable and praiseworthy that the US has been able to bring into existence the ISF as it is, warts and all. The ISF does have the necessary minimum combat capacity to act as an internal security force if the threats do not rise above their current level. It is capable of a marginal degree of self-sustainment. And, it could get better, even much better, if the political lords and masters of the place allow it to.

Since the American withdrawal from the cities a month back and the the concomitant "victory over the Yankees" celebration headed by al-Maliki, the relations between Americans and ISF have worsened in the colonel's estimate. He notes, for example, that the ISF does not allow the US to engage in operations which are compliant with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA.)

The ISF units are unwilling to cooperate with US troops in engaging targets the US command considers high value. This attitude carries over into a reluctance to carry out even routine operations. Unstated, but implied, and certainly experienced in the closing period of the Vietnam War, ISF unit commanders are more than willing to ignore the presence and advice of Americans attached to their unit for the purpose of providing operational and training guidance.

In short, Colonel Reese is right. The "surge" worked. US combat units did break the back of the several insurgencies both sectarian and political. With the possible exception of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) the several anti-government forces have been forced onto the deep defensive and, save for suicide bombings, have only a very limited offensive capacity. American blood bought enough of a military success that the US can legitimately say it has achieved the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing."

This means that the US can and should withdraw its combat forces at a rate greater than that first intended when the SOFA was finalised. SecDef Gates has already alluded the other day to the very real possibility that an additional combat brigade will be pulled out of theater ahead of schedule.

More than ever and with more reason than ever, the time has come to shake the dust of Iraq from our boots and get on with the war in Afghanistan.

And, that's a fact, Jack!

With Only A Left Wing It's Easy To Go Hysterical

Hugo Chavez, the 21st Century's equivalent of Fidel Castro, is pumping his reputation as the Joe Biden of the Andes. His latest case of rhetorical dyspepsia alleges that the US is secretly building an invasion force in Columbia and will soon cross into the Motherland of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Hugo's junior partner in the Neo-Castroite Renewal, Rafael Correa, jefe grande of Ecuador, echoes the his patron's anxieties but in a more sotto voce manner. The Hero of Los Indios must be feeling disappointed that the hated and dreaded Yankees have not gone home after he rejected renewal of the American lease on an Ecuadorian base for counter-narcotics surveillance flights.

Now Hugo loves to bloviate. He loves to excoriate. He loves to bluster and threaten. That is probably why he likes dealing with Iran. Those folks are just like him at heart.

No doubt Hugo particularly loves to play the victim role in a self-created, self-written drama featuring the US as Chief Villain and Columbia as the Villain's Assistant. That is why the finding of elderly Swedish anti-armor rockets in the hands of FARC was simply one more base plot created by the imperialists without a shred of truth.

While these aging AT-4 ATGMs are scarcely "sophisticated," they would have been of some assistance to the FARC guerrillas and drug traffickers. There is no arguing that the missiles did come from Venezuela. The Swedes have confirmed the devices were sold to that country. But, no one, not even Uncle Sam and the Colombian government are saying that Hugo was in on the deal. There is simply too much shrinkage from the military arsenals in Venezuela to be sure of that.

On the other hand there is simply too much evidence that both Chavez and Correa would be thrilled by a FARC success in "reactionary" Colombia. And, that both have worked assiduously to bring that thrill into reality.

While Colombia has a real, documentable reason to be peeved with both of these hard left leaning leaders, Bogota has been remarkably calm in the face of repeated provocation. Not so with Sr Chavez and Sr Correa.

Chavez has "frozen" relations with Colombia one more time. As a result the Colombian peso fell nearly two percent since the country's (legal) trade depends much on Venezuela, its second largest trading partner.

Not content with that, Chavez has raised the noise level with his expressed fears that the Marines, or at least the New Mexican National Guard was coming--soon. Hugo needs to take a Xanax or two, perhaps review his collection of Condy Rice photos. He needs to get a grip.

The US is in the process of negotiating with Colombia for the use of three air bases for use in surveillance flights targeted on countering drugs and insurgency within Colombia. This is not out of line considering our six billion dollar investment between 2001 and 2008 in assisting Colombia fight the drug runners and their insurgent sidekicks within the country. If the fourteen hundred or so military and civilian DoD personnel in Colombia constitute an invasion force, then El Presidente Chavez ought to reconsider his country's defense capacities.

Anyway it is not a done deal. There are elements in the Colombian Senate which want to use the proposal as a lever to get a free trade treaty out of the US. To date the Progressive Caucus has opposed this averring human rights abuses on the part of the Colombian security forces, an accusation which is far from baseless. Or there may be other deal sweeteners being considered by these Colombian politicos.

(Recall that Colombia has a long history of wanting more to go through with a seemingly done deal. That is why Theodore Roosevelt created a country, Panama, in order to get his canal dug over the obdurate attitude of a handful of Colombian senators.)

Sr Chavez and Sr Correa need to stop blustering, quit the victim game. Both have been consolidating one-man-rule states. Both are facing very real internal problems. Both have large segments of their population which are not supportive of the "Bolivarian Revolution." Both are ineptly presiding over economic degradation, political repression, and social dislocation.

All of the diversions, from Honduras to the new Colombian fracas, do not alter the basic reality one little bit. The "Bolivarian Revolution" in common with all too many leftist experiments, including the one in progress in the US, leads down a rough and rutted road. Shouting, "victim!" will not keep the wheels on when the ruts get too deep and the bumps too rough.

And, that's a fact, Jack.

It's Hard To Grow Food On Oil

The slow motion water crisis in the Mideast has been discussed since the late 1960s. The talking goes on. So does the ever ongoing diminution of both surface and subsurface water available for both domestic and agricultural use.

As was mentioned in a previous post, water is one the major reasons that Israel is loath (to put it mildly) to return the Golan Heights to Syrian sovereignty. It is impossible to see how a genuine Mideast peace can be crafted without the Golan reverting to Syria. It is very difficult to see how the Israelis will consent to this without somehow holding onto the water running through and from the place.

The Golan currently supplies around fifteen percent of Israel's agricultural water. This is water without which Israeli growers cannot continue. It is also water which cannot be replaced by simple conservation or expensive desalinization.

The Israel-Syria conundrum is a miniature of a growing dynamic across the Mideast. It is a dynamic which exists and will continue to fester regardless of the final outcome of the Great Stop Global Warming Campaign. The dynamic in play owes far less to changes in rain and snow fall than it does to increases in population and the reality of nationalism as the main drive of policy everywhere in the real, down-and-dirty world.

Iraq is caught in the water vise today. The squeeze is going to get worse--far worse in the next couple of decades. War as a consequence of the water shortfall is not at all improbable. Unless, of course, the major players--Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq--suddenly wake up bereft of nationalism, without any perceived need to take care of their own respective populations at the expense of all others if that is necessary.

Once upon a time Iraq was Mesopotamia, The Land Between Two Rivers. Its soil four thousand years ago was well watered, covered by a network of irrigation canals. The land all around, both above and below Baghdad was fertile. There were problems. Rivers silted. Canals were abandoned as kingdoms and empires rose and fell to the beat of the drums of war. Whole city-states such as Ur withered and died as a result of either the Tigris or Euphrates changing its main flow after a flood.

But, by and large Iraq stayed green. The desert was kept at bay by the billions of cubic meters of water flowing though the two great rivers. Until quite recently, that is.

The road to dryness was, if not paved by good intentions, at least started by them--way back in the glory days after World War II. The World Bank did a study on the floods which ravaged southern Iraq from time to time. The Euphrates had a nasty reputation in this regard, which was well established by the time Hammurabi posted his Code.

The answer was, quite unsurprisingly, considering the Bank was dominated by American technocrats, the building of dams. Dams would provide both flood control and electricity. It was a vision of the Tennessee Valley Authority translated to the cradle of agriculture.

The idea languished for decades. Then the Turks took to it like a deprived dieter attacking a chocolate shake. The Ankara government built dams on the upper reaches and tributaries of the Tigris as if concrete was soon to be prohibited. The South Eastern Anatolia Project was designed and intended to foster development and prosperity (to say nothing of political loyalty) on the part of the Kurds resident in the region.

Arguably, the Turks have been violating the UN Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses. The Iraqi position is that the Turks have been scarfing up water to the disadvantage of Iraq. Blandly, Ankara denies this.

Currently Iraq states it needs fifty billion cubic meters of water annually. Of that sixty percent must come from the Tigris with most of the balance being drawn from the Euphrates. The Iraqi water minister estimates the need will grow to seventy-five or more billion cubic meters by 2015.

Here is the catch. An impartial group, the European Water Association, has concluded that the available flow will drop to forty-three billion cubic meters by that time. Why the big drop?

The Turks aren't finished with their Anatolian project yet. More dams and diversion tunnels are under construction or planned as Ankara presses on with one the most ambitious and expensive civil engineering projects in history. The Turkish government has vowed to finish the project even if the three construction expense guarantee countries--Austria, Switzerland, and Germany--discontinue their participation.

This political resolve on the part of Ankara has blunted Iraq's most successful effort to date in reducing the size and impact of the Turkish project on Iraq's water needs. While it is a tad tough to see how Turkey is going to pull this off if the Western European states back out, the Turkish political will is strong and some new opportunities have emerged as Turkey becomes a crucial transit center for oil from the Central Asian fields. In a sense the 1.68 gigabucks in play is small when the value of Turkey as a transit area is considered.

Nor is Turkey alone in the impending parching of Iraq. Both Syria and Iran play a role as well.

The Iraqi's coreligionists across the border in the Land of the Mullahs have been building a new dam almost every time a dog raises its leg on the watersheds feeding the Tigris. In addition, the Iranians have dammed two rivers that formerly fed the marshlands in the deep south of Iraq. This, in turn, has hindered the effort to restore the marshes originally destroyed by Saddam's government in the aftermath of the Gulf War. Satellite imagery along with ground reports show that the net effect of Iran's dams has been to extend the desert of the Arabian Peninsula further north into portions of the former marshland.

In Faw, the southern most city in Iraq, water shortages have already resulted from the Iranian damming and diverting of the Karun River. This appears to be the shape of things to come. Without some very expensive and time consuming infrastructure construction, Faw is doomed to the fate of Ur.

Syria is a minor player--so far. Lake Assad, created by a dam on the upper Euphrates, filled over thirty years ago. However, Syria has a need for more water, so the potential of further dams being built either on the Euphrates or its tributaries must not be discounted.

Worsening the situation for Iraq are the results of bad planning, bad operation, and decades of war and neglect. As a result the salinity of water in Iraq as well as in its soil has increased. Silt deposition has retarded flow and decreased water quality to the point that it is unusable for most agarian purposes.

On top of those negatives, the Iraqi population has increased even with the losses through war and flight from war. Additionally, the push for industrialization as well as the requirements for water in the extraction sector have pushed down the amount of water needed for domestic and agricultural purposes.

Worse, there is no sign that the current government in Iraq can agree on either what needs to be done or how to do whatever might someday need to be done. Water has continually slipped down the ladder of national priorities--even as more land is subject to desertification and more former farmers are forced to the cities.

Having been bred and born in the American Southwest where water is mighty scarce, the Geek is well aware of the old reality--"who controls the water, controls the range."

Right now Turkey controls the water and thus is the dominant player in the power relations between itself and Iraq (and, to a lesser extent, Syria.) Whether the Turks are serious with the often whispered and occasionally shouted slogan, "a barrel of water for a barrel of oil," remains to be seen.

Whether Iraqi suspicions that Iran, Turkey, and Syria are throttling down the water flow so as to make Iraq dependent upon their agricultural exports is more than problematical and less than certain. In any event the capacity and will of each country to act to deprive Iraq of necessary water may be simply the consequence of safeguarding the interests and needs of each country's populations.

But, it may signify something darker. Something more sinister. Something far more likely to lead to conflict, to war.

Oh, well, as Allah wills.

The Barbarians And The Central Kingdom

Yesterday Barick Obama, President of the United States, played the role of the barbarian satrap and kowtowed to the mandarins of the Central Kingdom. In his lauding of China and "the new era of cooperation." POTUS Obama outdid the genuflections and forehead-to-the-floor posturing that for centuries was the normal protocol governing those barbarian chiefs who waited on the pleasure of the Emperor.

Frankly, the Obama genuflection and encomium made the Geek physically ill. There is no new era of cooperation. There are no grand set of principles held in common between the Chinese government and that of the US. There is no reality grounded reason to be praising China and its leaders for anything--other than singleminded pursuit of Chinese national and strategic interests.

That, after all, is what governments are supposed to do. Pursue, expand, and ruthlessly defend national and strategic interests regardless of the posture taken by other states.

Fifteen or so years ago, President Bill Clinton fawned over China and the Mandarinate as he opened the door of "free trade" between the Central Empire and the US. Of course those who were not blinded by the light of belief--belief in the myth that free trade and globalization would not only lift the boats of every person in the world but provide American consumers with more choice at lower cost--groaned in anticipation of what would come.

What came, as surely as rain falls down not up was a series of three sounds. The first was the rush of greedy feet as American industry and finance made a rush to the Open Door of China. The next was Ross Periot's famed "sucking sound" as jobs and capital went through the same Open Door. Then came the sound of cash registers as they recorded the purchases of Americans flowing into the coffers of Beijing.

George W. Bush had his own "bidness" based motives for continuing and expanding the immense and primarily one way trade with China. For all the years of the neocons, the money flowed to China. The Mandarins of the Forbidden City used the money well. The infrastructure was improved. Business flourished like fungus after a soaking rain. And, the Peoples Liberation Army in all its arms was modernised at a fierce rate--well in excess of any legitimate defensive need.

Because the cash flooded through the Open Door faster than Beijing could spend it, the surplus was invested in US T Notes and Bills. By the time Bush went, the Central Kingdom held more than 800 billion dollars in these instruments. Of course, buying American government securities made sound financial sense--until now. More, the scarfing up of Uncle Sam's IOUs made very, very good sense in the game of international power politics.

Facing the unknown future of massive indebtedness on a scale never before contemplated in US history, the Obama administration must, that's right, must be sure the Chinese continue to buy and hold our governmental paper. Without the Chinese underwriting the deal(s) there is no way to pay for the ambitious domestic agenda sought by President Obama and the Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party. No way whatsoever even with tax increases which would gladden the heart of the most confiscatory oriented "progressive."

There is a cost involved. A very real if not dollar denominated cost. By virtue of holding so much of America's collective debt both public and private, the Denizens of the Central Kingdom can exercise significant authority over American foreign policy in all its myriad forms. From global warming to what can be done with Iran to the nature and character of the American commitment to Taiwan, Beijing can exercise a significant piece of "the say."

We the People must share responsibility with the past two administrations for having sold out American freedom to act on the world stage for a mess of consumerist pottage. The Open Door swung wide to our dollars during the greatest spasm of greed and rapacity ever seen in our history. The past two decades have put the legendary excesses of the "robber barons" during the Guilded Age to utter and complete shame.

The reason for that charge is simple. Over the past two decades or so, many of We the People have been direct participants in the mechanism of corporate greed. Through our 401's, or mutual funds, our retirement plans, We the People have demanded corporations show a profit regardless of the hidden, indirect, and long-term costs. Not only have We the People allowed, we have demanded that corporations generally commit treason to the best interests of this country in order to see the next quarter's bottom line better that of the current quarter.

We have cheered lustily at the profits while ignoring the consequences. And, if the consequences, the abstract impacts of the pursuit of profit ever bothered us, we could quickly assuage any anxiety by going out and buying something--anything. So what if factories closed. So what if Walmart, leader of the corporate subverter pack, shelved its "We Buy American" ad campaign as more and more on the big box shelves was marked, "Made in China." So what if our money flowed into the pockets of a regime hostile to our interests, values, and role in the world.

What the hell! As long as the goodies were cheap enough. As long as credit was cheap enough. As long as our individual and joint portfolios were profitable enough, our attitude was that of Edward Newman--"What! Me Worry!"

As long as the buying was good and the profits accruing to us were high, there was no need for We the People individually or collectively to ask, let alone answer a very key question. The question is easy to posit but hard to either contemplate or answer. Here it is---

"How much is enough?"

Look at it. Roll the words around in your mouth. In your mind. Think about it in your life. And, in the lives of all of us. "How much is enough?"

It is the most important question We the People can ask of ourselves--and each other. The answer to this question is the sole means by which our nation will regain its freedom to act for a better world. The answer can free us--over time--from the Chinese, the Arab Sovereign Wealth Funds, and others who bind our capacity to act with impunity on the world stage in chains of debt.

How We the People answer that question will determine more than any other factor what sort of life our descendents can expect in the world. How much freedom they will experience. How much our nation will be the actual guide to a future in which prosperity is not limited to the few at the top of the globalization pyramid but can be far more broadly distributed. How much our nation can act robustly in the world to advance and protect our national interests and those of other countries, other peoples who share our values and norms.

"How much is enough?"

Answered correctly that question allows, no demands, that We the People blow the whistle on the legions of corporate traitors who have facilitated so eagerly--with our complete support--the selling out of American national sovereignty and interest. Answered correctly this question provides a roadmap to a future of greater energy independence, fiscal sobriety, and diplomatic freedom.

It is a mighty powerful question, and that is what makes it so hard to ask and answer. For its power lies in the ability of the answer to be truly transforming. Not the Obama form of transformation, pure prestidigitation requiring smoke, mirrors, and a look-at-this-hand-not-that-one approach to politics and society.

The current economic mess including the unprecedented projected deficit gives both the right time and motivation to ask the key question. It is time for each and everyone of us to use the mantra of Mr Obama's Chief-of-Staff and let no crisis go by unexploited.

"How much is enough?" Ask it. Answer it. Ask the companion questions: "Do I really need that?" "What is important enough to need." Once you get in the groove pointed out by these questions life can be transformed.

It may take a personal crisis. A few years ago the Geek and Her Geekness ran across a luxury SUV stuck in the sand and gravel of the canyon. The owner, some sort of high dollar lawyer had believed that his overpriced vehicle could actually go far, far off the road. He was wrong.

It was hot, over a hundred in the shade. And, out in the dry watercourse, there was no shade.

Their cell phone wouldn't work. Mountains are like that. Even the onboard emergency service system didn't connect. Narrow canyons are like that.

The engine had overheated running the air conditioning. The driver, his wife and the two teenage kids had no more water.

They were miserable. Desperate. Not much traffic out here.

Just before the Geek's (then) forty-two year old Jeep pickup easily yanked the wheel-spinning land yacht out of the holes it had dug, he asked, "Do you really need that thing?"

After a long few seconds, the man replied, "No. I guess not."

May we all be that honest. If we are, we will have a richer and much freer nation.

India's New SSBN--Threat To Stability?

India launched its first nuclear powered submarine in a flurry of publicity the other day. The boat which is at least three years worth of sea trials away from acceptance as a combat unit in the Indian navy was built entirely in India--with Russian assistance. It and its cargo of short range ballistic missiles are a prestige item to be sure.

The question is whether or not the boat, whose name translates as "Destroyer of Enemies" is either a useful weapons system or an inherently destabilizing factor in the region or both.

The Pakistani government clearly sees the "Destroyer of Enemies" as a destroyer of the strategic balance between the two rivals as it gives India a survivable retaliatory capacity. At least in principle it does.

The Islamabad government is attempting to rouse support for its position in the region by alleging that the new Indian SSBN is a potential threat to all neighboring (Muslim) states. Not surprisingly the Indians deny this.

Barely pausing for breath as the Indians re-emphasized the non-threatening intent of the sub, the Pakistanis raised the spectre of a new regional "arms race." The Pakistanis need to get a grip.

The "destroyer of enemies" is more a technology demonstrator and a show-the-flag project than it is a useful system. Its missiles are very short range. Its capacity to launch submerged remains to be seen. The speed with which the Indians can increase the range and payload of the boat's missiles is yet to be seen. Also awaiting the future is the ability of the Indians to bring more SSBNs on line and the speed with which they can do this.

Building more boats will take time. A lot of time. It will take experience with the lead unit of the proposed class. A long period will necessarily ensue before the Indians can claim the possession of a legitimate seaborne leg of their nuclear triad.

Time brings with it the potential for change. Change in the relations of the two old enemies brought about by the common threat of Islamist jihadists. Change brought about by a common apprehension about Iran. Time to realise that even the limited nuclear exchange which can be executed by India and Pakistan is a death sentence for both. Time to realise that the nuclear arsenals are far less useful than their expense warrants.

It is unfortunate that the Indians launched their new toy in the immediate aftermath of the first small steps toward rapprochement between it and Pakistan only days ago at Sharm al-Sheik. The launch is an unnecessary impediment to the selling of even this limited understanding to the Pakistanis (although it will assist the Indian PM getting this unpopular move through the Indian parliament.)

Cooler heads have to prevail in Islamabad. The Indian tech demonstrator does nothing to alter the strategic balance. Neither does it pose any threat to regional stability.

The Pakistani navy should look on the bright side. Maybe they can extort some money out of the US to fund new anti-submarine warfare vessels or something like that. See, even non-threats have an up side.

The Shooting Starts Again In Nigeria

The good news is that the most recent spate of killing is not the work of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). The oil platform and service ship workers can rest easily for the moment. And, the oil speculators won't have to hit the keyboards and up the prices.

The Islamist jihadist monster is once more running amuck on the north of the never particularly stable and peaceful most populous country in Africa. The local Islamist jihadist group the name of which translates as "western education is sinful (or unlawful)" went after the police. The police shot back. Faster. Straighter.

Violence was experienced in three of the twelve provinces which voted a decade back to impose Shariah. The Islamists, who describe themselves as "Nigeria's Taliban," do not approve of the way in which the government interprets and applies Shariah. As a result they went on the offensive over the weekend.

Northeast Nigeria is the place where Islam drifting south from North African ran into the indigenous religions and later, Christianity. Today Nigeria is roughly split fifty-fifty between the two faiths. The record of violence over the past eight years indicates the Islamists within the Muslim community have started slightly over half of the violent encounters.

The Nigerian sectarian conflict takes place in the context of maldistributed wealth, an inefficient and corrupt distant government, and long standing tribal and sectional rivalries. Nigeria may have a lot of people, but it has no single Nigerian nation. The population is deeply fissured along numerous fault lines--tribal, class, sectional, religious.

The political process is not open. It is not transparent. It is not honest. It lacks both existential and functional legitimacy in the eyes of many of its citizens. The government is not trusted. It is not seen as honest. Or effective. Or representative of anyone or anything that does not reek of bought influence and paid for conduct.

As a result of its own tergiversations, its own corruption, its own systemic and personal inefficiencies and inadequacies, the central government has been faced by the ever-growing threat of MEND which has nibbled away the oil export base of both national prosperity and governmental malfeasance. While capable of killing MEND insurgents, the government and the Nigerian military have been completely unable to suppress the insurgency.

The measures taken by the government and army to defeat MEND have been so disasterously inept that they have grown more insurgents than they have killed or captured. Given the vulnerability of the oil industry, anything other than suppressing the insurgency through meeting its demands, which are neither excessive nor fantastic, is the best option open to the government.

This the government has refused to do--except rhetorically.

Now the central government is faced with the early stage of another insurgency. Lagos must have believed it had bought its peace with the referendum providing for Shariah in the twelve predominantly Muslim provinces. They reckoned without the Islamists for whom the new policy was one illustrative of government weakness.

Bolstered by the endemic poverty as well as the highly evident maldistribution of wealth in the region and the general disenchantment with the central government as well as the several provincial governments, the membership in and affiliations with the Islamist jihadist groups grew as the jihadists became increasingly active and ambitious in demands. Far from having bought its peace, the central government purchased many miles of increasingly bad road.

The election violence late last year gave fair warning of what was to come. Now the second warning shot(s) came over the weekend. The police won in terms of bodies counted and perps arrested. The Lagos regime will take pride in that.

The lesson which should be taken by the government is vastly different. Insurgencies and insurgents are like the Terminator--they will be back. Back stronger, better, wider spread, with more support, more skills, more weapons, more willingness to be (in this case) "martyrs."

Nigeria barely avoided energetically disassembling forty-two or so years ago. The Biafrian separatist movement was narrowly defeated. Nigeria almost died in a welter of tribal and sectional disputes.

Whatever may have been learned in those not-so-long-ago days by the Nigerian political and economic elite has been forgotten. MEND is proof of that. So also is the growing Islamist jihadist driven insurgency in the north and northeast of the country.

The bloody fighters of both MEND and "Western Education is Sinful" have written in letters too large and sanguine to be ignored that the government and its affiliated elites must work--fast--to both repair the economic inequities and the disparity in political power between elite and hoi polloi. The alternative is to fiddle while the country melts around them.

And, that will not be a pretty sight.

A Russian Fairy Tale Of A Future Yet To Come

Joe Biden's flap-tongue-without-brain-engaged effort at public diplomacy didn't perturb the Geek alone. Not by a long shot. The Russians were not delighted either. No surprise there. The only slight surprise comes from the dearth of criticism from the Right which seems ever poised to leap on the slightest administration mis-step--provided, apparently, that it is on the domestic front only.

Perhaps the Right is grinning secretly, given that the oft-proclaimed foreign policy expert Biden has come out in agreement with Bush/Cheney and the neocon ninnies. Russia is nowhere. It is a defeated has-been. A nullity that can be pushed around for fun and profit. The fallen giant of our Cold War horrors which can now be kicked safely and with great inner pleasure.

Yeah. Right. For sure.

Instead, for grins and to prompt thinking, let's take a dekko at an option which the current Obama administration's foreign policy deficit is opening to yawning proportions. It has to do with Israel, Iran, and Russia.

It starts with the community of interest which events of the recent past have created for Russia and Israel. The community has two chief features. Both see Iran as a potential threat albeit of differing proportions. Secondly, neither government has profound reasons to rely upon the Obama administration for cooperation in pursuing core national and strategic interests--even when doing such is objectively in keeping with American core interests.

Israel has already approached Russia for assistance in abating the Iranian nuisance. The Kremlin's response is not yet publicly known. For purposes of this thought experiment let us assume it is guardedly favorable.

This is how the pas a deux might well play out.

Russia indicates it "understands" Israel's anxieties. It suggests that as a first step in dealing with this, Israel might want to enter a joint venture in, say, air defense technology development. Israel agrees as this would be to both state's benefit even if the relation does not progress to more exalted levels.

Israeli technicians join with Russian in "up-grading" the SAM 300 system. Of course this would let the Israelis know just how to go about defeating the gadget so as to do in Iran what they did in Syria only faster and better.

Russia invites Israel to dispatch an air contingent to Russia for "joint training exercises." This would provide perfect cover for an Israeli attack against the Iranian nuclear R&D complex without overflying any Mideast country. The Kremlin knows that no matter what, Iran (and others) will blame the US even if the attack launch point is publicly alleged.

The Russians will say nothing. Neither will the Israelis in the style of the days after the Syrian attack. If Iran makes any nasty noises toward Moscow, the Kremlin can shrug it off being secure in the capacity of the Russian army, air force, and strategic rocket forces to deal expeditiously and effectively with anything Iran might be tempted to try. (Remember the Russians have great faith in unilateral action unlike the US.)

Should, as most expect, the attack results in a severe spike in world oil prices, Vladimir Putin and company will laugh all the way to the bank. From the perspective of the Russian economy the very best thing that could happen would be a long stoppage of oil flowing through the Persian Gulf coupled with a speculator frenzy driving oil above 200 clams per barrel.

In the wake of the Israeli strike, the Kremlin would quietly pass the word to the fearful states of the Gulf concerning its involvement in the attack. The Russian diplomats might suggest that the Russian "defense umbrella" was more reliable and robust than that of the Americans. Perhaps, these diplomats would purr, the time has come to revisit your military equipment needs.

The assorted oil sheikdoms would get the message quickly and clearly.

So would the mullahs of Tehran. This would be particularly true if the Kremlin allowed as how the attack was a one-off operation and would not be repeated if Iran fixed its nuclear power needs more closely with Russian suppliers. The mullahs would not be so otherworldly as to fail to see the shadow of an implied Russian "defense umbrella" being held over their heads in the event of another Israeli strike, particularly one which used missiles and nuclear warheads.

The US would be on the sidelines throughout the process. It would be busy however, issuing denials with one hand while catching blame with the other. In any event, the Obama administration would be too busy dealing with the necessary consequences of stratospheric oil prices on the recovery and the agenda alike.

Putin may be too civilized at this juncture to make any statements about the "withering" American economy and the loss of the American "empire." It is, he may believe, far more enjoyable to win than it is to crow about winning.

The moral of our fable, kids?

Simple. Don't declare yesterday's enemy dead and buried because he may come roaring out of the grave only to embarrass you.

Did you get it, Joe?

SecState Clinton Says, "We're Doing Great!"

One would have to have a resident alien visa in Fantasyland to think a politician would ever assess his/her own performance and that of the party they serve as anything other than "perfect and getting better by the minute." As the Geek has been condemned to stay in the gritty world of reality, the self-serving puffery of Ms Clinton on NBC is no big shokku.

In her view the Obama administration has succeeded in the last six months in achieving a condition in Iraq which allows the withdrawal of American forces. Apparently the "surge" which was opposed by then Senator Obama and many others of the Progressive Caucus had nothing to do with the improved security condition in Iraq. Of course not, that would give credit to the icky-poo Republican administration, and we all know how dastardly that bunch was.

Nor could she bring herself to acknowledge that the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which provided for the scheduled withdrawal was negotiated by a team which did not include either her or President Obama. Of course not, to do that would allow reality to intrude on the dream world of Ms Clinton and her associates in the administration.

She bragged at some length on just how well the Obama administration--and herself, of course, had created a mighty diplomatic coalition against Iran and its pursuit of the bomb. Leaving aside such unpleasant holes in the Mighty Diplomatic Coalition as China, Russia, and the assorted European members of the Billion Dollar Club, she is right.

Heck, she did not even bother to point out that the administration of which she is a prime member has not even pushed the Refined Petroleum Products Sanction bill recently introduced in the House. She must be aware that pressing hard on the lack of refined petroleum in Iran is the single greatest harm we can inflict in the short term. Still, not a word about the necessity of seeing this bill become law so we have a big stick to wave in the direction of Tehran.

Instead of addressing such centralities as just what real coercion might be exerted on the mullahs, the Secretary danced around the floor about negotiating with a government whose legitimacy is more presumed than real. Of course, Madam Secretary, diplomacy is all about dealing with those who are in power whether they are there via honest elections or pure force. Why belabor the obvious except to escape talking about the problems of talking without any credible set of inducements and constraints.

Among the constraints (and inducements) you did not bother to touch upon is the availability of a domestic opposition in Iran which we can support in a discrete manner. By not touching upon this open nerve in the mouths of the mullahs, you made the same mistake that the Bush/Cheney neocons did back in the period 2001-2003 when they did not bother to deal with the reformers while this group under Khatami was at its peak of success and the reactionary mullahs in a fever of fear.

True, the reformers are not in power right now, but they might be shortly. That is why the mullahs and their equally reactionary secular adherents are having serious attacks of anxiety.

Is there any wonder that the Israelis are having Xanax moments of their own? They are looking at an administration which seems bootless about the realities of what Secretary Clinton calls "intensive diplomacy" aimed at convincing the Iranians to mend their ways. They are hearing repeated calls to be "patient" and not go for the military option as the centrifuges spin and the Great Leader continues to demand that Israel cease to exist.

Is it surprising that Secretary Clinton was reluctant to wave her "defensive umbrella" in the faces of the NBC crew? When push comes to shove there is not a great desire in Washington at the present to enter into guarantees of territorial integrity and governmental sovereignty which would cover the entire Mideast against the Iranian threat.

Discussion on the potential ramifications and implications of the "defensive umbrella" would be a distraction and a diversion from the administration's "Agenda of Transformation." Right now, they and the Progressive Caucus cannot afford any side jaunts which might delay further the passage of the ambitious set of bills before them.

Ms Clinton had many, many kind words for China's cooperation on North Korea. The truth here does not matter. She and the Treasury Secretary will be meeting with senior mandarins next week. Considering the Chinese hold 800 million bucks of US treasury paper, it behooves the Secretary to genuflect (kow tow?) to the Boys From Beijing.

In any event it is easy and convenient for China and Russia to be cooperative about North Korea. As long as there is nothing at risk to either country, they will go through all the necessary motions. By doing so they pile up credits to cash later with the US over issues which do matter to them. Come on, Madam Secretary, you bloody well know that diplomacy involves trades and deals. Some deals are far more apparent than real.

The SecState skipped over much during her voyage of self-congratulation. For example, she was silent on Honduras where support for the ousted leftist Chavez clone Zelaya is slipping. It would have been embarrassing to admit that the Hondurans played by their own rules and we didn't like the outcome.

The reason we didn't smile at the result was that the administration is headed by a post-modern progressive who knows as much about foreign affairs as a gnat does of quantum mechanics but "feels" that democracy is somehow off the tracks if a fellow progressive is booted out for not playing by the rules. And, every good post-modern American believes that "feeling" is much more real and important than mere objective knowledge and understanding.

Nor was Secretary Clinton particularly effusive over the foreign policy successes so far enjoyed by the US in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yes, the Pakistanis have taken the field against Taliban in Swat and elsewhere with some slight degree of genuine success. However, the substance has been far eclipsed by the shadow.

With respect to Afghanistan the Geek would invite the Secretary to rebut the contentions and arguments in yesterday's post on our forthcoming (self-inflicted) defeat in that country. Certainly your appraisal today did nothing to change the Geek's mind on the subject.

The Secretary attempted to rehabilitate the administration's policy regarding Russia following Joe (The Ever Expansive Mouth) Biden's assault yesterday. Her convoluted explanation may play in Peoria where it is not relevant but will fall flat in the Kremlin.

Overall, Ms Clinton, had your interview on NBC been a web post it would merit one star or less. The Geek wonders if you were attempting to delude the American public or are you simply living in delusion yourself.

The Federal Justice System Can Do The Job

The job? Providing a fair, transparent, and secure trial for those accused of terrorism related offenses and taken into custody overseas. Any remaining rational doubts are squelched completely by a new study done under the aegis of Human Rights First. The study, In Pursuit of Justice should be read attentively by anyone concerned by the ongoing Bush/Cheney approach to the task of bringing alleged terrorists to justice in the US.

The Geek has been mystified and baffled by the continuing resistance to closing Gitmo, ending the Military Commissions, and getting on with the work of providing criminal trials to those accused of committing terrorism related offenses. The record of the US Department of Justice in achieving convictions, as detailed in the study, exceeds ninety percent. That is a good track record.

Further the authors of the study, who are former US prosecutors, show that the Federal system has the inherent flexibility to deal properly with the use of classified materials in a trial context and to deal with novel trial strategies on the part of both prosecution and defense. While not considered in this study or its 2008 predecessor, it might be mentioned that the Federal courts have come a long way from the tawdry days of the Rosenberg case where prosecutorial misconduct was matched by defense incompetence and bias on the bench which was palpable.

If that evolution were not so self-evident, the Geek would protest any transfer from Military Commission to Federal Court as a shift without any meaning beyond the cosmetic. Since the evolution is real and can be extrapolated by comparing the ill-behavior of Federal prosecutors and judges alike during the hysteria of the Red Decade with the case oriented study done by the Human Rights First authors, there is little if any risk that miscarriages of justice will be more rather than less likely by trying accused terrorists in the Federal criminal system.

There are overly zealous prosecutors willing to cut corners in search of a high profile conviction as the recent experience of former Senator Stevens shows. Importantly, this case was reviewed by the incoming Attorney General and found wanting for good reason, with the result the conviction was overturned at government motion.

Hopefully, the inherent transparency of a Federal trial would prevent a similar excess of zeal from polluting the trial of purported terrorists. Since no human system operated by humans with egos and fears can be foolproof, this must remain a hope to be guaranteed by the combination of judicial review and media afflicted with sufficient cynicism to be more than a mere government flack.

The concept of the "illegal enemy combatant" remains troublesome and is not addressed in either of the two cited studies. By any rational standard and the logical application of the relevant international conventions, a person in arms and wearing some sort of identifiable sign of badge of combatant standing is a prisoner of war regardless whether or not he is a member of a national force under the command and control of a state. He is an enemy combatant to be sure but there is nothing inherently "illegal" about opposing US forces in the field.

If, in addition to being under arms in opposition to US troops engaged in an interventionary operation, the captured combatant has violated one or another of the sundry laws governing the conduct of war or has engaged in an act of "terrorism" as defined by the US Criminal Code outside the immediate zone of combat operations, then his act may be "illegal" and is certainly a fit subject for judicial determination.

Parsing between the "enemy combatant" who should be held for the duration of hostilities as provided in the Geneva Convention and the "illegal" terrorist who is liable for criminal trial and conviction may be difficult, but it is not impossible. Failure to properly separate the chaff of the run-of-the-mill combatant and the criminal as has been the case at Gitmo and Bagram is a serious deficiency which will not be remedied quickly absent an invocation of the Federal criminal system.

For those who shake in fear at the idea that some hostile personnel taken prisoner will be read their rights as criminal suspects and thus denied to intelligence operatives as potential sources of critical, time sensitive information, the authors of the referenced study (and the Geek) say, "Pshaw!" Apparently Federal judges and others charged with operating the criminal justice system have been able to separate effectively the statements which can be used in court and those which are the sole province of the intelligence weenie.

In a similar fashion the authors say, "Phooey!" to those who worry and fret over the prospect of terrorists being confined before or after trial at institutions in the US. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has an excellent record of keeping hardcase terrorist heavies in the slam for twenty years now. All the way from arrest to execution (in the case of Tim McVeigh) terrorists consigned to the Bureau of Prisons have been kept without the slightest risk to surrounding communities let alone the entire US.

There is absolutely no reason to keep Gitmo open. No reason to continue the experiment of the revived Military Commissions. No novel system is needed. The Federal courts can and should do the job fairly and safely.

The Obama administration would be best advised to reverse their reversal on the closure of Gitmo and use of Military Commissions. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. We already have a perfectly good one. Use it.

Joe Biden: A Putz Does Diplomacy

The fact that the Obama administration and the current occupants of the Kremlin have a vastly different view of the world, of the nature of national interest, and the way in which the game of nations is played is not news. It is as commonplace today as it was back in the days of the Soviet Union.

Even if, in President Obama's estimate, the Russian version of international politics is "Nineteenth Century," this in no way obviates the reality that the US needs Russia's active cooperation on critical matters such as the Iranian nuclear program. Thus, it does American national and strategic interests no good whatsoever to copy the egregiously blundering approach to Russia that was a hallmark of the Bush/Cheney years.

During the long years of the neocon ninny ascendancy, the American tone toward Russia was alternately hectoring and condescending. The administration acted as if Russia was a defeated power, reduced to the status of second or even third rate. As a result Russia was not cooperative in areas of (supposedly) mutual concern and heaved up roadblocks whenever and wherever it could.

Now the Obama administration, or at least Vice President Biden seem hellbent on repeating the profoundly wrong approach of Bush/Cheney. While the WaPo clearly agrees with Biden's reaming out of the Putin/Medvedev understanding of relations with the US, the Geek does not.

Everything which Biden states in his interview with the WSJ about the Russian birth rate, economic failures, banking system on the verge of collapse, and so on may be absolutely true, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the impact of a high visibility figure saying so in blunt, utterly diplomacy-free words in a major American publication.

The NYT, like the Russian government, finds the Biden Diatribe "perplexing." The Geek would use the term "idiotic" to describe Joe (I-Can-Say-Whatever-Without-Thinking) Biden's assessment of what is necessary and proper for US-Russian relations.

As every student of Russian and Soviet history (including Robert Gates who holds a doctorate in Soviet Studies) well knows, Russia has a very long history of hyper-sensitivity based on an equally long standing feeling (and fear) of inferiority to the nations of the West. This sensitivity and fear has tinged every Russian regime from Peter the Great to Vladimir the Bare Chested. It is a key factor in understanding how and why Russian regimes act the way that they have and do.

By bashing the Russians in the mudhole of their own social, political, and economic failures (failures from Biden's point of view, that is), our Vice President has been, in the words of the renowned Sovietologist George Kennan, "primitive and unconstructive." Russian nationalism is easily irritated and aroused. Indeed, central to Putin's great successes since going from the bowels of KGB to the corridors of the Kremlin has been the stoking and stroking of Russian national pride.

By offending this national pride Joe Biden has made the task of gaining agreement from the Russians much more difficult than it needs to be. He has, in a very real sense, out-Bushed Bush, with results which will not make the accomplishment of assorted tasks ranging from the Iranian bomb to peace in the Mideast and ending the war in Afghanistan at all easier.

We may well oppose the Russian notion of having a special "sphere of interest" in the states of the former Soviet Union, but the bashing of Russian internal problems and the issuing of a virtual we-will-give-you-nothing decree will not grease the path of negotiation aimed at urging the Russians to lighten up on the subject. It may be, as the WaPo asserts, praiseworthy to confront the Russians squarely on its ambitions, but that does not mean it is useful.

And, lest anyone forget, the purpose of foreign policy, of diplomacy in all its myriad aspects, is to achieve useful goals. To protect and advance national and strategic interests. That's it. All else is mere cant.

Every utterance by a senior foreign policy or administrative personality--and Joe Biden is both--must be carefully calibrated to achieve national and strategic interests. Truth, emotional satisfaction, bad hair day are all either irrelevant or harmful to the task.

At one time, not that many months back, Joe Biden went to Russia to "push the reset button." That effort was followed recently by the Obama trip to Moscow. The Russians responded with a badly needed permission for US troops to be flown across Russian territory en route to Afghanistan. The Russians also speedily agreed to another round of strategic arms reduction in pursuit of a "finite deterrent" based force package.

Not bad after the Bush/Cheney years, which saw Russian bombers again probing our air space and overflying our task forces at sea. Not bad after the Bush/Cheney years, which saw the Russians bring back their favorite Cold War word nyet to the Security Council.

Now, all on his very lonesome, Joe Biden has threatened to put US-Russian relations back in the deepest of deep freezes. It is one thing to support Georgia and the Ukraine as Biden correctly did during his recent fast jaunt to the region. It is another matter all together to dismiss the Russians as a decaying society and economy stuck in the past days of lost empire who can serve their own interests best by subscribing to whatever American policy interest we present them.

It is even more gripless to suggest as Biden does that the "emerging nuclear threats" in Iran and North Korea will "force" Russia to comply with American requirements. Come on, Joe, get a grip. The Russians have shown an unsurpassed ability to act unilaterally and with overwhelming force when they are faced by a genuine threat. Given the continuing competence of the Russian armed forces which have not decayed as much as some might like to think, abating any potential Iranian or Korean menace is well within Russian capabilities. It is necessary to keep in mind that the Russians have no particular love or need for the fig leaf of collective action or UN sanction to protect national interests.

Got to hand it to Joe Biden. Secretary of State Clinton managed to outrage only Pakistan and Israel by her lack of diplomatic finesse. Biden has managed to hack off Russia which remains, no matter of what Biden may think, a Great Power. More, a Great Power whose support we must have to achieve many of our most critical foreign policy agenda items.

Way to go, Joe!

Now the matter is up to President Obama. He has to either back up the Veep or disown the remarks. Given that the Nice Young Man From Chicago is both naive regarding the game of nations and post-modern, it is hard to predict what he will do. Perhaps, given his own recent lesson in shooting off his mouth, the President will order underlings to issue clarifications by the truck load, drowning the matter in obfuscation.

Perhaps, Mr Obama will be inclined to call up Vladimir and Dimitri and invite them over for a beer along with Joe. The boys can sit on the Truman Balcony or out at Camp David and hoist a few, swap lies, and slap each other's knees over the inadvertent humor provided by Joe's ever expanding mouth.

Well, it is an idea.

Why We Will Lose In Afghanistan

No matter how successful the current American and British offensive operations might be in Helmand, at the end of the week it will not matter. It will not matter how effective the US and its co-belligerents are in the new approach of "clear and hold." Neither does the number of Taliban killed or forced to flee to Pakistan or points beyond change the reality that must now be faced.

The US and its allies are doomed to lose.

A brutal truth to accept. Still it is one which must be accepted.

And, so, why the gloom laden conclusion, Geeko?

There are several reasons, bucko. Here they are in a rough order of importance.

We went about the war all wrong from the very first moment, before the boots of the first American hit the dirt of Afghanistan. The Deep Thinkers of the Bush/Cheney administration failed to conceptualise the goal, definition of victory, and theory of victory correctly. The initial failure was potentiated by trying to gain the goal and some attendant simulacrum of victory on the cheap, by "shock and awe" rather than through manpower heavy operations. Then, to make a very bad situation even worse, the administration committed the US to an exercise in "nation building" with the end product being hypothesized as a Western style liberal, pluralistic republic with all the institutions of press, separation of faith and state, autonomous judiciary, and so on that have been so painfully developed here over the course of centuries.

As a result the Taliban and al-Qaeda were never really defeated. They were given time and sanctuary in which to rest, refit, rebuild, and exploit the failures of the Afghan government put in place under the guard of our (foreign) bayonets. The ever dragging inconclusive war tilted more and more in Taliban's favor in part because the lack of manpower required the extensive use of air power. The fast movers and helicopter gunships killed insurgents, but they also and quite inevitably killed civilians as well.

The "economy of force" operations in Afghanistan (to use the ever-so-sanitary language of the Pentagon) also meant the US had insufficient troops to wrest and keep the initiative through active combat operations, provide necessary point defense against suicide bombing attacks or small unit raids, train the Afghan National Forces, and provide support for civil affairs projects.

All of these factors worked together to assist Taliban's resurgence. Also contributing directly to the Taliban breakout in recent months was the attitude and actions of the Pakistani government and its Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Taliban had critical foreign sanctuary and support, a sanctuary and support which the US was loath to publicly denounce until very, very recently.

The Pakistani support and sanctuary are unlikely to abate in the near- or mid-term given the inability or unwillingness of the Pakistani military to acknowledge that India is not the "main enemy." ISI is dancing with the devil in its relation with Taliban, but that will not force any policy change.

Another reason for the coming US defeat is the nature, character, and agenda of the Karzai regime, the regime which took power and kept it under our protection and with our assistance. Karzai, to an extent that would make Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq blush, is an openly aggrandizing seeker after power.

His administration is corrupt. It is inefficient. It is riddled with Taliban sympathisers. Karzai is willing and ready to do anything, absolutely anything at all, to win the upcoming election. From the massively repressive "Family Law" which places Shia women (at the least) back to the days of Taliban but makes the reactionary Islamist clerics smile with satisfied delight to the repeated promises to "control" the foreign troops, Karzai does whatever he can to gain and hold support through the presidential election a month hence.

If re-elected as seems most probable at the moment, Karzai will deliver on some of these promises. Women will be put back in the garbage sack, (Opps! Bad Geek! You mean the burqua) and he will seek to interject himself and his regime into the military chain of command.

He will succeed in this to a significant degree as he can control the pace of development of the Afghan National Forces whose boots must join ours on the ground if "clear and hold" is to be more than one more catchy phrase. Karzai's goal in this is to facilitate "peace talks" with Taliban and the formation of a "government of inclusion."

The usual suspect, ISI, will back him covertly in this effort through its own contacts with Mullah Omar and Company. ISI will be joined in supporting Karzai's search for peace and inclusion by two unusual suspects: The British public and We the People, the American public.

The British are showing a significant war weariness in the face of mounting casualties in the Helmand offensive. This isn't surprising. There seem to be no significant British national interests at stake in the never-ending war. This is not the old British public of Kipling's day which was content to see the bones of its sons bleach on the far marches of empire for obscure reasons of state.

Not even the bracing remarks of Joe Biden regarding the bravery of British troops or his opinion that the "sacrifices are worth it," will alter the declining support for the war in Merrie Old England. The Taliban are not the Nazis. Afghanistan does not rest across a narrow channel from the storied white cliffs of Dover. The shocking realities of 9/11 and 7/7 are now almost as far in the past as the Maggie Thatcher's Great Campaign for the Sheep of Falklands.

The American public is not far behind the British in rejecting the war in Afghanistan as SecDef Gates noted last week. The effort in Afghanistan has lasted as long as the major US involvement in South Vietnam and only the very, very low body count has prevented a wholesale revulsion at the war. (And, the absence of the draft to be sure.)

Our first post-modern president, the Nice Young Man From Chicago, to whom every person's narrative is as valid as any other, has no real stomach for continuing the war in Afghanistan one minute longer than is necessary to proclaim for one reason or another that the US has accomplished its "goals" in the place. He has already taken the first step in that direction.

The forthcoming elections in Afghanistan provide the opportunity for a graceful US defeat. As American "super-diplomat" Richard Holbrooke acknowledges, the elections will not be perfect, anymore, he averred than was that in the US in 2000. Leaving aside this inapt and inept comparison, the Holbrooke position signals that as long as Karzai wins in a more-or-less transparent effort in democracy, the results are just jake with us.

This implies that Karzai will have a free hand to carry out his efforts at brokering a simulacrum of peace with Taliban leading to a government of national reconciliation. At that point Mr Holbrooke will link arms with Karzai and Omar to sing a chorus of "Give Peace A Chance." The Americans will then leave as will the troops of other nations. We will, of course, leave behind a vast pool of money and assorted civilian experts to continue the task of post-war reconstruction.

The US will, at this point, have been defeated. On the up side, as was the case in Vietnam, it is not the formal enemy which defeated us. No. We will have defeated ourselves.

Once again we will have the chance to learn that bad ideas about war bring defeat. But, we will pay no attention to that lesson.

R2P Or Not R2P

At one time the United Nations had a simple, straightforward major mission. Protect the international peace. That was the one issue focused upon by the architects of the UN during the bloody years of World War II as it had been on the part of Woodrow Wilson and other visionaries during an earlier hectatomb.

The prevention or, at worst, the punishment of aggressive war waged in the face of international disapproval was the centerpiece at the launching of the UN in San Francisco more than a half century ago. While there were other items on the UN's plate--including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--these were seen as clearly secondary. They were conceived of as means of limiting the excuses used by nations to go to war.

That simple, unitary focus became increasingly fuzzy in the waning days of the Cold War particularly after President Jimmy Carter elevated the concept of "human rights" to the top priority of American foreign policy. While there is no doubt that President Carter was both sincere and somewhat pragmatically minded in his dedication to human rights, the Law of Unintended Consequences stood by ready to invoke itself.

The UN pushed its camel's nose into an entirely new area a few years ago when the congeries of diplomats meeting on the banks of the Hudson determined that a potential threat to international peace and stability was posed automatically when a government's policies or weakness resulted in refugee streams crossing international borders. The existence of a flow of refugees became de facto proof that some sort of international intervention was required not only to meet "humanitarian" needs but also to stave off any potential breach of the international peace.

This diplomatic artifice constructed a very steep slope paved with glare ice. It allowed, no, encouraged, the Security Council to determine when and if an internal matter had reached such a pitch of refugee generation (and high visibility flowing of blood and gore) that international intervention was required. If the five Permanent Members could agree on the necessity or desirability of invoking the presumed UN mandate to protect the citizens of the target county, the Boys in Blue Helmets could be deployed.

If and when (as was far from atypical) the Security Council could not agree on intervention, the fall back position was the invocation of a similar "responsibility to protect" (called in diplomatic and journalistic shorthand, "R2P") on the part of the UN or regional organisations. The European Union, the Organisation of American States, the African Union, even NATO, could determine that they had a "responsibility to protect" within their geographic bailiwicks.

Stripped to its essentials the "responsibility to protect" means that some external entity, a state, a regional organisation, the UN, determines on some basis or another that a country has reached such a sorry state of internal depravity and wretchedness that intervention is the necessary course of action. Since the intervention is not sought nor welcomed by the target country or its government, this means the incoming forces are armed and ready to use force to impose their will on the target.

In short, the "responsibility to protect" means making war.

Ironically, the UN, an entity created to keep the international peace, can invoke the "responsibility to protect" in order to wage war. Normally the use of the "R2P" is either by or at the behest of a Great Power against some country which is not a client of another Great Power.

Back in 2005 the "international community" visited the subject of "R2P" at some length. At the end of the visit some 150 world leaders endorsed the concept. Now, four years later, the UN General Assembly is back in the trenches of "R2P."

The NYT suggests that getting the member nations to agree on how and when to intervene so as to stop genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing should not "be much of a stretch." The mere fact that the weight of historical experience underscores the difficulty with agreeing on anything beyond muttering platitudes, the gaining of widespread agreement on the necessity of invading a country due to its internal difficulties is nearly impossible.

Not surprisingly the panjandrums of the UN bureaucracy are overwhelmingly in favor of an "R2P" protocol with real bite. The High Commissioner For Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has called for a "credible capacity for rapid responses." Madam Pillay, like UN SecGen Ban Ki-moon, referenced the massacres in Rwanda during which the world stood by and watched horrified as at least 800,000 were slaughtered.

There is an old cliche in jurisprudence, "Hard cases make bad law." In international politics there is (or should be) a similar saying, "Extreme examples make bad precedent."

To put it simply, there is no firebreak in mere numbers. Nor is there a bright and shining line contained in the swiftness of the slaughter. Once the precedent is enshrined there can be no meaningful distinctions between the fast mass murder of a Rwanda and the slow killing fields of a Zimbabwe or a Somalia. There can be no proper, policy related distinctions drawn between massive and bloody efforts at ethnic cleansing as in former Yugoslavia and the slow-motion ejection of Christians from Iraq.

Regardless of speed, efficiency, or numbers each is an example of abuse of human rights on a large scale. Each occurred because of either government action or government inaction. Each generated refugees. Each outraged (or should have) global sensibilities. Each was (or is) a candidate for "R2P."

The same may be said (and has been) regarding Chinese actions in Tibet or, more recently, in Xianjiang. The same may be said (and has been) regarding Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

The same was said in (partial) justification of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein's regime did engage in internal actions which resulted in massive death, dislocation, and refugee generation. Silent at the time Saddam's men used toxic gas against civilian Kurds, the US waved the bloody shirt of human rights violations nearly two decades later. ("Well," the administration might have said, "better late than never.")

The question of when--if ever--external actors have a "right" or a "responsibility" to intervene at bayonet point to "protect" civilian populations from harm at the hands of their own government or from non-governmental bodies not inhibited by the government is neither easy to parse nor simple to judge. This is the point behind the recent objections to "R2P" raised by General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto and others including the renowned left-leaning American linguistic and general purpose critic, Noam Chomsky.

D'Escoto circulated a "Concept Note" in which he characterised the "R2P" idea as just one more form of neocolonialism. He has been joined in this position by Dr Chomsky who (correctly) pointed out that "R2P" has been used by Western advanced nations to impose their vision on countries in the non-Western world.

There is an uncomfortable degree of truth in these arguments, much as the Geek personally dislikes finding himself in agreement with d'Escoto, let alone Chomsky. The Great Powers have the influence, resources, and agendas necessary to support interventions under an appropriate color. The most appropriate cover in today's Era of Sensitivity is the protection of one or another of the numerous "lesser breeds without the law" (in Kipling's phrase.) "R2P" is in keeping with a long standing American tradition of couching armed interventions in lofty, humanitarian terms such as Wilson's famed idea of "teaching Mexicans to elect good men."

Another, less publicised danger of using "R2P" as a justification for military operations is the potential for frankly cynical abuse. Russia draped "R2P" over its tanks and jets during the incursion and occupation of disputed territory then under Georgian sovereignty. The Kremlin claimed with a straight face and in the most solemn terms that their army was simply protecting the human rights of the locals faced with genocide at the hands of the aggressive Georgian government.

The Chinese have made similar statements regarding their suppression of demonstrations in Tibet and Xianjiang. The army and police were simply protecting the human rights of the Han Chinese from abuse at the hands of ethnic minorities.

And, so it has gone. As it will continue to go. "Human rights" and the closely linked "R2P" will be exploited by governments to cover naked land grabs and regime maintenance actions.

At the same time governments will continue to be very, very cautious, reluctant really, to involve their forces in the vast majority of situations which might fall legitimately under the rubric, "R2P." That overarching reality is in high evidence today.

Somalia is and has been for years the very definition of human depravity and consequent misery. Ban Ki-moon has once more called upon the "international community" for "armed support" for the tottering artifact created by the same international community, the Transitional Federal Government. The African Union peace keeping force is so undermanned, so poorly equipped, and so lacking in motivation that its troops can barely protect their own base, let alone the TFG.

The members of the African Union show little stomach for further involvement in the Somali cesspit. There are very real reasons given for this. Lack of money. Deficient logistics. No transport. There are also other, equally valid and more compelling unstated reasons.

Chief among these silent justifications is this: What is in it for us? What national interest is served by seeing our troops killed in Somalia?

Abstracts are very poor reasons for getting killed. And, let's be honest about it. Human rights is an abstract. Each and every point referenced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is itself an abstract. They are the creations of a particular historical and philosophical tradition--Western Christianity and its precursors in Greece and Ancient Israel.

They are not real, organic, and emotive concepts in other traditions. They are not good reasons for a government, particularly one faced by its own problems at home to send off men to kill and die. Not even when the blood filled cesspit is right next door and the refugees are flooding your country.

Kenya is a major non-participant in Somalia. Similarly South Africa set back and watched Mugabe's thugs create a swamp of violence, death, poverty, and disease in Zimbabwe. The governments of these nations were not blind to what was happening. Nor were they morally indifferent.

There was simply no compelling national interest at stake. Lacking that, there was no justification for bearing the expenses in lives, treasure, and potential internal complications exercising some sort of abstract "R2P."

The weight of both history and practical realities is against "R2P." This may bother the high minded such as our UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, and the assorted capos of the UN. It may bother the editors of the NYT as the tone of their coverage makes clear.

But, it is a fact. A brute ground truth.

We the People may like to forget or overlook this truth. Just as we like to overlook the reality that when faced by a man with a gun we, each and every one of us, has the "human right" of life only if we can shoot faster and straighter than the other guy.