Internal War--Neocons And The Tea Party

Like the shambling corpses in the classic black and white version of Night of the Living Dead, the neocon ninnies have been resurrected by the fragrant miasma surrounding the "Jasmine" and "Lotus" revolutions.  Eliot Abrams and Joshua Muravchik having been baying in the van, eager for a faster, harder intervention in Libya and chomping after the chance to depose Bashir Assad.

Back east (from the Geek's perspective) in the soon-to-be-wilds of caucus Iowa, the redoubtable neocon hawk John Bolton, in the context of a conservative Republican cattle call, not only lambasted the Obama view of foreign policy, he advised the GOP to add foreign policy to its current two arrow quiver.  The nonpareil unilateralist and one time UN ambassador is obviously of the view that foreign affairs will be an ever larger component of the domestic political scene--and all the Republican front runners were monumentally deficient in this aspect of the presidential job description.

Bolton's understanding both of the increasing importance of American foreign relations and the lack of both experience and talent in this area represented within the Republican front bench may be accurate, but it is far from unchallenged within the ranks of the elephants.  The Tea Party movement, or at least its favorites which gained election this past November, does not constitute a cheering section for US engagement with the rest of the world.

Senator Rand Paul has staked out an isolationist position which makes the (in)famous isolationists of the Thirties seem almost like globalists in comparison.  Other Republicans--not just Senator Paul's dad, Ron--are all for slicing and dicing foreign aid in all its myriad forms.  There seems to be a near universal consensus among those on the right of the aisle to stop paying dues or other assessments to the UN.

At the same time the standard issue defense conservatives of the GOP seek to keep as much money as possible flowing to the Pentagon, regardless of all other considerations.  It does not seem to be "more bang for the buck" so much as "more bucks for more bangs."

As if all these different and contradictory currents were not confusing enough, Republicans in Congress are simultaneously for and against the Obama intervention in Libya.  They are for it in the sense of feeling good because Made in the USA bombs and missiles are macerating goodly numbers of Gaddafi thugs.  They are against it because (a) Obama treated Congress like a collection of mushrooms, (2) the US isn't running the show, (3) the administration dithered too much, too long, (4) because it looks as if the US is dancing to a French tune.

The picture of Republican foreign policy is more disjointed and disjarring than one of Jackson Pollock's exercises in random splattering.  By comparison the Obama understanding of how to conduct the nation's international business appears almost rational, well considered, and tightly braided.

As the line on Monty Python ran, "Stop this sketch!  This sketch is silly."

The Republicans had best get a grip on a very inconvenient truth: The Man With The Moustache is probably right--foreign affairs will be far more central to American presidential (and congressional) politics a year hence than it is today.  At the same time both the neocons and the isolationist tilted members of the GOP and Tea Party movement are as wrong as a soup sandwich.

This set of contentions does not mean nor imply that the Obama hyper-multilateralist, apologetic, deferential way of dealing with the world is right.  It is not.  It is as wrong as grilled watermelon.

There are a couple of ground truths involved which render Obama as well as the neocons and the neo-isolationists wrong.

The first of these is simply that the US is a Great Power.  It is not simply first among equals.  It stands alone in its mixture of hard and soft power capacities.  There is an implicit but quite evident corollary to this.  The rest of the world is not only comfortable with this but expects the concomitant American leadership when unpleasant bumps occur in the global night.  (OK, to err on the side of accuracy, there are some states which are quite unhappy with the status quo, examples include Iran, Venezuela, and the two rivals, China and Russia.)

The second and equally critical foundational truth is this: The only sure guide to a state's foreign policy and diplomatic relations is national interest.  True, principles, that is, national norms, values, ideals, and aspirations as well as the inducements and constraints of domestic politics are an important component of the process by which national interest is defined, but they are not the sole determinants of this interest.

This positive statement is accompanied by a negative.  The worst, the absolutely worst basis for determining either national interest or foreign policy is ideology.  Ideologically driven approaches lead to blunders as in Iraq.  This is why the neocon approach is doomed to counterproductive failure.  As history has demonstrated times beyond counting, institutions cannot be transplanted to new and strange environments by force of arms.

The inapposite nature of ideologically predicated foreign policy is also why the unquestioningly multilateralist stance of the Obama administration is wrong.  The same can be applied to the neo-isolationist understanding of the Pauls and their soulmates in and out of Congress.  No Great Power has ever resigned its status.  The other countries just won't allow it without imposing very large and quite unacceptable costs.  Unless, of course, one considers the cost in lives and treasure extracted by World War II to have been just fine.

Looking ahead, it is necessary to ask a question: Have the events of the so-called "Arab Spring" been an earthquake or simply a foreshock?  A year from now will the world be shaking to aftershocks or will the real earthquake, a temblor of ten on the global political Richter scale?

Consider what might plausibly occur over the next six to twelve months in the Mideast alone.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood may gain political dominance through the much celebrated "democratic process" and, having done so, drop its secular cover and revert to its base: violent political Islam.  The MB has the advantage of tight organization, a well established hierarchy, a long developed agenda, and a large amount of perceived legitimacy.  Also, there is no reason to conclude that it has abandoned its core definer of commitment to political Islam including,where necessary, that of the violent sort.

If the Assad regime is overthrown, the most likely outcome will be a Sunni regime dominated by advocates of violent political Islam with any number of domestic and regional scores to settle and goals to accomplish.  Or, if hard pressed, the Assad government might choose to unite its restive population with the time honored technique of an external war.  Or, as a wrinkle to this, Hezbollah may be turned loose by its two sponsors, Syria and Iran, with predictable consequences for the region.

Libya may well turn out as a stalemate, a divided entity caught in a slow motion semi-internal war.  It is equally possible that the post-Gaddafi country will be one in which the Sufi inclined majority falls under the control of the Salifist derived advocates of violent political Islam who are quite thick on the ground of Eastern Libya, Cyrenaica.  This would give AQIM a secure and wealthy base of operations.  It would also mean for the majority of Libyans that they have simply exchanged a secular authoritarian regime for one of a Koran waving nature.

There is a better than excellent chance Yemen will collapse into a welter of feuding regions and tribes in which the single greatest "winner" will be AQAP.  In this regard it is well to recall that Secretary Gates this past weekend termed AQAP the largest threat confronting the West from all the assorted franchises of bin Laden's group.  Saudi Arabia would be put square in the crosshairs of AQAP should it emerge as the most potent faction in the riven remnants of Yemen.

Then, of course, there is Iran.  There is always Iran.  The mullahs will be a year closer to the goal of the "Mahdi Bomb."  The Iranian government will have had more months to cultivate and spread influence among the Shia of Iraq, Bahrain, and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.  (Recall that the Eastern Province is majority Shia as well as the most prolific producer of oil in the kingdom.)

The Israeli-Palestinian Question will not be answered in the next few months.  The resumption of rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza points in a dangerous direction.  So does the restart of IED attacks mounted in all probability from the West Bank of the Palestinian Authority.  Once again the dead and the fearful will direct policy on both sides.  This implies the cycle of strike and counterstrike will escalate slowly but inexorably over the next year--unless a more dramatic war intervenes on the Northern Front of Israel.

This set of seismic shocks yet to come has been restricted to the Mideast.  The rest of the world has been ignored intentionally but this in no way should be taken to imply the rest of the globe--North Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, even Latin America will be monuments to peace, love, and flower power, sections of the globe where overage diplomats and military officers can be safely put out to pasture, free to rusticate without unpleasant demands placed upon them.

John Bolton was right.  And, it would be good for the Herd of Elephants to pay attention to him.  Foreign matters will come closer and closer to center stage.  This will be the case to an even greater degree if We the People become more optimistic about the economy over the next year and if, (unlikely as this may be) Congress addresses the deficit to more than a symbolic degree.

The US has suffered through eighteen years of ideologically driven, situationally naive presidents.  We have at least two more years of this enervating situation yet to go.  Is it too much to hope that the days of True Belief will come to an end--along with the decline of American influence and status in the world--in 2012?

Unfortunately it is.  That is unless either Obama bows out or the Republicans come up with a person capable of being a president who is not out of his depth when he must play his role on the world stage.

And, make no mistake about it, the next president will have to play a great role--for the earthquake is yet to come.

Sarkozy Storms The Golan--But Will He Take It?

Nicholas Sarkozy is a take-charge-and-move-out sort of man. Since the French "Elect-A-King" form of government wisely places foreign policy and military matters firmly in the hands of the president, Sarkozy is able to work on his own policy imperatives as such are seen solely by him and his cabinet to further French national and strategic interests.

With this as context and taken in conjunction with M. Sarkozy's firm disdain for aspects of Islamic life and politics, it is neither surprising nor out of character for him to have jumped in what is potentially the most profitable direction for Mideast peace. During a recent Paris meeting between himself and Bashir Assad, the French president offered his assistance in gaining Israeli agreement to the return of the Golan to Syria.

By focusing on Syria and ignoring the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and the other diversions so beloved by the Obama administration, M. Sarkozy is being both realistic and willing to take a risk. He made no flights of glittering (and historically wrong) rhetoric praising Arabs and Islam. Nor did he demand the Israelis do something dramatic--and self-destructive.

All M. Sarkozy did was to build upon his good personal relations with both Assad and Israeli PM Netanyahu as well as his correct understanding that Syria was the key player in the Mideast. He called upon both countries to start direct negotiations without preconditions.

Of course, Sarko knows that there is one precondition resident in any talks between Israel and Syria. That, of course, is the Golan Heights. Israel must commit to rapidly and completely leave the Golan in order for any Israeli-Syrian peace talks to have meaning.

Assad knows this. Netanyahu knows this. Presumably any individual with any interest in and knowledge of the dynamics of the Mideast knows it as well.

Syria regains full control and exercise of sovereignty over the Golan Heights and a peace treaty comes quick and complete. Syria does not regain full control and exercise of sovereignty over the Golan Heights and there will be no Mideast peace regardless of any papers signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The Golan Heights represents the purist and most difficult test of Israel's desire for peace. If the government of Mr Netanyahu does not take up M. Sarkozy's offer promptly and effectively, the only legitimate conclusion is that Israel does not genuinely want permanent peace in the region regardless of what it might say.

The Golan Heights issue is clear, constrained, well defined, and free of the complications resident in the other disputed territories. Israel has no legitimate security concerns involved in the Golan. It has had no real-world military anxieties regarding the Golan region for at least thirty years. Not only has the UN monitoring mission worked completely, the changes in military technology which have occurred over the past three and more decades obviate the slight justification for the initial Israeli occupation forty-two years ago.

A refusal by Israel under whatsoever coloration to pick up the Sarkozy offer cannot help but put the lie to all that country's allegations of "security" issues being the fatal obstacle to regional peace. A refusal to work out the details of quickly returning the Golan Heights to Syria proves to even a very Israelophilic observer that the June War of 1967 was a land (and water) grab pure and simple. It would demonstrate to even an Arabophobic observer that the oft repeated Arab allegations that Israel is an aggressive, expansionist state have a strong seed of truth.

The Obama administration should be strongly backing the French offer. It is not enough simply to undo a bit of the damage in US-Syrian relations inflicted by the Bush/Cheney bunch. It is necessary to accept that Assad is a very, very important player in the region. More important than Mubarak or Abdullah II or even the Saudi monarch.

The administration should be doing all it can in support of the French move since the Golan is the clearest, purest, and most readily achievable test of both Israeli and Arab willingness to make peace. Best of all, dealing with Assad does not require either bowing to the Saudis, kissing the hem of Muslim skirts, or making any demands upon the Israelis which would be politically onerous.

Yes, there is one demand that must be laid on Israel. It is simple. Easy to understand. Hard to evade with honor and veracity intact.

Here it is: Put up or shut up. If you want peace, make it march. If you don't, just go ahead and stall, wiggle around, play word games, pull out the Israel Lobby, but the fact remains that you won't have peace and you have been exposed as a land (and water) snatching miniature imperialist. That would make continued American support very difficult.

The administration and President Obama must understand that the Sarkozy gambit has the potential to break open the stalemated game of peace making in the Mideast. Sure, it must bruise your ego(s) a bit to have the upstart Frenchman, who reputedly remarked to his cabinet apropos the US president, "Beam up, Barrak," accomplish a feat which has eluded your blandishments and threats alike.

But, Mr Obama, Ms Clinton, and the rest of you: If you really, really want peace in the Mideast, the time has come to take second place to the French and back them to the fullest.