The MSM have been spilling a lot of ink over the "success" of Obama's "leading from behind" doctrine as exhibited in Libya. Some experts in the field of geopolitics have gone so far as to extend the Libyan outcome as being but the latest in a string of unappreciated but real "successes" or at least non-failures attributable to the Nice Young Man From Chicago.
All things considered, there has been one real victory achieved by President Obama. His combination of responding to domestic political pressures--particularly the pervasive Democrat fear of being seen as "weak" on national security--combined with lofty, progressive rhetoric of the Bill Clinton sort has removed foreign policy from the election table. From his decision to allow the lethal takedown of Osama bin Laden to the murky way in which the US backed into the Libyan adventure in regime change, Obama responded more to the dictates of the public's political mood than any realistic assessment of US diplomatic needs and goals.
While it is no doubt true that defense and foreign policy will not play any discernible role in the 2012 election, which is a misfortune to say the least, the canny political sense of the incumbent in denying the Republicans any point of legitimate attack constitutes a real advantage to the Obama campaign. Also offering powerful assistance to the president's reelection effort is the combination of amazing ignorance and retro thinking which typifies the current elephantine field in its collective consideration of America's role in the world.
It is to be regretted greatly that none of the current GOP aspirants have yet gone after the record of failures which is the record of the present administration. The universe of discourse is both vast and central to the near and mid-term future of the US.
Consider Iraq. Yes, we are out of the place. That is good. But the cost of our exit has been to see failure left in the wake of the endeavor. True, the initial blunder belongs for all eternity to George W. Bush and his neocon ninny soulmates. But the Obama people knew the withdrawal date fixed by the Status of Forces Agreement was looming. They also knew that total withdrawal would be dangerous, perhaps fatally so for Iraq. So did the Iraqis. Yet, with nearly three years to act, the administration failed to find a formula which would allow sufficient troops to stay with the requisite legal immunity. Rather than search for the obvious alternatives to an act by the Iraqi parliament, Obama opted to get out of Dodge--and place the blame on the Boys In Baghdad.
Some success that--for the mullahs in Tehran and their local Iraqi henchmen.
In Afghanistan, the Obama authorized "surge" provided two results. The first was a short duration set of battlefield victories, which were meaningless given the publicly announced draw down and pull out dates giving the adversaries all they needed to know to stay the course. The second accomplishment of the Obama surge was to provide political cover and advantage as the surge forces come home before the elections.
The result was to embolden both the Taliban and Haqqini network as well as their Pakistani handlers. A second result was to undercut the will of the Karzai government to conduct the needed reforms, to develop an effective national force, or to prosecute the war with vigor. Along with the totally wrongheaded firing of General Stanley McChrystal, the date certain withdrawal schedule did nothing to enhance either the will or the operational ability of US and other foreign forces to conduct their mission with high morale and the most effective approaches on both the tactical and operational levels.
What a "success." Yes, for Islamabad and their proxies in Afghanistan.
Then there is Israel and the Palestinians. The Obama policy not only froze a bad dynamic in place, it worsened matters to a point that the two state solution has become even more unlikely now than at the end of the reign of George W. The truckling Cairo speech raised Arab expectations to a level that could not be met by a mere American president, particularly one whose guiding star was provided by domestic politics. As if that were not bad enough, the president has a very bad personal as well as political relationship with the Israeli prime minister, which in no way made it probable that Israel would go along with Washington's policy preferences.
What a success--if you are Palestinian head of government Abbas.
The "Arab Spring" had to be a success, right? After all it was the triumph of democracy over autocracy, and how can anybody see that as other than a success? Sure, it was--if you are a member of an austere, political Muslim group. As was the case in Iran all those long years ago, the legendary power of the people, the voice of the democratic ballot box, the exercise of free voting, will most probably bring austere Muslims into power. And, once there, it will take more than merely voting to get them out. (Once again see Iran as the paradigm.)
How about the "war on terror?" Fortunately our intelligence, law enforcement, and military forces are highly competent, so we have not suffered a homeland hit for ten years now. None of this is due to brilliant policy on the part of Mr Obama and his "team." On the policy level, the Obama administration has been every bit as clueless as its predecessor. BH Obama is no more willing than was George W to acknowledge that terror and other forms of asymmetrical war we have faced for more than a decade have been and are predicated on the religion. The same religion serves as the motivation of the various austere, political Islamists who carry out the acts of war and terror. Failure at the basic level of knowing the nature and character of the enemy assures the overall war will not be successful.
OK, the Geek hears you object, what about the standing of the US in the eyes of the world? It's gotta be better now than when Cowboy George was in the Oval.
You betcha, bucko. It is. And, more importantly, it is not. But that is a subject for a different post. Maybe tomorrow if the weather and the tetchy computer allow.
Showing posts with label 2012 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 Election. Show all posts
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
What Victory(ies)?
Today The Clueless Guy In The Oval announced (as expected) that all US troops other than the embassy guard will be out of Iraq by the end of the year. Instantly if not sooner, the political flacks which surround the Oval sprang into action averring with straight faces that this was the desired result as well as the fulfillment of a major campaign promise.
What a crock!
As American military and diplomatic officials including both the past and current Secretaries of Defense have maintained with a fair degree of passion, the continuation of a US military presence was essential for assuring that the past nine years, something on the order of a trillion dollars, and, most importantly, over 4,000 lives had not been wasted. Iraq's internal stability is very fragile on the best of days--and there are damn few of those. In addition, the Iranians present a clear and present threat against which Iraq has no credible means of either deterrence or defense. Beyond that, the Iraqi forces need much more training in their new weapons systems as well as in the areas of intelligence, logistics, air support, and communication.
Over the past year, the Obama administration had and threw away numerous opportunities to keep a suitable number of training, combat support, special operations, and combat forces in Iraq. The alleged block was the unwillingness of the Iraqi government to grant immunity from Iraqi judicial processes to the US personnel.
This, too, is a crock.
The administration--the president--insisted that legal immunity be granted by specific action on the part of the Iraqi Council of Representatives. This would have been politically impossible as the Obama foreign policy "team" must have known. There were other means of obtaining the requisite immunity which would have sidestepped the field of mines which constitutes the Council of Representatives as well the total Iraqi parliament. The simplest means would have been to list the names of each and every spook, special operator, trainer, and trigger puller on the embassy personnel roster, which would have made diplomatic immunity automatic. The Iraqi ForMin was wide open to this gambit as were other senior members of the Iraqi executive branch.
While it is true that Allawi--the head of the opposition bloc which was narrowly and questionably defeated by Maliki's bloc--complicated the matter, the US had and has sufficient juice with Allawi to end the stall he introduced. In short, there were no insurmountable obstacles in Baghdad to continuing the American presence even at the level of 20,000 troops.
The real deal was the Nice Young Man From Chicago was and is hoping that by bringing the last troops home against the rhetorical backdrop of declaring victory he will gain political mileage for the upcoming reelection bid. He has been purposefully willing to toss aside the last nine years, the trillion dollars, and the lives of more than 4,000 Americans for personal, partisan reasons.
The same applies to the specious claims of victory in Libya following the killing of Gaddifi yesterday. It was not a victory for the US. Nor was it one for NATO. While it is true that without the US/UK/French/NATO air campaign, on the ground advisers, weapons and equipment supplies, intelligence support, and diplomatic game playing, "Brother Leader" would still be oppressing the Libyans and haunting the international scene. But, the only "victors" were the assorted militias who did the fighting and dying--and who will now claim the rewards.
It will be up to these sundry groups of trigger pullers as well as the myriad of tribal and religious leaders who more or less control the men with the AKs to decide which reward will go to who. The probability of continued and escalating violence is somewhere between high and extremely high. Rewards will be claimed and fought over. Payback will be the word of the day for months to come. The body count, already high, will increase. The NTC is losing support, in large measure because its actions and decision making are as transparent as a sandstorm. Regional, tribal, and religious loyalties far exceed any attachment to something called "Libya" or the "Libyan nation."
The death of the "King of Kings of Africa" removed whatever thin and tenuous glue held the competing factions and their guns together. Now it is a matter of every region, every tribe, every city, every clan, even every individual for him or itself. Every man raises his AK or RPG or MANPAD against every other.
There is no "victory" here for the US or France or the UK. There is and will be only more challenges to regional stability, regional peace, to international efforts on behalf of these worthy end states. There is utterly and absolutely nothing for the US--or Mr Obama--to crow about or see as a good lesson for tomorrow.
There is only the hope on the part of the president and his advisers that the Libyan adventure in "leading from behind" will bolster his fading reelection chances. (Note the recent Gallup poll placing his approval rating at the new low of 41%.)
Iraq is frail. Libya is even worse. The risks and sacrifices taken and made in both have been in vain by any rational calculus. One can only hope that the Obama campaign will not be aided by these false "victories."
What a crock!
As American military and diplomatic officials including both the past and current Secretaries of Defense have maintained with a fair degree of passion, the continuation of a US military presence was essential for assuring that the past nine years, something on the order of a trillion dollars, and, most importantly, over 4,000 lives had not been wasted. Iraq's internal stability is very fragile on the best of days--and there are damn few of those. In addition, the Iranians present a clear and present threat against which Iraq has no credible means of either deterrence or defense. Beyond that, the Iraqi forces need much more training in their new weapons systems as well as in the areas of intelligence, logistics, air support, and communication.
Over the past year, the Obama administration had and threw away numerous opportunities to keep a suitable number of training, combat support, special operations, and combat forces in Iraq. The alleged block was the unwillingness of the Iraqi government to grant immunity from Iraqi judicial processes to the US personnel.
This, too, is a crock.
The administration--the president--insisted that legal immunity be granted by specific action on the part of the Iraqi Council of Representatives. This would have been politically impossible as the Obama foreign policy "team" must have known. There were other means of obtaining the requisite immunity which would have sidestepped the field of mines which constitutes the Council of Representatives as well the total Iraqi parliament. The simplest means would have been to list the names of each and every spook, special operator, trainer, and trigger puller on the embassy personnel roster, which would have made diplomatic immunity automatic. The Iraqi ForMin was wide open to this gambit as were other senior members of the Iraqi executive branch.
While it is true that Allawi--the head of the opposition bloc which was narrowly and questionably defeated by Maliki's bloc--complicated the matter, the US had and has sufficient juice with Allawi to end the stall he introduced. In short, there were no insurmountable obstacles in Baghdad to continuing the American presence even at the level of 20,000 troops.
The real deal was the Nice Young Man From Chicago was and is hoping that by bringing the last troops home against the rhetorical backdrop of declaring victory he will gain political mileage for the upcoming reelection bid. He has been purposefully willing to toss aside the last nine years, the trillion dollars, and the lives of more than 4,000 Americans for personal, partisan reasons.
The same applies to the specious claims of victory in Libya following the killing of Gaddifi yesterday. It was not a victory for the US. Nor was it one for NATO. While it is true that without the US/UK/French/NATO air campaign, on the ground advisers, weapons and equipment supplies, intelligence support, and diplomatic game playing, "Brother Leader" would still be oppressing the Libyans and haunting the international scene. But, the only "victors" were the assorted militias who did the fighting and dying--and who will now claim the rewards.
It will be up to these sundry groups of trigger pullers as well as the myriad of tribal and religious leaders who more or less control the men with the AKs to decide which reward will go to who. The probability of continued and escalating violence is somewhere between high and extremely high. Rewards will be claimed and fought over. Payback will be the word of the day for months to come. The body count, already high, will increase. The NTC is losing support, in large measure because its actions and decision making are as transparent as a sandstorm. Regional, tribal, and religious loyalties far exceed any attachment to something called "Libya" or the "Libyan nation."
The death of the "King of Kings of Africa" removed whatever thin and tenuous glue held the competing factions and their guns together. Now it is a matter of every region, every tribe, every city, every clan, even every individual for him or itself. Every man raises his AK or RPG or MANPAD against every other.
There is no "victory" here for the US or France or the UK. There is and will be only more challenges to regional stability, regional peace, to international efforts on behalf of these worthy end states. There is utterly and absolutely nothing for the US--or Mr Obama--to crow about or see as a good lesson for tomorrow.
There is only the hope on the part of the president and his advisers that the Libyan adventure in "leading from behind" will bolster his fading reelection chances. (Note the recent Gallup poll placing his approval rating at the new low of 41%.)
Iraq is frail. Libya is even worse. The risks and sacrifices taken and made in both have been in vain by any rational calculus. One can only hope that the Obama campaign will not be aided by these false "victories."
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Rick Perry And The Big, Bad World
As had been expected for several weeks, Rick Perry has entered the GOP contest. Of this the Geek is both glad and positive. Governor Perry appears to possess the stomach and head necessary for a down and dirty campaign against the Nice Young Man From Chicago which is singularly lacking with other Elephant hopefuls.
The Geek became a fan of Texas politics during the years necessity compelled him to live and work in the Lone Star Empire. The doings at that model of law making decorum called the "Lege" were and are as fascinating as the inner workings of the Cook County (Ill.) Democratic machine. The emergence of Perry showed him to be a man having a strong, visceral understanding of the political soul of most Texans. Over the past year Perry's performance has demonstrated that this gut level talent is not restricted to the denizens of the LSE but extends to many of We the People.
It is important to enter an important caveat here, a warning of relevance to international politics. Other significant leaders who have exhibited a strong, visceral understanding of their people's national politics such as Vladimir Putin have seen that understanding stop abruptly at the border. They have little if any understanding of the political mood or mode of other people in other countries.
Governor Perry stated strongly in Charleston that he was a strong believer in "American exceptionalism," which places him in very sharp contrast with the relativistic Mr Obama. This posture while laudable in itself demands yet another caveat in the arena of global affairs. The "exceptionalism" part of the phrase consists of characteristics, attributes, and values which are under a permanent export ban. American exceptionalism is not only made in America by dint of suffering, war, political struggles, and endless effort, it must forever stay in the land of its fabrication. It is unique to us for it is uniquely us and ours. No bayonet, no tank, no stealth fighter, no UAV, no aid program, no propaganda effort, no executive order or congressional enactment can force its export to other, foreign soils. As a transplant it must fail.
On his campaign website, Mr Perry avers that his service as a C-130 driver as well as his many foreign trips as governor give him insight into the needs of American diplomatic and national security policy. While it is true that the governor flew Herky birds with numerous RONs and TDYs, the result would be an intimate acquaintance with nocturnal resorts of entertainment and recreation but little contact with the dark doings of foreign chanceries or the gavottes in distant corridors of power. (To this truism any person with a peripatetic military experience can attest.) And, as governor Mr Perry's overseas jaunts were in the interest of the economic development of the LSE not the national interests of the US.
In his speech at Charleston, the Texan was more than kind when he characterized whatever passes as foreign policy within the Obama administration as a "muddle." It is, of course, far worse than that. It is even worse than a collection of blunders wrapped in empty, high sounding rhetoric. Rather, it is an ideologically driven exercise in ad hoc reaction coupled with a set of self-defeating visions of how the world ought to be if only it were designed in Left leaning academic salons located near the University of Chicago campus.
At least implicitly (if Rick "No One Crosses Me and Lives" Perry can ever be merely implicit) the Texas Cyclone of Prayer vowed to change this. He evidently intends to assure the US once again walks tall and proud on the international stage. This would be a welcome change after the years of "leading from behind" but carries with it yet another, larger caveat.
This caveat resides in the coterie Perry has assembled to date as his advisers on foreign and national security affairs. Without notable exception, it is comprised of neocon ninnies out of the years of the Bush/Cheney administration. At the head of the list is the execrable Doug Feith, the top architect of the debacle in Iraq. Other members have an equally illustrious record. From their post administration writings and speeches, it is apparent they have neither learned nor forgotten a single iota. None have seen the failings produced by their own ideologically predicated view of the world and the role of the US in that world.
Unless Governor Perry expands his advisory staff, there is a very grave danger that his understanding of the abilities and limits of American power will be as disastrously off the mark as were those of George W. Bush. Neither the US nor the world can live with yet another ideologically predicated misreading of what the US can and cannot do with respect to the internal workings of other countries.
It is important to note that not since George H.W. Bush left office has the US enjoyed the services of a president who was both internationally focused and relatively bereft of ideological blinders. The many years of Clinton, George W. Bush and His Hindmost, Barack Obama--each with either or both a disinterest in foreign affairs or ideological predicates of overwhelming power--have seen the steady decline of the US as a Great Power with influence and potency. Given that the next president will be laboring under serious budgetary constraints, the question of the relations of the US with the rest of the world as well as the American capacity and will to defend and advance its national interests will be under very severe challenge.
More than ever we will need a president who realistically assesses our national interests and tailors our diplomacy and military to protect and advance those interests regardless of extraneous considerations including ideological preferences and prejudices. The next president will face a world which remains what it always has been--a dangerous place replete with countries which oppose us and our interests and actors both state and non-state who wish to do us harm. The world will also contain countries which share values and norms with us and with which we have coinciding national interests.
The next president must do what the present incumbent has failed to do with striking obviousness--parse between the enemies and the allies. He must be able and willing to cozen and stroke the latter while drawing in a credible manner the necessary lines in the sand regarding the former.
As Perry lacks any significant foreign policy experience and whose direct experience with military affairs and war fighting is limited to the perspective offered from the cockpit of a C-130, he will depend heavily on his foreign policy and national security teams. Given his first picks as advisers, there is, unfortunately, little if any reason to be hopeful in this regard.
In the future national interest as well as his own personal political fortune, Governor Perry ought to fire the present advisory staff. It is the only smart and prudential thing to do. He has to put daylight between himself and George W. Bush, and listening to the old gang of neocon ninnies is not the way to offset the inevitable Obama camp attacks seeking to make Perry look like the much disliked (not to say hated) Bush, Jr.
(Full disclosure in blogging statement: The Geek is not angling for a job with the Perry camp as he is constitutionally incapable of working for anyone.)
The Geek became a fan of Texas politics during the years necessity compelled him to live and work in the Lone Star Empire. The doings at that model of law making decorum called the "Lege" were and are as fascinating as the inner workings of the Cook County (Ill.) Democratic machine. The emergence of Perry showed him to be a man having a strong, visceral understanding of the political soul of most Texans. Over the past year Perry's performance has demonstrated that this gut level talent is not restricted to the denizens of the LSE but extends to many of We the People.
It is important to enter an important caveat here, a warning of relevance to international politics. Other significant leaders who have exhibited a strong, visceral understanding of their people's national politics such as Vladimir Putin have seen that understanding stop abruptly at the border. They have little if any understanding of the political mood or mode of other people in other countries.
Governor Perry stated strongly in Charleston that he was a strong believer in "American exceptionalism," which places him in very sharp contrast with the relativistic Mr Obama. This posture while laudable in itself demands yet another caveat in the arena of global affairs. The "exceptionalism" part of the phrase consists of characteristics, attributes, and values which are under a permanent export ban. American exceptionalism is not only made in America by dint of suffering, war, political struggles, and endless effort, it must forever stay in the land of its fabrication. It is unique to us for it is uniquely us and ours. No bayonet, no tank, no stealth fighter, no UAV, no aid program, no propaganda effort, no executive order or congressional enactment can force its export to other, foreign soils. As a transplant it must fail.
On his campaign website, Mr Perry avers that his service as a C-130 driver as well as his many foreign trips as governor give him insight into the needs of American diplomatic and national security policy. While it is true that the governor flew Herky birds with numerous RONs and TDYs, the result would be an intimate acquaintance with nocturnal resorts of entertainment and recreation but little contact with the dark doings of foreign chanceries or the gavottes in distant corridors of power. (To this truism any person with a peripatetic military experience can attest.) And, as governor Mr Perry's overseas jaunts were in the interest of the economic development of the LSE not the national interests of the US.
In his speech at Charleston, the Texan was more than kind when he characterized whatever passes as foreign policy within the Obama administration as a "muddle." It is, of course, far worse than that. It is even worse than a collection of blunders wrapped in empty, high sounding rhetoric. Rather, it is an ideologically driven exercise in ad hoc reaction coupled with a set of self-defeating visions of how the world ought to be if only it were designed in Left leaning academic salons located near the University of Chicago campus.
At least implicitly (if Rick "No One Crosses Me and Lives" Perry can ever be merely implicit) the Texas Cyclone of Prayer vowed to change this. He evidently intends to assure the US once again walks tall and proud on the international stage. This would be a welcome change after the years of "leading from behind" but carries with it yet another, larger caveat.
This caveat resides in the coterie Perry has assembled to date as his advisers on foreign and national security affairs. Without notable exception, it is comprised of neocon ninnies out of the years of the Bush/Cheney administration. At the head of the list is the execrable Doug Feith, the top architect of the debacle in Iraq. Other members have an equally illustrious record. From their post administration writings and speeches, it is apparent they have neither learned nor forgotten a single iota. None have seen the failings produced by their own ideologically predicated view of the world and the role of the US in that world.
Unless Governor Perry expands his advisory staff, there is a very grave danger that his understanding of the abilities and limits of American power will be as disastrously off the mark as were those of George W. Bush. Neither the US nor the world can live with yet another ideologically predicated misreading of what the US can and cannot do with respect to the internal workings of other countries.
It is important to note that not since George H.W. Bush left office has the US enjoyed the services of a president who was both internationally focused and relatively bereft of ideological blinders. The many years of Clinton, George W. Bush and His Hindmost, Barack Obama--each with either or both a disinterest in foreign affairs or ideological predicates of overwhelming power--have seen the steady decline of the US as a Great Power with influence and potency. Given that the next president will be laboring under serious budgetary constraints, the question of the relations of the US with the rest of the world as well as the American capacity and will to defend and advance its national interests will be under very severe challenge.
More than ever we will need a president who realistically assesses our national interests and tailors our diplomacy and military to protect and advance those interests regardless of extraneous considerations including ideological preferences and prejudices. The next president will face a world which remains what it always has been--a dangerous place replete with countries which oppose us and our interests and actors both state and non-state who wish to do us harm. The world will also contain countries which share values and norms with us and with which we have coinciding national interests.
The next president must do what the present incumbent has failed to do with striking obviousness--parse between the enemies and the allies. He must be able and willing to cozen and stroke the latter while drawing in a credible manner the necessary lines in the sand regarding the former.
As Perry lacks any significant foreign policy experience and whose direct experience with military affairs and war fighting is limited to the perspective offered from the cockpit of a C-130, he will depend heavily on his foreign policy and national security teams. Given his first picks as advisers, there is, unfortunately, little if any reason to be hopeful in this regard.
In the future national interest as well as his own personal political fortune, Governor Perry ought to fire the present advisory staff. It is the only smart and prudential thing to do. He has to put daylight between himself and George W. Bush, and listening to the old gang of neocon ninnies is not the way to offset the inevitable Obama camp attacks seeking to make Perry look like the much disliked (not to say hated) Bush, Jr.
(Full disclosure in blogging statement: The Geek is not angling for a job with the Perry camp as he is constitutionally incapable of working for anyone.)
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The Otherworldly Realism of T-Paw
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty is stuck in the second tier of Republican hopefuls despite a strenuous effort to break to daylight. He has already taken a definite stand on matters economic with strong support from the media and no palpable result in the public polling. Now he is trying to do the same in the area of foreign affairs, putting distance between himself and the neo-isolationists of the GOP on the one hand and the neocons of the George W. Bush days on the other.
T-paw's essay in self-definition came yesterday n a speech delivered to the Council on Foreign Relations. While represented as a tour of the horizon, the candidate focused on the Mideast, Israel, and Obama's failures of policy in the region.
There is little doubt but the Obama approach to affairs in the Mideast specifically and the world generally have been marked by far more failure than success. The primary reason for this is to be found in the world view of the Nice Young Man From Chicago with its blame-America-first core. Being a perfect academic, Mr Obama is given to avoiding action in favor of words whenever possible. Then as a matter of personality, the Clueless Guy in the Oval resembles a Pearson's Puppeteer.
(For those of you who do not read science fiction, the Pearson Puppeteer was an alien species created by the fertile mind of Larry Niven. The species is characterized by a degree of caution which surpasses the merely cowardly. The "leader" of the Puppeteers is called the Hindmost--which rather resembles in concept the idea of "leading from behind" offered recently by a member of the administration in admiring tribute to Obama's presumed statesmanship in the Libyan Affair.)
The characterization of Mr Obama's approach(es) to the "Arab Spring" and the Israeli-Palestinian Question offered by Governor Pawlenty are unexceptional. So also is his emphasis on the importance of Israel to US national interests.
Where T-paw misses the cliched bus is in his fervently expressed belief in the ability of the US to act effectively in the creation of freedom and democracy in the Mideast in the wake of the recent and ongoing tumult. He is of the view that authentic democracy, genuine freedom, real Western style government with full fledged protections of minorities including women and non-Muslims can be created and maintained over time with the assistance and support of the US.
It would be very nice if the Pawlenty vision was accurate. It is not. Whether dealing with the environment of post-authoritarian Egypt or Tunisia, or contemplating how "reforms" might be facilitated by American efforts in kingdoms such as Jordan, Morocco or, most importantly of all, Saudi Arabia, Mr Pawlenty discounts the force and universality of Islam, particularly the form of Islam embraced and promoted by Salifists and Wahhibists.
The well-meaning Pawlenty (or his advisers and speechwriters) ignore the fundamental realities of Islamic thought which focus upon the deity as the source of all legitimate law. Also overlooked is the oft-repeated meme that neither democracy nor liberty as understood in the West is compatible with the dictates of the deity contained in the sacred literature as interpreted by generations of scholars of Islamic jurisprudence. The Pawlenty stance also overlooks the fundamental orientation of Islam on the duties of the believer. Not to put an inaccurately fine point on the matter, Islam elevates duty, duty to the deity over any and all personal rights. In short there is no concept of individual rights which equates in any way with the prevalent definitions of rights and responsibilities in the US or the West generally.
The failure to comprehend accurately the impact of faith and its all-inclusive nature constitutes the rock on which Mr Pawlenty's ideas of constructive engagement with the new forces of the Arab states must founder. While the people oriented toward secular concerns and world view dominated and continue to dominate the media coverage of events in the Arab states, these folk are a minority, even an endangered species. Many of the more secular minded are quite aware of this aspect of the post-authoritarian dynamic as is seen with the repeated calls in Egypt for a delay in the elections so as to allow the secularists to organize well enough to take on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist political groups.
Mr Pawlenty's call for the next president to motivate the Saudi royal house to take the path of reform is also quite otherworldly. The House of Saud exists today because of the bargain made generations ago to link its fortunes with those of the Wahhibists. There is no way on this Earth that the austere world view of Wahhibism would continence let alone participate in any sort of reform such as mentioned by T-paw. There is no chance that the Wahhibist theology is about to go along with extending any rights to non-Muslims or see the error of Mohammad's ways regarding the status of women.
In his remarks Mr Pawlenty warns against the elections which produce results antithetical to genuine democracy, authentic freedom. He may have had Iran in mind when he said this as there is no better example of a people committing political suicide at the ballot box than that. It will take far more than support for the "reform" movement of 2009 for the verdict of self-destruction by vote to be reversed. The Iranians willingly and to the later regret of some surrendered all vestiges of political autonomy to the dictates of theology. The same may happen in at least some of the Arab states celebrated as having sounded the tocsin of freedom by Mr Pawlenty.
A central point made by the presidential aspirant deserved more emphasis. The reality of political Islam, particularly violent political Islam will be with us for many, many years to come. As long as that reality existss the US will be the major target of its hate and violence. This status will not be removed even if the US were to unilaterally withdraw from every last member state of the Organization of the Islamic Conference--or even if the US were to vote for the dissolution of Israel.
The necessary conclusion is the US must not retreat to some sort of Fortress America. Surrender to violent political Islam is not an option simply because surrender will not work. It will not immunize the US against future attacks, future terror, future war. Nothing short of every last American--all 312 million of us--facing east and banging our foreheads on the floor would grant immunity from the hatred of the groups dedicated to violent political Islam.
The US may have, as Mr Pawlenty suggested, one political party which argues for American decline, withdrawal, disengagement and isolation. He thinks that there is no need for a second. He is right. He would have been even more on target had he said that one such party is one too many.
T-paw's essay in self-definition came yesterday n a speech delivered to the Council on Foreign Relations. While represented as a tour of the horizon, the candidate focused on the Mideast, Israel, and Obama's failures of policy in the region.
There is little doubt but the Obama approach to affairs in the Mideast specifically and the world generally have been marked by far more failure than success. The primary reason for this is to be found in the world view of the Nice Young Man From Chicago with its blame-America-first core. Being a perfect academic, Mr Obama is given to avoiding action in favor of words whenever possible. Then as a matter of personality, the Clueless Guy in the Oval resembles a Pearson's Puppeteer.
(For those of you who do not read science fiction, the Pearson Puppeteer was an alien species created by the fertile mind of Larry Niven. The species is characterized by a degree of caution which surpasses the merely cowardly. The "leader" of the Puppeteers is called the Hindmost--which rather resembles in concept the idea of "leading from behind" offered recently by a member of the administration in admiring tribute to Obama's presumed statesmanship in the Libyan Affair.)
The characterization of Mr Obama's approach(es) to the "Arab Spring" and the Israeli-Palestinian Question offered by Governor Pawlenty are unexceptional. So also is his emphasis on the importance of Israel to US national interests.
Where T-paw misses the cliched bus is in his fervently expressed belief in the ability of the US to act effectively in the creation of freedom and democracy in the Mideast in the wake of the recent and ongoing tumult. He is of the view that authentic democracy, genuine freedom, real Western style government with full fledged protections of minorities including women and non-Muslims can be created and maintained over time with the assistance and support of the US.
It would be very nice if the Pawlenty vision was accurate. It is not. Whether dealing with the environment of post-authoritarian Egypt or Tunisia, or contemplating how "reforms" might be facilitated by American efforts in kingdoms such as Jordan, Morocco or, most importantly of all, Saudi Arabia, Mr Pawlenty discounts the force and universality of Islam, particularly the form of Islam embraced and promoted by Salifists and Wahhibists.
The well-meaning Pawlenty (or his advisers and speechwriters) ignore the fundamental realities of Islamic thought which focus upon the deity as the source of all legitimate law. Also overlooked is the oft-repeated meme that neither democracy nor liberty as understood in the West is compatible with the dictates of the deity contained in the sacred literature as interpreted by generations of scholars of Islamic jurisprudence. The Pawlenty stance also overlooks the fundamental orientation of Islam on the duties of the believer. Not to put an inaccurately fine point on the matter, Islam elevates duty, duty to the deity over any and all personal rights. In short there is no concept of individual rights which equates in any way with the prevalent definitions of rights and responsibilities in the US or the West generally.
The failure to comprehend accurately the impact of faith and its all-inclusive nature constitutes the rock on which Mr Pawlenty's ideas of constructive engagement with the new forces of the Arab states must founder. While the people oriented toward secular concerns and world view dominated and continue to dominate the media coverage of events in the Arab states, these folk are a minority, even an endangered species. Many of the more secular minded are quite aware of this aspect of the post-authoritarian dynamic as is seen with the repeated calls in Egypt for a delay in the elections so as to allow the secularists to organize well enough to take on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist political groups.
Mr Pawlenty's call for the next president to motivate the Saudi royal house to take the path of reform is also quite otherworldly. The House of Saud exists today because of the bargain made generations ago to link its fortunes with those of the Wahhibists. There is no way on this Earth that the austere world view of Wahhibism would continence let alone participate in any sort of reform such as mentioned by T-paw. There is no chance that the Wahhibist theology is about to go along with extending any rights to non-Muslims or see the error of Mohammad's ways regarding the status of women.
In his remarks Mr Pawlenty warns against the elections which produce results antithetical to genuine democracy, authentic freedom. He may have had Iran in mind when he said this as there is no better example of a people committing political suicide at the ballot box than that. It will take far more than support for the "reform" movement of 2009 for the verdict of self-destruction by vote to be reversed. The Iranians willingly and to the later regret of some surrendered all vestiges of political autonomy to the dictates of theology. The same may happen in at least some of the Arab states celebrated as having sounded the tocsin of freedom by Mr Pawlenty.
A central point made by the presidential aspirant deserved more emphasis. The reality of political Islam, particularly violent political Islam will be with us for many, many years to come. As long as that reality existss the US will be the major target of its hate and violence. This status will not be removed even if the US were to unilaterally withdraw from every last member state of the Organization of the Islamic Conference--or even if the US were to vote for the dissolution of Israel.
The necessary conclusion is the US must not retreat to some sort of Fortress America. Surrender to violent political Islam is not an option simply because surrender will not work. It will not immunize the US against future attacks, future terror, future war. Nothing short of every last American--all 312 million of us--facing east and banging our foreheads on the floor would grant immunity from the hatred of the groups dedicated to violent political Islam.
The US may have, as Mr Pawlenty suggested, one political party which argues for American decline, withdrawal, disengagement and isolation. He thinks that there is no need for a second. He is right. He would have been even more on target had he said that one such party is one too many.
Monday, June 20, 2011
The GOP And A (False) Forced Choice
Congress, more specifically the House of Representatives, and most particularly the GOP members of the House, have twisted their panties over the propriety, or, at least, the legality of the ongoing American operation in Libya. The knot in the elephant's knickers is, of course, the War Powers Act. The Republicans have been huffing and puffing mightily over the Obama administration's purported failure to abide by the requirements of this act, an act, it deserves reminding ourselves, the Republicans have often and loudly decried as unconstitutional.
The Nice Young Man From Chicago in no way helped his position when he declared that the US was not engaged in "hostilities" as such might be construed in the context of the War Powers Resolution. This was an utterly preposterous notion which could only have been conceived by an academic with a potent lust for power. The president took an unworthy stance. By so doing he insulted the intelligence not only of the House Republicans but of Americans generally. As an example of legal pettifoggery, the presidential assertion was on a par with the similar legalistic parsing engaged in by Bill Clinton to prove that getting one's knob polished in the environs of the Oval was not engaging in sexual activity.
Now the hypocrites in Congress are locked in a face off with the hypocrite in the Oval. Regardless of which prevails in this imitation mano a mano exercise, the loser will be the United States. What is at stake in this affray is the ability of the US to operate effectively on the global stage in forthcoming years.
The bent-out-of-shape Republicans in the House along with their liberal Democratic colleagues are seeking not simply the humiliation of Obama or the further clipping of the imperial presidency's extensive wingspan or seeking to economize in parlous financial times but rather the forcing of a false choice between an isolationist stance on the part of the US or the continuation of "wars of choice' as defined by the president.
The Republican "deficit hawks" along with their very strange bedfellows, progressive Democrats, are forcing a clear and ongoing limitation on the ability of presidents to wage what has been called "wars of choice." The House leadership as well as most of the current Republican contenders for the Oval have been channeling the ghost of Robert Taft, the "Mr Republican" of sixty and more years ago. Senator Robert Taft of Ohio defined more than any other single man the concept of isolationism. More than other noted congressional proponents of this philosophy of total withdrawal from the political challenges of the world, Taft opposed any and all foreign "entanglements" and "adventures." In support of his position he advanced economic arguments as well as contending without end that not only would our overseas activities end in failure, they would produce more enemies than friends.
The soi dissant conservatives on the Red side of the aisle have been making the same Taft type contentions. Our overseas adventures whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, or Libya have ended in failure or will do so unless wound down speedily and completely. Our overseas adventures have made us far more enemies than they have created friends. And, certainly neither last nor least, our overseas adventures have been far too costly and can no longer be afforded.
The particular species of overseas adventure which has reigned supreme in the narratives of both progressive Democrat and deficit hawk Republican has been that of "wars of choice." This is a fine term. It gives the clear impression that presidents of both parties search the world from time to time looking for a war in which to involve ourselves. This is a specious notion but like all truly preposterous ideas it contains a small but critical measure of truth.
Considering all of the military interventions in which the US has participated since the Reagan administration there have been some which were clearly optional in the sense the US had no critical national interests at stake in the conflict. George H.W. Bush's humanitarian intervention in Somalia rests in the "optional" category. So does his adventure in regime change, Operation Just Cause in Panama. But the US response to the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait is of the "mandatory" sort. Key US national and strategic interests were in play in that war.
Bill Clinton's expansion of the Somalian operation fell in the "war of choice" column. The same is true with respect to the American operations in former Yugoslavia. The US had no bull in the herd in Somalia. The bloody implosion of what had once been the totally artificial state of Yugoslavia was of concern to Europe but not to the US, pace the recently deceased Larry Eagleburger.
The invasion of Afghanistan, if that use of force had been confined to the original mission statement, was mandatory, a justifiable exercise in retaliation to an attack on the US. However, George W.'s invasion of Iraq fell clearly in the "war of choice" category. It was an ideologically driven "build it and they will come" sort which produced if not a debacle certainly a bloody and expensive tragedy for both Americans and Iraqis, people who will be dealing with the aftershocks for decades if not generations to come.
The ideologically propelled "mission leap" in Afghanistan along with the "war of choice" in Iraq are the ghosts at the political banquet now being served over Libya. There is a delicious irony at the banquet. That irony resides in the main course of the meal--the War Powers Resolution.
The War Powers Resolution was passed by the Democratic Party controlled Congress as a reaction to the Vietnam War which was seen by the Democrats as having been a "war of choice" waged by imperial presidents. The Democrats who so loudly demanded limitations be placed on the president's capacity to wage war cheerfully ignored reality as they voted. The American entrance into the Vietnamese war was seen by both the Democratic presidents (JKF and LBJ) as well as the Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress to have been "mandatory."
If anything the documents show the congressional Democrats were far more willing and eager to go to war then either JFK or LBJ. The Democrats along with the Republicans understood our commitment to the South Vietnamese to be central to our guarantee of the global status quo during a very frigid period of the cold war. Support for the introduction of combat troops, the commencement of the air war against North Vietnam, and the central decision to escalate our forces in country were all monolithically supported by the Democratic Party. It was only after the war seemed (incorrectly) to have devolved to an unwinnable stalemate during the administration of the detested Richard Nixon that sentiment on the Blue side shifted so as to produce the War Powers Resolution.
Now the Republicans motivated by their political calculus are willing to invoke both the War Powers Resolution and the power of the purse to limit or end the Obama policy in Libya. Standing in opposition to the efforts of the deficit hawk Republicans and progressive Democrats to end the minimal American presence in the Libyan "war of choice" is the neocon outfit, The Foreign Policy Initiative," which authored an open letter to the House leadership imploring a rejection of the proposed strictures and urging an expansion of US efforts in the Libyan Affair.
The neocons are no more correct than are the wing clippers in the House. The answer to the problems of "wars of choice" is to be found in a more effective means of determining the nature of US interests in play in any given potential area of intervention. The critical difference between "mandatory" and "optional" wars is to be found in the answer to one question: What key national and strategic interests are to be served and to what degree by this proposed intervention?
Had this question been both posed and accurately answered, the US would have not invaded Iraq. It would not have expanded the mission in Afghanistan to include the impossibility of nation-building. And, the US would have sat out Libya as it did conflicts even more bloody elsewhere in Africa. The "wars of choice" all share a common feature--they were driven by ideology. True, the ideology might have been clothed attractively in American values, norms, aspirations. The motive might have been expressed in pleasant words regarding democracy, transparency, or the evil nature of repressive regimes. The matter of refugees might have been adduced in support as well as concealment of the underlying ideological imperatives.
There is only one reason to go to war--when there is no realistic alternative way by which a better state of peace as defined by American national and strategic interests exists. There is one large reason not to go to war--when the motive is one of ideology, of belief, of personal or collective vision.
How to parse between the two is the only effective way to assure the US does not waste blood and treasure in pursuit of impossible dreams. And, parsing between the two is the only way to assure that when war in the national interest is necessary, we have the way and will to do so with success.
Of course, Congress being what it is, there is no chance the Deep Thinkers in that body any more than the Great Strategists in and near the Oval will consider this matter, the only matter which genuinely counts for more than a few votes more or less in some future election.
The Nice Young Man From Chicago in no way helped his position when he declared that the US was not engaged in "hostilities" as such might be construed in the context of the War Powers Resolution. This was an utterly preposterous notion which could only have been conceived by an academic with a potent lust for power. The president took an unworthy stance. By so doing he insulted the intelligence not only of the House Republicans but of Americans generally. As an example of legal pettifoggery, the presidential assertion was on a par with the similar legalistic parsing engaged in by Bill Clinton to prove that getting one's knob polished in the environs of the Oval was not engaging in sexual activity.
Now the hypocrites in Congress are locked in a face off with the hypocrite in the Oval. Regardless of which prevails in this imitation mano a mano exercise, the loser will be the United States. What is at stake in this affray is the ability of the US to operate effectively on the global stage in forthcoming years.
The bent-out-of-shape Republicans in the House along with their liberal Democratic colleagues are seeking not simply the humiliation of Obama or the further clipping of the imperial presidency's extensive wingspan or seeking to economize in parlous financial times but rather the forcing of a false choice between an isolationist stance on the part of the US or the continuation of "wars of choice' as defined by the president.
The Republican "deficit hawks" along with their very strange bedfellows, progressive Democrats, are forcing a clear and ongoing limitation on the ability of presidents to wage what has been called "wars of choice." The House leadership as well as most of the current Republican contenders for the Oval have been channeling the ghost of Robert Taft, the "Mr Republican" of sixty and more years ago. Senator Robert Taft of Ohio defined more than any other single man the concept of isolationism. More than other noted congressional proponents of this philosophy of total withdrawal from the political challenges of the world, Taft opposed any and all foreign "entanglements" and "adventures." In support of his position he advanced economic arguments as well as contending without end that not only would our overseas activities end in failure, they would produce more enemies than friends.
The soi dissant conservatives on the Red side of the aisle have been making the same Taft type contentions. Our overseas adventures whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, or Libya have ended in failure or will do so unless wound down speedily and completely. Our overseas adventures have made us far more enemies than they have created friends. And, certainly neither last nor least, our overseas adventures have been far too costly and can no longer be afforded.
The particular species of overseas adventure which has reigned supreme in the narratives of both progressive Democrat and deficit hawk Republican has been that of "wars of choice." This is a fine term. It gives the clear impression that presidents of both parties search the world from time to time looking for a war in which to involve ourselves. This is a specious notion but like all truly preposterous ideas it contains a small but critical measure of truth.
Considering all of the military interventions in which the US has participated since the Reagan administration there have been some which were clearly optional in the sense the US had no critical national interests at stake in the conflict. George H.W. Bush's humanitarian intervention in Somalia rests in the "optional" category. So does his adventure in regime change, Operation Just Cause in Panama. But the US response to the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait is of the "mandatory" sort. Key US national and strategic interests were in play in that war.
Bill Clinton's expansion of the Somalian operation fell in the "war of choice" column. The same is true with respect to the American operations in former Yugoslavia. The US had no bull in the herd in Somalia. The bloody implosion of what had once been the totally artificial state of Yugoslavia was of concern to Europe but not to the US, pace the recently deceased Larry Eagleburger.
The invasion of Afghanistan, if that use of force had been confined to the original mission statement, was mandatory, a justifiable exercise in retaliation to an attack on the US. However, George W.'s invasion of Iraq fell clearly in the "war of choice" category. It was an ideologically driven "build it and they will come" sort which produced if not a debacle certainly a bloody and expensive tragedy for both Americans and Iraqis, people who will be dealing with the aftershocks for decades if not generations to come.
The ideologically propelled "mission leap" in Afghanistan along with the "war of choice" in Iraq are the ghosts at the political banquet now being served over Libya. There is a delicious irony at the banquet. That irony resides in the main course of the meal--the War Powers Resolution.
The War Powers Resolution was passed by the Democratic Party controlled Congress as a reaction to the Vietnam War which was seen by the Democrats as having been a "war of choice" waged by imperial presidents. The Democrats who so loudly demanded limitations be placed on the president's capacity to wage war cheerfully ignored reality as they voted. The American entrance into the Vietnamese war was seen by both the Democratic presidents (JKF and LBJ) as well as the Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress to have been "mandatory."
If anything the documents show the congressional Democrats were far more willing and eager to go to war then either JFK or LBJ. The Democrats along with the Republicans understood our commitment to the South Vietnamese to be central to our guarantee of the global status quo during a very frigid period of the cold war. Support for the introduction of combat troops, the commencement of the air war against North Vietnam, and the central decision to escalate our forces in country were all monolithically supported by the Democratic Party. It was only after the war seemed (incorrectly) to have devolved to an unwinnable stalemate during the administration of the detested Richard Nixon that sentiment on the Blue side shifted so as to produce the War Powers Resolution.
Now the Republicans motivated by their political calculus are willing to invoke both the War Powers Resolution and the power of the purse to limit or end the Obama policy in Libya. Standing in opposition to the efforts of the deficit hawk Republicans and progressive Democrats to end the minimal American presence in the Libyan "war of choice" is the neocon outfit, The Foreign Policy Initiative," which authored an open letter to the House leadership imploring a rejection of the proposed strictures and urging an expansion of US efforts in the Libyan Affair.
The neocons are no more correct than are the wing clippers in the House. The answer to the problems of "wars of choice" is to be found in a more effective means of determining the nature of US interests in play in any given potential area of intervention. The critical difference between "mandatory" and "optional" wars is to be found in the answer to one question: What key national and strategic interests are to be served and to what degree by this proposed intervention?
Had this question been both posed and accurately answered, the US would have not invaded Iraq. It would not have expanded the mission in Afghanistan to include the impossibility of nation-building. And, the US would have sat out Libya as it did conflicts even more bloody elsewhere in Africa. The "wars of choice" all share a common feature--they were driven by ideology. True, the ideology might have been clothed attractively in American values, norms, aspirations. The motive might have been expressed in pleasant words regarding democracy, transparency, or the evil nature of repressive regimes. The matter of refugees might have been adduced in support as well as concealment of the underlying ideological imperatives.
There is only one reason to go to war--when there is no realistic alternative way by which a better state of peace as defined by American national and strategic interests exists. There is one large reason not to go to war--when the motive is one of ideology, of belief, of personal or collective vision.
How to parse between the two is the only effective way to assure the US does not waste blood and treasure in pursuit of impossible dreams. And, parsing between the two is the only way to assure that when war in the national interest is necessary, we have the way and will to do so with success.
Of course, Congress being what it is, there is no chance the Deep Thinkers in that body any more than the Great Strategists in and near the Oval will consider this matter, the only matter which genuinely counts for more than a few votes more or less in some future election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)