Well, In Afghanistan, It's That Time Of Year--Again

Traditionally, the campaigning season in Afghanistan starts around Mayday.  The snows in the high passes have melted; travel across the FATA/Afghanistan border is easier.  The high country cold has retreated and so the armies can advance.

While the winter break this time around has not been as pronounced as in previous years and wars, the tempo of enemy driven operations is expected to increase over the next few weeks.  As that happens, as the number of Taliban or Haqqani network suicide bombers grows, as the density of IEDs ticks up, so also will the number of friendly forces killed and wounded.  Equally important, as the tempo of operations accelerates, the number of incidents involving collateral non-combatant casualties will ramp up as well.

As the bodies of maimed or dead non-combatants are piled higher and higher, Afghan outrage at the actions of the Americans and other infidel foreigners will escalate as well.  It will not matter if the dead die as a result of insurgent actions or those of the US/ISAF/Afghan National Forces, the result will be the same--demands that the Americans stop whatever it is that they are doing.  One can be sure that both the Karzai government and Muslim clerics supportive of political Islam will be in full-throated anger over the purported massacres of Afghan women and children.

The combination of religious and political imperatives admits of nothing else.  To Muslims, the notion that Muslims kill Muslims is infinitely less unacceptable than is the killing of Muslims by infidels.  Even the indiscriminate slaughter by IED is seen by Afghans as less worthy of condemnation than a misguided airstrike or a stray artillery round, or even the nocturnal raid of an insurgent occupied compound by infidel forces.

The single largest advantage enjoyed by the insurgents is the simple fact that they are Muslims and as such are not subject to condemnation under the guiding Islamic stricture of avoiding any appearance of division, of disagreement within the community of believers.  The power this particular and very fundamental requirement holds on most Muslims precludes any opposition to even the worst excesses of the tactics of murder practiced by Taliban or any other insurgent group.

At the same time the demands of solidarity within Islam as well as the division of all humanity into the opposing camps of "the House of Peace" (Islam) and the "House of War" (infidels, that is everyone who is not a proper Muslim) assures that all culpability for all casualties within the former is assigned unthinkingly to the latter.  As a consequence, the infidels are to blame when one Muslim kills another--particularly when the killing is technically unintentional as is always the case with an IED and is plausibly claimed with respect to suicide bombers hitting soft, civilian targets.

As Taliban et al escalate their efforts this Spring, it is to be expected that Afghan support for a compromise peace will grow with every non-combatant casualty.  The Karzai government will be found baying in the van of the "peace now" movement in Afghanistan.  Insofar as it can escape its ISI minders so also will much of Taliban.  This group has taken very heavy hits at its mid-level ranks as well as among its footsoldiers from the US/NATO/ISAF moves into their former heartlands.  The leadership echelon has also been the victim of attrition courtesy of the UAV attacks in the FATA.

The Haqqani network is unlikely to join in any peace oriented conversations as it is joined shoulders and hip with ISI.  Frantic to secure its fiction of strategic depth against the Indians, there is no way that either ISI or the Pakistani military will surrender any control over either the Haqqani network or any factions within the badly riven Taliban.  Nothing scares the Pakistani military more than the prospect they will lose a seat at the head of the table as Afghanistan enters its endgame phase.

No mistake should be made about this: The Afghanistan war is entering its endgame this spring.  Regardless of protestations to the contrary by, for example, NATO foreign ministers, the US and its "partners" will start an accelerating process of disengagement this summer.  The political realities within the various countries dictate an exit sooner rather than later and at any cost less than a frank admission of military failure or defeat.

No less an expert on covering the political posterior than Harry Reid in the course of an interview filled with internal inconsistencies has acknowledged the pull-out will be coming with greater certainty than Nancy Pelosi's next injection of Botox.  In short compass, the Nevada senator stated that he had "no confidence" in the war coming to a satisfactory conclusion, averred great respect and confidence in the optimistic predictions of General Petraeus, and blamed the upcoming debacle on the American public's "short attention span."  To cut to the chase, the Democratic leader expects the minority support for the war to erode further and for the war to be an issue of note in next year's elections which can be addressed successfully only by a withdrawal.

The situation is the same in all the other Western participants.  The war has no support among the various electorates.  Given the totality of economic and political circumstances, there is no real stomach for continuing the effort anywhere.  Even the several combatant forces are not enthralled with going on with a war which is fundamentally one which cannot be won for circumstances far removed from the sphere of military competence.

As night falls in the next few months, the best which can be expected is the infliction of sufficient damage on Taliban and the Haqqani network to force a compromise peace which does not favor the advocates of violent political Islam.  Afghanistan will remain a semi-hollow state with much of the real power accruing to Islamabad at the expense of Kabul.  The country will remain a cesspool of Shariah in all its reprehensible manifestations.  It will exist as an area ripe for exploitation by outsiders including both Russia and China, both of which have an eye on the vast mineral resources proved out by American experts.  Once again the biggest losers will be as was the case the last time the US disengaged from Afghanistan the people of the place who desire to live without the oppression of a Ninth Century regime.

The tragedy of it all is that the debacle was a 'preventable accident.'  Had the Bush/Cheney administration focused on executing a punitive expedition without any thought of either appeasing Pakistan or playing at nation-building in Afghanistan, the outcome would have been vastly different.  Had the military used a more relevant doctrine in the opening months of the war, the outcome would have been vastly different.  Had President Obama not given into a momentary snit and fired the only man, General McChrystal, capable of going mano a mano with Karzai--and winning, the outcome would have been vastly different.  If General Petraeus could be as good at fighting a war as he is at practicing military (and Congressional) politics, the outcome would have been vastly different.  If President Obama had the guts and realism so sadly lacking with President George W. Bush and not given in to the extortion efforts of the Pakistanis, the outcome would have been vastly different.

But, what has happened, happened.  The war will soon start fading away to an endstate which will not be fully satisfactory and an accompaniment of whimpers and recriminations.  However, if the US and its partners can inflict sufficient losses on the insurgents and keep on with the decapitation strikes in the FATA while coddling Karzai to the fullest extent necessary, it is not too late to retrieve enough of an imitation of victory to make the sacrifices of life, limb, and money almost justifiable.

The Wonders Of Democracy In Iraq Or Have We A New Saddam Here?

Observers of Iraq since the end of American combat operations have focused correctly on the state of play in the new "democratic" government which is the legacy of the Great Adventure In Regime Change.  What has been evolving in Iraq shows all the dangers resident in celebrating "democracy" without proper regard to all the contextual factors which can allow democracy to be other than a portal to authoritarianism.

The most visible sign of something awry in Iraq was the seemingly never ending failure of the Maliki apparatus to form a functioning government following parliamentary elections.  The inability of the government to organize itself was illustrative of the deep fractures which characterize politics in post-Saddam Iraq.  Even leaving aside the many questions regarding the fairness and accuracy of the parliamentary vote, the deep ruptures running across Iraqi society and polity virtually make effective and responsive government impossible.

Maliki has already shown a propensity toward the authoritarian which far transcends his main rival.  Even though Mr Maliki has ambitions to near dictatorship, his government has proven itself inefficient and corrupt to a degree which has excited "days of rage" in many Iraqi cities.  The protests resulted in deaths as security forces opened fire with small arms.  As the deaths mounted so also have the protests.

The security forces have rounded up Baghdad intellectuals--lawyers, journalists, and academics--subjecting those arrested to beatings and intimidating interrogations before finally releasing them.  While this scarcely amounts to the sort of activity routinely engaged in by Saddam's internal security personnel, the arrests like the use of deadly force against peaceful albeit noisy demonstrators points in an alarming direction.

Even more alarming has been the steady accretion of power by Maliki.  In a move without equal in any parliamentary government elsewhere in the world, Maliki and his cabinet have been given unique authority by the Iraqi equivalent of the Supreme Court.  In a ruling which was stunning in both its breadth and lack of constitutional basis, the high court ruled that only Maliki and his cabinet could propose legislation to the parliament.  The legislators could not propose any legislation on their own initiative.  In effect this makes the Iraqi parliament something less than relevant.

The obliging court also gave Maliki control over the previously independent central bank.  It also made the formerly independent agencies responsible for investigating corruption and conducting elections mere tools in Maliki's ever grasping hands.

Additionally, human rights groups in Iraq have alleged credibly that Maliki's security forces have created secret detention centers in which dissidents are immured.  If this is not a symptom of creeping authoritarianism it would be hard to say what might be.

The record of Maliki's government is dismal at best.  As Iraqi citizens have complained in the street and elsewhere, the basic infrastructure is still a mess.  Electricity is still off nearly as much as it is on.  The economy is still in a shambles despite the ocean of oil a few thousand feet down.  Unemployment remains high.  And, inflation particularly in basics is on the up ramp.

Then, of course, the tensions between Shiite and Sunni remain.  So also do those between Arab and Kurd.  The purportedly secularist regime of Maliki;s State of Law party has shown a tilt toward the Shiite majority and most definitely against the Sunni minority.  This tendency emerged dramatically with the refusal of the Maliki government to honor commitments made to the Sons of Iraq and Awakening Councils which are Sunni and were key to the success of the American counterinsurgency effort.  Since then the government has marginalized the Sunni population even more.

The security situation has gone south over the entire period since the American combat forces withdrew.  The bombings have been directed against Shiites much of the time but there has been no evidence, not even credible rumors, pointing the finger at Sunnis.  The cynical killing of Shiites by Shiites is not unprecedented in Iraq and would fit the agenda of both Iran and its agents in Iraq.  It would also meet the agenda of a wannabe dictator, particularly one who happens to be a Shiite.  Maliki has control of specialist security units capable of undertaking spectacular operations whether the targets are government facilities, Shiite pilgrims, or Christian churches and homes.

It is more than simply interesting that persons suspected of involvement in bombings and assassinations are arrested in a blare of publicity but then simply fade away.  No trials.  No convictions.  No executions.  Nothing.  Considering that one of the fastest roads to total authority is creating a climate of disorder and lack of safety, that there is a loud demand for law'n'order, it is not implausible that Maliki and his cohorts have orchestrated at least some of the prevailing insecurity.

The schism between the Arabs of Baghdad and the Kurds in their semi-autonomous region has grown of late again at the behest of the central government.  The Kurds may be obstreperous but they have shown themselves to be rational negotiators.  The current talks over the status of Kirkuk and the oil fields surrounding it could come to a satisfactory conclusion, but the Maliki government keeps upping the ante as if looking for an excuse to turn the army loose in the region.

As the clock ticks down to the date certain when the last American forces withdraw, the influence of the US declines apace.  The loss of American influence is exacerbated by the Obama's administration which appears flatly indifferent to what is happening in Iraq in the wake of our unilaterally declared victory.  Unlike Vietnam the Obama administration has not even sought a "decent interval" before Iraq's "democracy" collapses into an authoritarian regime.

It is more than slightly ironic that as pro-democracy movements have spread across many Arab majority states, the tide is running in the opposite direction in Iraq.  Increasing the irony is the crowing of unreconstructed neo-cons over the flood of protests ranging from Tunisia to Yemen as having proved just how right, how prescient was George W. Bush when he ordered the invasion of Iraq.  It certainly looks like the American monument to democracy built with the blood of so many Americans and so much American money is at great risk of imploding into an imitation of the dictatorship it was intended to replace.

The lesson here is simple and brutal.  It is far easier to talk about nation-building than it is to do it.  It is easier to envision the creation of a Western style democracy than it is to realize the vision.  Or, most simply: Democracies can not be created; they can only create themselves.

Pakistan's Double Game

Virtually everyone in every damn intelligence service in the West who knows a bloody thing about Afghanistan, the Taliban, and, last, but most important, Pakistan, has been aware for two decades that the "Students" (to use the correct translation of "Taliban,") have been and remain the creature of the government of Pakistan and more specifically, the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI.) Noises to this effect have sounded lightly in the MSM of the West from time to time over the years, but never loudly nor with much definition.

The London Times has finally ripped the curtain of silence to small shreds with an article drawing on a well done paper from the London School of Economics, which institution has a plethora of expertise far surpassing the dismal science for which it is named. Based upon extensive interviews with past and present Taliban figures as well as former and current ISI personnel and others in the government of Pakistan, the conclusion of the report is both stark and irrefutable. It was quite pleasant to read in an open source the unspeakable truth: ISI is the ongoing mainbrace of Taliban and this is known to and approved of by the Pakistani government at the highest level, the country's president, Asif Ali Zardari.

Despite all the odious protestations of the Bush/Cheney administration and its successor under Obama that Pakistan is an ally in a joint war against "terrorism" or "radical extremism" or simply the named groups al-Qaeda and Taliban, the truth is simply that Pakistan consorts more eagerly with the enemy than it does with the US. Not even the billions in bribes have served to budge the government of Pakistan, or the Pakistani army, let alone ISI from the course of supporting, facilitating, assisting, the Scrofulous Vermin of the Koran.

There are good reasons for the position adopted by Islamabad in the closing days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. At that time it appeared Pakistan could create strategic depth for itself by using a proxy force to rule Afghanistan when the Red Army finally headed home. The US was indifferent. As long as the Soviets got and stayed got, the administrations of Reagan and H.W. Bush were happy. No one at the top two levels of the national security and foreign policy staffs cared for the nuances of Afghan politics nor the fine grained details of just how Pakistan sought to outpoint India in their never ending conflict.

During the years of assisting the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance Americans had come to find the Afghans to be a very difficult sort to work with. There was no great objection from the fieldhand level when the endgame of the proxy effort against the Red Army was turned over to the Paks.

It has to be admitted that the Pakistanis took to the assignment with vim, vigor, and vitality. They were skilled and able in the task of taking the young men from the Saudi funded madrassas near the border and turning them into the Taliban. The ISI guys were Muslim, some quite oriented to political Islam and all that implies. They were also good nationalists and were oblivious to the ill effects Taliban had on the Afghan social, political, and economic life as long as the strategic interests of Pakistan were served.

For some years the ISI para-military officers rode high. Afghanistan was dominated by Taliban. Other ISI created and run Muslim entities waged asymmetrical war against the Indian main enemy particularly in Kashmir. During the same stretch of time in the mid to late nineties, ISI became increasing aware of and entwined with al-Qaeda.

This is not to say that ISI either worked directly with or abetted Osama bin Laden or even knew of specific plans, but rather that ISI had a loose working relation with al-Qaeda, which came in handy for the Sublime Ethereal Shaykh when he and his associates relocated from Sudan to Afghanistan. Relations between ISI and Osama were warm enough that, when the US launched a cruise missile attack on the man's camp, he received a timely phone call from a Pakistani who knew the time the Tomahawks would be crossing Pakistani air space.

This one phone call, which had to be from a senior member of the Pakistani military or ISI, assured Osama was out of the impact area in a timely fashion. And, it assured the US would suffer the trauma of 9/11. Unsurprisingly, no heads rolled even metaphorically for this most treacherous phone message.

Even an observer no closer to the scene than the planet Mars could not have missed the way in which ISI personnel with al-Qaeda and Taliban wallahs in hand were able to leave Afghanistan by air and foot as the American boots advanced at an unduly leisurely rate. There are strong indications that the days following the American "invasion" constituted in part a carefully choreographed ballet between the Bush/Cheney neocon ninnies and the government, army, and intelligence service of our good and great ally, Pakistan. (Oh, may the winds of the universe grant the Geek a life long enough so that he can see the documents when they finally emerge from the Burn Before Reading file!)

Not to put too fine a point on the matter--the Pakistanis absolutely hate the US. Yes, there are individual exceptions, but the general climate of opinion in the hellhole of Pakistan is that there is an evil triad out to get them: India, Israel, and the US. The relative ranking of the three satanic powers varies over time, but none ever slip from the list no matter what the realities might be.

The government of Pakistan, its army, and ISI resonate perfectly with this climate. It propels the government to denounce the Predator strikes in the FATA even though interviews with the locals in the areas liable to Predator attention show support for the strikes. (Consult the archives of the Jamestown Terrorism Monitor for documentation.) The real deal is simply that the tribesmen exposed most up close and personal to the Taliban of either or both Pakistani or Afghan origin dislike them the most and are most pleased when a Hellfire missile energetically disassembles some Talib.

During the past year or so the government of Pakistan, its army, and even the puppet masters of ISI have come to realize that, like Dr Frankenstein, their monster has eluded complete control and threatens its creator. That more than any alleged US pressure (the Obama administration pressuring? Since when? Unless the victim is Israel) made it necessary for the army to go through the motions of fighting Taliban. The very methodical actions first in Swat and then in South Waziristan were calculated to provide ample opportunity for the bag guys to evacuate to safer areas while minimizing friendly fatalities.

Pakistan will undertake only the bare minimum of actions necessary to convince their homegrown Talibs to focus on India and the foreigners rather than attack domestically. At the same time the operations conducted by Pakistani security forces will make certain that the surviving Talib are better skilled in the arts of combat. In short, the Pakistanis are serving as a live fire course of instruction turning out more competent jihadi to fight the Americans and others in Afghanistan. In the alternative, the foreign jihadis subjected to the Pakistani courses of combat instruction will go home as much better fighters.

What a fine concept! If you are the government, army, and ISI of Pakistan.

Much as it pains the Geek to once more lay the responsibility for the bootless policy of the US toward Pakistan at the feet of the inept Bush/Cheney neocon ninnies considering that the Obama administration is even more adrift at the policy level, such is the ground truth. The simplest and perhaps most accurate explanation for the Bush/Cheney decision to bribe our pretend ally into a further pretense of alliance is that of inertia. Previous administrations had made the same superficial, not to say lame brained appreciation.

Not even the Pakistani success at evading our half-hearted efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program served as a wake-up call. The Pakistani possession of a rudimentary nuclear arsenal simply served then to provide an excuse for more soft treatment. ("We can't piss off the Paks! They have the freakin' bomb!)

This overlooked the fact that the US had never, (not since the Truman administration when India was first seen as a dangerously pro-Soviet leaning country), not even once, tried a hard touch on Islamabad. Also overlooked is the accompanying reality that no Muslim country has ever responded positively to any touch other than a hard one. Soft play, the play of pretense, and bribes breeds contempt, contempt for the weakness exhibited.

So where does the situation finally blown wide open by the Brits leave us and our allies in Afghanistan? Simple. Between a rock--Karzai's search for a separate peace--and a hard place--the ISI sponsorship and protection of Taliban.

The answer? There is an answer, not a complete one to be sure. With respect to Afghanistan, focus on killing as many of the hard core jihadis of Taliban and akin groups as possible while empowering to the maximum degree possible the self-organizing potentials of Afghans at the local level. In the FATA ,continue or, better, expand the Predator attacks to the greatest extent supportable by actionable intelligence so as to kill as many heavyweights--and ISI officers--as possible in the shortest period of time.

Pakistan is the tougher problem. The hole we have dug for ourselves there is too deep to be filled quickly. This means we had best limit our aid while preparing for ground and air actions so as to neutralize their nuclear stockpile and supporting facilities. Particularly if the political Islamist strain in the society and government--including the army and ISI--becomes oriented toward the notion of outdoing Iran in the capacity to use indirectly applied nuclear fire on an "infidel" target.

Most of all it is critical to cease privileging Islam. There is danger in pretending that political Islam is any different from Communism or National Socialism. It is an ideology hostile in all respects to the values, interests, and goals of the US and other civilized states. Further, it is aggressive, given to duplicity of a degree which would have embarrassed even Goebbels, and more implacable than Joe Stalin on a tear.

The unfortunate reality is that the war between political Islam and the civilized states has barely started. Equally unfortunate is the fact that Pakistan, even more than Iran, is the major epicenter of aggressive political Islam. Look at Pakistan and see the face of the enemy.

Personal Relations Do Matter, Mr Obama

Once upon a time a man was elected president. He was by nature cool, aloof, passionate in a detached, controlled fashion. This new president was an academic, a specialist in the American constitution. He focused on great themes, lofty ideals, the power of an informed and rational population. And, he eschewed the personal. The very notion of enduring, intimate contact leading to trust and confidence between individuals, including individual leaders, was outside his purview of understanding.

The man's name was Woodrow Wilson, not Barack Obama. However, Mr Obama has been giving the impression of having been channeling the spirit of Wilson in his conduct of foreign affairs--with one notable and troubling difference to be considered a bit later.

President Obama, like his predecessor of nearly a century ago, has focused rhetorically on very lofty, idealistic themes. Also, like the Princeton political science professor turned politician, Obama has sought to reach over the heads of government and state to strum the sentiments of the public at large.

Again like Wilson, Mr Obama has made the grave error of misinterpreting public applause and media approval as meaning that influence over the policies and actions of foreign governments had been achieved.

Wilson, for example, sincerely believed that the public huzzahs which greeted his arrival in Europe for the Versailles Peace Conference, the crowds lining the roads and railroad tracks, the flowers cast before his processions, the naming of streets, squares, and children after him, assured that his view of a perfect peace would be actualized regardless of the hostile positions taken by European leaders.

Wilson was as wrong. Desperately wrong. Ultimately disastrously wrong as proven by World War II.

Obama apparently drew a Wilsonian conclusion during his Great European Tour of 2008. This conclusion was evidently reinforced by public acclaim and media cheers not only with his Cairo Address but also during and subsequent to his other declamations in Europe, Turkey, and elsewhere.

Obama has been wrong. Desperately wrong. Fortunately, it is still early enough for him to see that he had been disastrously wrong. For this all one can write is, "Timing is everything."

Wilson's delusion and its failure came too late in his presidency, too late in his life to allow for corrective action, for a mid-course change. Obama has made his blunder early enough--and obviously enough--to not only allow but demand a change in direction.

Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and even the often maligned George W. Bush made very real, quite sincere, and often highly effective efforts to both understand and establish firm personal relations with their foreign counterparts. It was this aspect of foreign relations far more than the details of policy or the dynamic of day-to-day diplomacy which provided the basis of so much of the foreign policy successes of all three administrations.

Other presidents such as Jimmy Carter and even Bill Clinton (who had a fine capacity for projecting the political in personal terms on the campaign trail) did not establish the personal chemistry which typified the three Republican presidents. (To demonstrate that Republicans can make the same failure to personalize diplomacy at the highest levels, one need only consider the grave deficiencies in this area demonstrated by Richard Nixon.)

Lest one object that overly personalized, too friendly relations with a foreign leader would hinder an American president in conducting national policy it is only appropriate to recall that Dwight Eisenhower had a close relation with Anthony Eden which extended back to the early days of World War II. That in no way impaired Ike's capacity to personally tear a strip off Eden's backside when England joined co-conspirators France and Israel in the Suez War of 1956. Ike reportedly demonstrated his mastery of the profane, scatological, and obscene during his phone conversation with Eden over the ill-advised nature of the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion.

The shoe fits the other foot as well. The warm relations between Maggie Thatcher and George H.W. Bush did not prevent her making the famed, "Don't go all wobbly on me, George," comment during the run-up to the Gulf War in 1991. A strong argument can be made for the proposition that only the friendship which extended back to Bush's years as Reagan's veep allowed the comment to be both made and heeded.

Foreign relations are both made and executed by human beings. They are not the abstract product of soulless processes conducted by remote entities devoid of emotions, likes, and dislikes, and all the other myriad irrationalities which serve as the basis of human perceptions, beliefs, and actions. Nor are foreign relations conducted between mass abstracts such as "peoples."

Policy is made and executed by humans whether the worker bees low in an embassy's table of organization or as highly placed as the POTUS. Contact, understanding, even smelling the "emotional air" of the interlocutor are critical to gaining influence on the perceptions and actions of the other guy.

The abbreviated meeting between Hamid Karzai and the American president was not only important in its own right but also because it demonstrates that Obama may be coming to the slow realization that personal contact, face time, is critical to either the success or failure of US policy. So also may be his dinner tete a tete with Nicholas Sarkozy.

When Mr Obama was in Paris a few months ago he stiffed Sarkozy when invited to dine at the French president's residence. The reason given was Obama's need for a private night on the town with his wife.

Sarkozy did not appreciate being "Gordon Browned" by Obama and has wasted no opportunity over the subsequent months letting Washington know about his displeasure. Now Mr Obama is making amends--just as he did in Kabul when the "disinvitation" delivered to Karzai for a state visit to Washington was cancelled.

If President Obama is now in the amend making business he has a number of others to address. The list may be led by the name of the British prime minister. It was, after all, the shabby treatment afforded Mr Brown during his state visit shortly after the inauguration which gave first warning of the Obama indifference to personal relations.

The dissing of Brown looped with other, earlier indications to put Europe on notice of the major difference between Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama. The latter in no way shared with the former a focus on Europe. Indeed Obama often seemed totally uninterested in Europe as if it had already been cast into the waste heap labeled "The Past."

The malign indifference with which Mr Obama treated Europe on the personal level was rapidly mirrored by diplomatic disdain as evidenced by the blundering way in which the administration handled the change from land based ABM to a sea based equivalent in an apparent effort at truckling to Russian demands. That this resulted in a general growth of a "what-is-this?-I-thought-we-were-friends-or-at-least-allies" syndrome in the chancelleries of Europe is both understandable and fully expectable.

While cozying up with hostile regimes whether in Moscow, Beijing, Caracas, or even Tehran has it place, that place does not necessitate shoving long standing allies into the deepest diplomatic shadows. Leaving aside the irony that Mr Obama and his fellow progressives appear bent on turning the US into a clone of Western European democratic socialism, the fact remains that the US needs the wholehearted understanding and cooperation of Europe if any of its foreign policy goals are to be achieved. We and they and a handful of other states constitute what a former head of French intelligence brilliantly termed, "The League of Civilized States." We cannot forget that ground truth save at our peril--and theirs.

Obama needs a friend, a friend of the Maggie Thatcher sort, to tell him just that. Perhaps, just perhaps, the notably blunt spoken Sarkozy will prove to be the friend Obama so needs. That would make the dinner affair something beyond a mere fashion show featuring the two most shining examples of First Lady going today.

Let George Do It

No. Not George W. Bush. The "George" here refers to an old idiom which was common in the US until about a half century ago. The phrase, "Let George do it," meant quite simply, let someone else do the job; it's not our department.

In this case the "George" in question is the Peoples Republic of China. And, the "it" in question is North Korea. More specifically, the "it" means dealing with the twin conundrums: one serious, the other quite trivial (except for those directly involved in the fate of the two American women journalists facing twelve years as prisoners in the Hermit Kingdom of the North's hellish prisons).

To put it bluntly: The US does not have, never has had, and will not suddenly gain, the leverage necessary to either force or induce the Pyongyang politburo to comply with our policy requirements. The US never, repeat, never, should have invested the high-profile, high-visibility diplomatic prestige in the North Korean drive to become a semi-hemi-demi nuclear power.

Nearly fifteen years ago when the Clinton administration made the grave error of wading in to the North Korean swamp, the Geek forecast that by so doing the US would only invite both failure and a repeated requirement to, as SecDef Gates put it the other day, "Buy the same horse twice." The noisy, prolonged and ultimately failed Clinton push to preclude the Hermit Kingdom from pursuing a rudimentary nuclear capacity was one more example of the worst features (and the most common characteristics) of American foreign policy: ad hoc reaction to a perceived threat and the intermixing of domestic political imperatives with the needs of diplomacy.

As anyone and everyone familiar with the history of North Korean diplomatic methods must have known, the Clinton era efforts came to nothing. The same was expected and occurred when the neocons of the George W. Bush White House went after the same goal a decade or so later. The muscular fellows of the W. Bush years no more had the leverage either positive or negative to gain Hermit Kingdom compliance with American objectives than had the more touchy-feely types of the Clinton crew.

Not only were bilateral efforts doomed to fail, so also was the collective approach of the Six Power Talks. Effective sanctions were bootless right out of the box due to the fundamental disagreement between at least one of the powers and the rest.

China had a completely different take on the potential threat posed by North Korean ambitions from that informing the policy stance of the US, South Korea and Japan. China had as well a view of its own interests which did not mesh well with the policy requirements of the US.

Quite frankly, the Beijing government did not and does not see North Korea as a threat in either the near or the far-term. Knees did not knock in the Forbidden City as they apparently did in Washington over the prospect of the Hermit Kingdom developing some pretense of a nuclear capability. This despite the fact that China is far, far closer to North Korea than the US or Japan.

China was (and is) comfortable with the capacity it possesses to abate any North Korean menace with purely conventional means should such prove necessary. (It helps that the formidable North Korean defenses face south.) Beyond that, China has abundant non-military means to either force or cozen Pyongyang's agreement to Beijing's "guidance."

Ignoring the geopolitical realities, both the Clinton and W. Bush administrations plunged ahead with a reckless abandon and a sense of certainty totally devoid of a real world basis. We tried--ultimately without success--to get the Chinese to sing from our sheet of music.

Instead both the Clinton and W. Bush crews should have been quietly asking Beijing just what tune should be sung to gain the most satisfactory outcome.

Now the Obama collective seems hell bent on following the same course to failure blazoned by the two previous administrations. The rhetoric has become ever more heated. The threats of "consequences" ever more brazen. The visibility of the American total commitment to a single outcome ever more visible. Prestige on the international scene ever more invested.

Stop! Time out! A whistle on the play.

The US must dial down the volume. It must sidle up to the Chinese. Quietly, very quietly so as to save some measure of face for Uncle Sam, we must turn the problem over to them. Let George do it.

This means recognising a pair of realpolitik realities. The first is that China is the operative regional hegemonic power in this case. The second is acknowledging that Beijing has operated a conservative and highly effective diplomacy since the Communist victory in 1949.

China has a long and close relationship with North Korea. The Chinese government has a far better understanding of the internal dynamics of the Hermit Kingdom than does the US. The specialists in North Korean affairs in Beijing know the strengths and weaknesses of the Pyongyang regime. They know the personalities. The inner rivalries and alliances. In short, they know the levers to pull and buttons to push in order to gain compliance.

Beijing has a clear interest in a stable North Korea. It has an equal interest in assuring that the Hermit Kingdom not only continues to exist but that it does nothing so rash as to result in a regionally destabilizing consequence. It has no desire to deal with hordes of North Korean refugees flooding across the Tuman and Yalu rivers bringing with them the attention of the human rights and humanitarian crisis oriented entities whether from the UN or the legion of NGOs.

China, in short, has much at stake in North Korea. It has a set of major imperatives in play which dictate constructive effort to protect stability and good order in the Korean peninsula.

The Obama administration and particularly its minions in Foggy Bottom would be well advised to take a dekko at the historical record of Chinese diplomacy and the foreign policy it supports. If they were to do so they might be surprised with what they find.

Regardless of the internal idiocies committed by Mao and his successors ranging from the Great Leap Forward with its attendant multi-million deaths-through-starvation to the Cultural Revolution to the bloody suppression of the pro-democracy movement twenty years ago, the foreign policy of the country has been conservative and careful in its execution. Even the seemingly rash action of entering the Korean War was cautious in its execution. Warnings were given, a demonstration attack was made. Only when both words and bullets were ignored by the US did the full-fledged intervention unfold.

Throughout the past sixty years Beijing has repeatedly shown itself to be a mature practitioner of the Great Game of Nations. In a way this is surprising given all the centuries during which the Center Kingdom simply ignored the lesser breeds of barbarian who lived beyond the pale of the Empire. Surprising or not, the fine record of Chinese diplomacy is there for any with the wit to read and heed.

Turning the North Korean portfolio over to the "Georges" of Beijing would be a tad humiliating to the diplomats and politicians who have invested ego in the failed policies of recent years, but it would be in the best interests of the US. On several levels.

The most obvious is it would both relieve the US of a responsibility it cannot discharge--getting the Hermit Kingdom to forsake the bomb. What should be equally obvious but seems not to be is that making this move would greatly enhance the bilateral relations between the US and China. Any improvement such as would result by the candid admission that China is both a regional hegemon and a global Great Power would benefit our need for Beijing's cooperation on other, more important vexing matters including Iran, the global economy and the achievement of an acceptable agreement on global climate change.

There are many in the US who would find this explicit recognition of American limits galling. These folks can take some measure of comfort in the reality that China has become the Great Power it is today in large measure because we made it so. Our (arguably) misguided emphasis on "globalization" during the Clinton years, which brought with it the trade liberalisation, served to make China rich. The riches sucked from the pockets of American consumers have provided Beijing with the means necessary to produce its current formidable military force and buy American treasury notes in multiples of billions.

Without Bill Clinton and the neocons who succeeded him as well as Walmart, China would not be the world class Great Power it is now. So, asking "George" to carry the water regarding North Korea is simply to accept the "success" of our foreign economic policies.

The fate of the two young ladies from Al Gore's "Current TV" operation can be best addressed by the Chinese. The two women in question would not be in a Hermit Kingdom slammer today had it not been for the sincere conviction in Pyongyang based upon their reading of history that the US can be extorted most efficiently by the taking of hostages--particularly female hostages.

Of course a realpolitik based diplomacy would simply write off the two journalists. The coldly realistic view of foreign policy rejects the notion that policy should be bent to protect the futures of two individuals who were so ill-advised as to prance about a poorly defined international frontier where agents of a despotic regime hostile to the US might seize their bodies under any or no pretext with a view toward extortion.

The idea that a country should, let alone must, act to save two awesomely stupid people from the easily foreseeable results of their stupidity runs against all dictates of realpolitik. However the demands of domestic politics insist that the US make every effort to gain the quick release of the two women.

And, so we must. But we have no leverage beyond giving into whatever requirements the hostage takers care to make. Unless---

That's right, unless we "let George do it." The Boys From Beijing know who to talk to and what to say. The road to freedom for these two unfortunate young women in the employ of Al Gore runs through Beijing. Not Washington. Not the UN. Beijing.

Bombs or hostage release--Let George Do It.

Let's Give It Up For The Shoe Tosser!

Muntader al-Zaidi might have been acting out some personal type of rage and frustration as he hurled his shoes and insults at George W. Bush. His action has made him a form of hero to many folks in the Mideast (and probably elsewhere.)

The Geek is of the view that al-Zadi's up front gesture of scorn and anger raises an important question or two. While the 29 year old TV journalist may have been a bit over the edge with his demonstration, it deserves to be considered as something other than a mere juvenile outburst. It also requires an assessment which goes beyond placing politically expedient labels.

Al-Zaidi has been adopted as a poster boy by people on the Left: See, the Iraqis hate us and our imperialistic ways. He has received a similar sort of bogus sanctification by those on the Right: See, it proves Iraq is "free." No person could do the same in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or pre-2003 Iraq.

Arguably both labels have a degree of truth in advertising. More importantly, neither does service to what probably lies behind not only al-Zaidi's pitching arm, the applause he has received, and the reaction to the Zaidi-throws-and-Bush-ducks episode.

To the Geek, the tossing of shoes and hurling of epithets demands an examination of what the US invasion of Iraq has brought about. This requires asking a simple question which is very difficult to answer--or, at the least to formulate a coherent response upon which a consensus can agree free of ideological bias.

The purpose of war is to bring about a better state of peace. All forms of war, aggressive, defensive, insurgent are waged in order to establish a post-war regime which is superior to that which existed prior to the cannon's roar. Not surprisingly, the details of what constitutes a better state of peace differs between aggressor and defender, insurgent and counterinsurgent. That difference is why the war is being fought.

Interventionary wars such as those being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq lay a special burden on the intervenor--that is the country which starts the war--not only to define but to achieve a state of peace which is demonstrably superior for both the intervenor and the target nation. Let's walk through that again. It's important.

The only consideration which raises an intervention above the level of naked and perhaps unprovoked aggression is the outcome. Does the outcome provide a better state of peace for the country being invaded? If the answer is yes, then the war is ethically justified. If the answer is no, then the war is nothing other than naked aggression for the benefit of the invader.

The Administration of George W. Bush and its supporters among We the People argue that removing Saddam Hussein and opening the possibility of democracy to the Iraqi people is, in and of itself, a better state of peace. Those who have opposed the war state that the results to date constitute a worse state of peace.

The proponents of the invasion having resulted in a better state of peace point to the elections in Iraq, its demonstration of effective sovereignty as embodied in the recent Status of Forces Agreement, and the trials of Saddam, Chemical Ali and others for both war crimes and crimes against the Iraqi people as proof that a better state of peace exists today. They point to al-Zaidi's actions as a clear example of the current state of Iraqi freedom.

Opponents of the American adventure in regime change note the several million internal displaced persons as well as the large number of Iraqi refugees in adjacent countries. They also note the ruined infrastructure, the destroyed neighborhoods, towns and villages. And, the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis who would be alive absent the American invasion. To the people holding this view, al-Zaidi was a symbol of the bitter resentment, not to say hatred, resident in the Iraqi victims of American aggression.

From the Geek's historically driven perspective, the American experiences in both the Philippines and Vietnam provide a guide for assessing whether or not the US effort in Iraq has been ethically justified as bringing about a better state of peace. He would like to take a brief look at both guiding cases.

In the Philippines, the US defeated a well developed, broadly supported indigenous independence movement. The cost of this was high in both American and Filipino lives. The military success was predicated not so much on the skill of American soldiers or the quality of their weapons and tactics as it was on distorting the political process which existed within Filipino society.

The same distortions continued during the long years of US occupation. They were exacerbated not only by the Japanese invasion and occupation of the islands but by the years of US backed counterinsurgency efforts against assorted communist insurgent movements during the decades which followed Filipino independence.

The distortions continued even after the communists were defeated and have done much to assure the rise and continuation of an Islamist separatist insurgency, which is both slow motion in pace and bloody in action. A close examination of the forces at work in Filipino society and politics indicates that the same basic trajectory of class based politics and internal divisions would have existed absent the American invasion, conquest, and occupation.

However, the trajectory would have been neither so long in duration nor bloody in its effects had the American government accepted Filipino independence at the end of the Spanish-American War. The American presence was like a heavy weight put on an elastic surface--it made the distortion deeper with the inevitable consequence that it took longer for the elastic to return to normal following the removal of the weight.

The same general pattern can be seen within Vietnam. The conflicts between North and South existed for centuries before the French Indochina War. The attempts by the French to reestablish colonial authority worsened this pre-existing trajectory as did the later American support of the South Vietnamese regime.

Following the defeat of the US, the North gained operational dominance over the entire country. This was as expected. But, as Hanoi has found out, there is a whale of a difference between operational dominance and unquestioned political authority.

As a result of changes both within and outside Vietnam, the county may continue as a one party state with strong authoritarian aspects but has increasingly been acknowledging the necessity of freer enterprise, a more liberal approach to the rights of the citizens, and the strong necessity of something akin to a rule of law--not party or regional connections and prerogatives.

In short, the long resident trajectories of Vietnamese society have continued. Vietnam today is what Vietnam would have been in any event had there been no American war in the country.

Leaving aside minor quibbles such as American public health measures in the Philippines or the necessity of global containment, the results of the American efforts in both venues were failures. Neither brought about a state of peace better than that which would have emerged without the US military involvement.

Rather than bringing about a better state of peace in either country, the US wars and occupations delayed the arrival of the better state. Neither American effort was ethically justifiable.

Looking back it is clear that the "golden moment" for effective and low cost regime change with a meaningful chance of bringing about a better state of peace in Iraq came and went in 1991. The halting of Coalition forces on the approaches to Basra might have been tactically and logistically justified. The standing by with folded arms as the Shiite uprising was bloodily crushed was not.

That suppression coupled with the years of sanctions and "No-Fly Zones" neither constituted a better state of peace nor a meaningful push for internal Iraqi-driven changes. Rather, the long years of deprivation, repression and collapsing economy made the achievement of internal stability now all the harder.

The regime of Saddam Hussein would not have lasted many more years had the US and other troops stayed at home in 2003. Yes, the death of Saddam would have brought internal power struggles, deaths, and the emergence of yet another authoritarian regime.

Such a pattern is not foreign to the Iraqi social and cultural experience. A transition to another, probably slightly less obnoxious regime would have been both accepted by and acceptable to the Iraqi public generally. The strongman, the oligarch, is completely in keeping with the culture, the history of Iraq, and the region generally.

To sum it up: The American invasion of Iraq was not justified. It did not--could not--bring about a better state of peace. All the invasion has done--could have done--is delay the organic emergence of a better state--as defined by the Iraqis.

George W. Bush, and the world, should be grateful that all al-Zaidi had to throw was his shoes. He (and many Iraqis) probably would have preferred a grenade.

Democracy Ain't All It's Cracked Up To Be

In the midst of our current orgiastic paroxysm of vitriolic fervor over "history in the making" and (to quote the SF Chronicle,) seeing the coming of the "Jackie Robinson of politics," the Geek has to say, "Bah. Humbug."

Pace the recent pap from the current incumbent of the Oval, democracy is not what has made the US a great country. If George W. Bush wants complete refutation of his paean to the glories of elections he need look no further then himself.

The American style of democracy has tossed up some great leaders. Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower and Truman all come to mind. The country has survived, even flourished through the administrations of many, many lesser sorts. Names such as Harrison, Fillmore, Buchanan (no, not Patrick), Cleveland, Taft, Harding, Clinton and oh so many others are to be found on that list.

We have flirted with disaster when the elections tossed up men such as Wilson, Kennedy, Nixon, and H. W. Bush. We have even muddled our way through the overstretched ambitions of such as Lydon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.

George W. Bush occupies a special niche, a unique place in the results of democracy. With W. We the People managed to twice put a one man disaster area into the Oval. Never before has the electoral process produced such a result.

The manipulations of political operators and the skills of image creators convinced enough of us to put a man of such overweening arrogance and ineptitude into office. We were cozened in sufficient numbers to elevate a mediocre governor of a state where the term "hardball" is way too soft to describe the nature of the political game to the presidency.

No sooner were the votes (including those of the Supreme Court) counted then he surrounded himself with a coterie of ideologically driven cretins. The combined effect of W. and his neocon ninnie crew has been to plunge the world into economic chaos and involve our country in two unnecessary and unnecessarily prolonged wars.

As if that wasn't enough the bunch went on to warp the powers of the Executive Branch so as to make it a clear and present danger to each and every one of us. Finally, the current administration has sought successfully to distort the relation of government and business to a point which uncannily resembles the corporate state of the fascist countries of seventy years ago.

Admittedly, the numbers show that most of us had nothing to do with the debacle. We either voted for the other guy or we sat on our hands. Still, all of us are and will continue to pay the price for the sins of a minority.

We the People ought to get a grip on that reality.

This is important since from all the signs of MSM and pollsters alike we are about to do it again. We are about to admit through our votes that the spinners of image and the weavers of (specious) truth have manipulated our myths and emotions. We seem on the verge of electing an ideologue without experience but with both great ambition and a powerful commitment to a particular social/economic/political worldview and agenda.

The man, of course, is the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

From his mentors and advisers, speeches and votes we know that Senator Obama is, in European terms, a Left Socialist. We also know that the senator has little, if any, knowledge of how international affairs and national security policy might best be formulated and conducted.

In a real sense, the Obama embrace of the Left Socialist view of economic and social justice bothers the Geek less than his intellectual bankruptcy in foreign affairs. The reason for this is simple. The Republican, Senator McCain is a Right Socialist.

In American political terms both the Right and Left Socialists along with the "Center Socialists" of both parties are the descendants of the most pervasive and arguably pernicious political doctrine in US history--Progressive Interventionists. (Interventionist in this context does not mean intervening in the affairs of other countries but rather the direct intervening by government into the personal decision making of the individual citizen.)

Interventionist Progressivism arose from the late 19th Century Progressive movement. Progressivism was (and is) inherently elitist. But, the interventionist form outstrips its progenitor.

The progressives believed sincerely that the government could and should operate in a way such that the quality of life for each individual citizen would be improved materially, intellectually and even spiritually. At first, the belief expressed itself through emphasizing the role of government in regulating the worst abuses of corporate economic power and providing expert instruction to the individual in how to live better, healthier, more fulfilling lives.

When it became apparent that while government regulation could provide some admittedly limited benefits in the quality of individuals' lives, the educational orientation had failed. People kept making poor choices, bad decisions and suffering the consequences.

The interventionist progressive program emerged in fits and starts from just before World War I over the next three quarters of a century. The interventionist belief was and is that government must act directly upon the citizen to ensure that he cannot make bad choices, bad decisions and suffer the consequences.

Another, more recent term of British origin which epitomises the goal of the interventionist progressive perfectly is "Nanny State." Senator Obama is dedicated to the Nanny State both in principle and in practice.

That scares the Geek more than the harsh metallic click unexpectedly heard in the thick bush deep in hostile territory ever did. The Geek could take action to protect himself against the bullets which would shortly follow the metallic click. He (and you) can do little if anything to counter the threat of the all-embracing, warm, protecting (and stifling) arms of the Nanny State.

Senator Obama, in common with all interventionist progressives, undoubtedly is of the view that J.S. Mills' definition of state coercion being limited to the protection of the individual from direct, material and substantial harm resulting from actions of another is hopelessly outdated. Reactionary horse-and-buggy thinking.

They are, of course, wrong from a historical perspective in maintaining that limited government is bad government. This is every bit as anti-historical and anti-reality as George W. Bush's hosanna to democracy.

What brought America greatness both in the past and the present has been the willingness to take risks, and to learn from failures. To learn from experience and profit from what has been learned. To pursue happiness without the let or hindrance of government provided only that one's pursuit did not directly, substantially and materially harm another.

Exacerbating the ideological toxin of the current brand of interventionist progressivism is its affection for High Minded ideals such as ending global poverty or talking without preconditions with people who believe that they are absolutely in the right to stone thirteen year old rape victims and kill for "honor."

To enter the mindset of the High Minded, the True Believers in cultural and moral relativism, one must be a member of the elite. The High Minded True Believer cannot concern him or herself with the mundane realities which preoccupy the hoi polloi. To be a High Minded True Believer one must place one's self in some sort of perverted Platonic universe where the abstract is important and the grubby realities of the world and its peoples irrelevant.

Senator Obama's statements as well as those of so many of his most vocal supporters show a remarkable unwillingness or inability to live in the world of real people. In this respect the Senator and his ilk are joined shoulder and hip with their ideological opponents of the current administration.

Neither Obama nor Bush are able or willing to take the world and people as both actually are. Obama, like Bush, insists upon imposing an absolutely rigid ideological framework upon the lives and works of humanity in all its varied and opposing forms.

Bush spelled disaster because of this reality.

Obama in the Oval will do the same. For the same reason. Ideology over all else.

Get a grip on that.

H.W. Bush Created A Test--And Flunked It

As posted previously, presidents are more often than not faced by unanticipated tests thrown in their faces by the dynamics of global politics--not necessarily the machinations of persons of evil intent. On occasion presidents become essential co-conspirators in the making of the test.

An excellent example of this is LBJ and the decision to escalate the US involvement in the Vietnamese War. He did this by authorizing Operation Rolling Thunder, the air campaign against North Vietnam.

There was no need for the operation. Intelligence had shown clearly that the flow of weapons and other materiel from North to South was of no moment to the Viet Cong capacity and will to conduct offensive operations successfully. Intelligence also demonstrated clearly that there were no US national or strategic interests at stake in the region. Indeed, the often cited "Domino Theory" had been shown to have no basis.

The air campaign had two easily foreseen if unintended consequences.

The first, in the words of a perceptive historian of the period was, "In an effort to end a problem which did not exist--infiltration of men and supplies from North to South, the US created a problem which could not be solved--the infiltration of men and supplies North to South."

The second effect of Operation Rolling Thunder was the investment of American political prestige and potency. Air operations are not stealthy. They announce to the world that an area has become of great importance to the US. Thus the potential for de-commitment from the area is greatly impaired.

The continued deterioration of the military situation in South Vietnam left LBJ with a test. To cut our losses before they became politically and diplomatically unacceptable or to escalate the American commitment by introducing ground combat forces. The President opted for the latter.

The results we know. All too well.

George H.W. Bush was more than a co-conspirator in the greatest foreign policy test which he faced. Arguably, he created the test which he ultimately failed with consequences which remain with us today.

H. W. was not inexperienced in the summer of 1990. Rarely had a man come to the Oval with a more impressive resume. He had foreign policy experience out the ying-yang. He knew his way around the corridors of international politics well enough to navigate them blindfolded.

The President and the senior members of his administration that summer must have been aware of the long festering dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over the latter country's slant drilling under the hazily marked border and tapping oil reserves which Saddam Hussein believed in all sincerity were Iraqi. They must have been situationally aware regarding Iraq's need for money in the wake of the long and very costly war with Iran.

These two factors taken together strongly indicated that the new US ambassador to Iraq should receive very carefully drafted and detailed instructions on US policy regarding the Iraq-Kuwait dispute. Instead the instructions both written and oral were vague.

As a result Ms Glaspie conveyed the impression of US indifference to the manner in which Saddam solved his problem with Kuwait. The Iraqi dictator concluded that the US saw the problem as an Iraqi internal matter.

Saddam's conclusion was not irrational. Nor was it unjustified. He interpreted the American vagueness in an Iraqi historical context. This context defined Kuwait as a "lost" Iraqi province based upon the political nature of the Ottoman Empire and the consequences of the Franco-British dismantlement of that empire following WW I. The context also contained the recent US "tilt" toward Iraq during the recently concluded war with Iran.

In short, Saddam took the hazy American stance as an operational green light to seize Kuwait.

The posture of the Iraqi Army during and immediately after the crossing of the Kuwait border showed that there was no intention on the part of Baghdad to continue military operations into Saudi Arabia. The quick and decisive blitz of Kuwait was the limit of Saddam's ambitions.

Given the American surveillance and reconnaissance assets extent at the time there is no doubt that we were quite well apprised of the Iraqi intentions and capacities. This did not stop the Bush Administration from flatly lying to the Saudi regime regarding the threat to it.

The manufacturing of this "test" of US resolve and power projection capacity did not end with pouring duplicity upon the House of Saud in super-tanker quantities. The same sort of duplicity was poured all over the world as well as within the US.

Even a few months into the build-up phase of the war, the cynic (which is to say the realpolitik oriented historian) had the clear impression that the exercise had been intentional, provoked and desired. It was not a crisis forced upon the US and the world by the ambitions of a single dictator.

In short, the Gulf War was one that was wanted by Washington (and arguably a number of other capitals around the world.) A short, successful war against Iraq would serve long-term US policy interests such as assuring that no single state would have the potential to dominate the Persian Gulf region. A crippled Iraq would not pose a threat to the Gulf, the Mideast (read Israel) or the stability of regional oil production and prices.

As in a more recent US war in Iraq, the real failure of the test came the day after conventionally defined military victory had been achieved.

While we will not know until some day in the distant future when the relevant documents are finally declassified it may well be that the Deep Thinkers of H.W.'s administration didn't realise until the guns fell silent that Saddam would remain in power and Iraq would become the classic "wounded enemy." It may well be that not until the 100 hour blitz ended with worn machines and exhausted troops that unless one of two equally distasteful and risky actions were taken, the Saddamites would remain in power leaving us with a long duration, low-grade crisis.

As the war ended with US troops on the outskirts of Basra and dramatic pictures of the "Highway to Hell" on our television screens, the administration had to bite the cliched bullet. The guys in and around the Oval had three choices. They were all bad.

The first was to continue the war. Drive on to Baghdad. This would mean more time, more troops and, most compellingly, a hell of a lot more bodies in bags coming into Dover AFB. We knew from observing the Iran-Iraq War that the Iraqi Army had a great capacity for resistance. We also knew that the best components of the Iraqi Army had been withdrawn from harm's way in a prudent and timely fashion. It could be a long, long and very bloody slog.

The second choice was arming and equipping (and probably directly supporting) Shiite insurgents. This implied a strong possibility of inviting Iranian sub rosa elements into the affair. Any benefit to Iran would violate the US policy requirement of assuring no one state emerged paramount in the area. It would also mean having to somehow contain the obnoxious Tehran regime. Also implicit in the calculus was the probable impact upon Saudi Arabia of seeing Shiites gain bloody hegemony over the Sunni minority.

The third option was the one we took. Pressure intended to spark a military coup against the Saddamite regime. The third option marked the failure.

It is one thing to manufacture a "crisis." It is another to manipulate the outcome of the "crisis" so that a meaningful policy success is achieved.

The administration of H.W. Bush succeeded in creating a test for itself. It failed the test of its own making.

In so doing the father provided the ground for the son. W. Bush created a test with the invasion of Iraq, an invasion intended in pertinent part to finish the uncompleted work of H.W. Like the father, the son failed the test of his own devising.

The lessons from H.W.'s failure, from W.'s failure are the same as that of LBJ's failure. Before creating a "crisis" either in whole or in part (or for that matter responding to a genuine crisis) an administration must have both the wit and the will to do three things.

First, there must, absolutely must, be an awareness of the historical context in which one is and will be operating. This means an awareness of the history, both objective and subjective of the human terrain upon which we will be operating.

The second is to be fully attuned to the universality of the Law of Unintended Consequences. This can best be understood as being the full-bore application of Clausewitz's small caliber dictum "no plan survives first contact with the enemy."

Finally, when the use of military force is considered, an administration and its military commanders must focus not so much on the achievement of mere military victory. No. They have to focus on the days after the victory parade.

After all the purpose of war is to produce a better state of peace.

The Geek's Closet of Anxieties Grows

You are no doubt familiar with the Insurrection Act of 1807. Also, you have closely read the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, right?

These two elderly pieces of legislation have stood for over a century in one case and over two in the other as a high wall between We the People and the use of our military forces against us. No more.

The current administration in its never-ending pursuit of establishing a pernicious artifact known as the Unitary Executive Theory has set the long existing protection against the use of the military against the citizens who give it life and nourishment.

Quite a few years ago the Geek was anonymously contacted by some Special Forces NCO's who were involved with the publication of a subversive periodical called "The Ratline." They were concerned about a growing leitmotif in the military.

This bothersome new factor?

An increasing indoctrination within the Army oriented toward overcoming resistance to the use of ground combat personnel and forces against American civilians. A theme these long serving senior sergeants emphasized in their communications with the Geek can best be encapsulated in a question.

"Are you able, if ordered, to use deadly force against family and neighbors if they refuse to hand over their personally owned firearms?"

These sergeants were not alarmists. No more than their comrades both in and outside the Special Forces. No more than their counterparts in the Marine Corps.

When giving a talk at Camp Pendelton, the Geek had occasion to talk at length with several Marine snipers. "The Marine scout-sniper," Tom Clancy once wrote, "is more feared by the enemy than a bomber filled with napalm."

When the Geek finished his conversation, he feared them too.

Why?

Because, as the men calmly told him, they had been strongly indoctrinated to be ready, willing and able to use their highly lethal skills against American citizens. "If the boss man says to take 'em out, we'll take 'em out. Don't matter who the fuck they are. They're all targets to me."

Remember, this was before Afghanistan, before Iraq, before the Great Global War on Terror, before the hideously expansive view of presidential power espoused by the Cheney-Bush Administration.

These encounters (and several others like them) took place while Bill Clinton was in the Oval. They occurred while a parade of diaper brigaders hostile to the military traipsed through the halls of power in the Pentagon and the EOB. They took place in the good old days of progressive, peace-love-and-flower-power government.

With this background, the Geek watched the the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act slip, slide and flow away like the dikes and berms of New Orleans in Katrina. He watched with mounting trepidation the erosion of centuries of barrier between Army and citizen under the impact of the National Response Framework and National Security Presidential Directive #51 (also known as Homeland Security Directive #20).

As the current administration has long taken the position that the president is the sole decider of what he is Constitutionally obligated to do (or not do), the potential for abuse of the military forces of the US grew astronomically. There is nothing more dangerous, the authors and proponents of the Constitution argued on the basis of experience than a Chief Executive (magistrate they called him) with the unchecked royal prerogative to use the military whenever and against whoever he might chose.

The split between the Congressional power to declare war and the Executive's authority to conduct war was one response to the ever present danger of an expansive understanding of Presidential prerogative(s). The passage of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which narrowly and specifically defined the conditions of armed political unrest which allowed for the use of Federal military force, was another. Even though the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was part of the cheap and unenlightening bargain that assured the victory of Rutherford B. Hayes over Democrat Samuel Tildon, it was a well-intentioned, well-crafted prohibition against the use of the military in American streets except under closely controlled and limited conditions.

Say good bye to all that.

Just as the waves of Katrina washed away and flooded over the berms protecting New Orleans, the massive changes in the powers of the presidency driven by the hurricane winds of Cheney and his neocon associates undercut and eroded the barriers erected by the Constitution and prior laws protecting us from the possibility of the guns of our military being turned against us at the ambition or fear of a president.

On 1 October 2008 the vibram of Army boots was placed to march on the streets of any of our towns whenever the Commander-in-Chief says, "Go!"

The 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) was placed under NORTHCOM, the Northern Command.

NORTHCOM does not exist to protect the US against attacks by Canadians or Inuits. It is not in place to guard the Alaskan frontier against North Korean or Russian threats.

No. The area of operations for NORTHCOM is the continental United States (CONUS). Stood up in October 2002, NORTHCOM was established to provide "command and control for Department of Defense homeland security operations."

With the addition of the 1st BCT of the 3rd Infantry Division, NORTHCOM has something very real and very threatening to command and control.

Army sources ranging from the Army Times to NORTHCOM spokesman, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jamie Goodpaster, have played soothing mood music and uttered soft and reassuring words. The 1s BCT which has been in Iraq controlling "unruly" crowds and kicking in doors is said to be standing by to perform humanitarian relief operations in the wake of natural disasters and to manage the consequences of a WMD attack by terrorists.

Humanitarian relief? "Consequence management?" By a combat experienced infantry unit?

Just who in hell do the powers-that-be think they are fooling?

Engineer units would be believable in the roles mentioned. So also would quartermaster contingents. Certainly medical formations would fit the described mission.

But, an infantry combat brigade?

The mission of the infantry is to close with and kill the enemy in close combat. Infantrymen are well trained and equipped for that mission as well as its corollary, occupying land and repelling attacks.

Infantrymen are trigger pullers whose weapons are quite lethal. Far more lethal than those possessed by their predecessors in Vietnam let alone ancient conflicts like World War II.

If butts are to be kicked and names taken, the infantry is the right choice, the best choice. They are not social workers, relief workers or consequence managers.

In its initial report on the transfer of the 1st BCT to NORTHCOM, the Army Times stated the unit "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control." This burst of accuracy and candor must have annoyed someone topside as NORTHCOM issued a speedy correction. The command assured us, "This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control."

This statement of good intentions sure makes the Geek feel a whole lot better about life. There must be some really, really omniscient folks running NORTHCOM to be so certain about the intentions of the current administration--and all future administrations as well.

Unless and until either Congress or the Supremes vitiate the encroachments of the once discredited Unitary Executive Theory, we are unsafe. Unsafe from our own military.

Regardless of the assurances provided by the mood music producers of NORTHCOM, the old protections of the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts are a pair of filleted fish rotting on the dock of history.

The current president or the next can pick up a pen, sign a "finding" and issue and order as Commander-in-Chief through the SecDef to NORTHCOM, and the boots of the 1st BCT will be on the back of your neck.

GOP Does The Wrong Thing--For The Wrong Reason

In an action ignored by the MSM in the tidal wave of financial crisis and bail out bill votes, Senate Republicans blocked an enhanced Iranian economic sanctions bill for the second time in roughly a month. The bill which had already been passed by the House was a melding of two previous bills (one "authored" by Senator Obama) would have both taken action against companies doing business with Iran's banking and energy sectors and encouraged divestment in foreign companies commercially involved with the mullahocracy.

On 2 October Sen Wayne Allard of Colorado exercised his "prerogative" to stall passage.

Unsurprisingly Senate Majority Leader Reid accused the Republicans of playing politics with the legislation because of Obama's connection with it. No doubt that is part of the story.

But, only part.

The rest of the story revolves around the word, "prerogative."

How's that?

Earlier attempts to pass the components of the bill as two separate enactments were resolutely opposed by the White House. The opposition came not because the Cheney-Bush Administration had suddenly gone soft on Iran. No. Nothing like that at all.

The opposition came, not because the neocon ninnies of the Current Administration hated Iran less, but because they love the "prerogatives" of the Presidency more.

Of all the sins committed by the Current Administration--and they are legion--none has been greater than its single minded fixation upon elevating the power of the Presidency to heights undreamed of by such "imperial" presidents as Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt. The goal pursued so diligently by the neocon theoreticians under the direction of Dick Cheney was to exalt the power of the President to a level surpassing that advanced by Alexander Hamilton.

As Vice President Cheney made clear and public more than seven years ago, well before 9/11, the Administration had the intent of permanently "strengthening" the Offices of the President and Vice President. He put it in terms of regaining power lost to the Congress since Watergate and its aftershocks. But, it was clear that his vision was not limited to simple restoration of authority.

He wanted more. Much more.

Along with his personal legal counsel, David Addington, Cheney used the Office of Legal Counsel, which serves as a sort of in-house Supreme Court for the Administration, as well as his close personal relationship with George W. Bush to pursue the end of firmly installing the Unitary Presidency Theory as the axis mundi of American government.

The pursuit of secrecy along with the invocation of executive privilege were part of the process. So also was the constant reiteration of the discredited notion of "inherent powers" deriving from the President's role as Commander-in-Chief.

Brilliant but warped young neocon lawyers exemplified by John Yoo cranked out the necessary opinions from the bowels of the OLC which made "legal" reprehensible actions such as the use of waterboarding and other mechanisms of "intensified interrogation." Or, the unending confinement of "unlawful enemy combatants."

The neocon views of Yoo and Company justified the President's action of unilaterally abrogating the ABM Treaty with Russia (OK, to err on the side of accuracy, the Soviet Union.) The notion that the Senate having ratified the treaty and thus, under something called "the Constitution," giving it the force of Federal law should ratify the abrogation was brushed aside as an unnecessary and Constitution eroding infringement on the President's sole "prerogative" to conduct foreign policy.

Cheney, Yoo and all the other neocon ninnies overlooked then, as they have more recently, the slight consideration of historical fact.

During the run-up to and the waging of the War of Independence, much patriotic vitriol was poured on the idea of the British monarch's "royal prerogative." During the writing of the Constitution and the campaign to see it ratified, the proponents of the new US organic document took great pains to show how the American president would not have any shadow of the much hated "prerogative." (Take a look at Federalist 69 for a good example of this. Madison at his most incisive.)

The President as Commander-in-Chief is "First General" of the US military. He has the authority to conduct the war. He does not have the authority to decide to have a war so that he might conduct it.

Congress is given the sole power to decide when the US is going to wage a war. Then the President, not the Congress, conducts it.

In a similar way, the President conducts foreign policy. He does not have the "prerogative" to define it on his own authority. Neither does he have the sole capacity to formulate it.

Given that the Constitution is silent on the precise distribution of authority to formulate and define the foreign policy of the US, it stands to reason that Congress and Executive must engage in the messy game of conflict-and-consensus.

When Congress wants to take the lead in foreign policy, particularly when it considers legislation which places it in the role of not simply formulating policy but directing a specific mechanism of implementation, the Executive has both the right and obligation to inform Congress as to its stance on the proposed act. If Congress passes legislation which the Executive finds unacceptable in the conduct of foreign policy, then the correct course of action is to veto the bill.

Claiming "prerogative" is not the right thing to do.

But, at least the claim was consistent with the Current Administration's multi year campaign to manufacture the-all-powerful-presidency from the gossamer of historical distortion and legal logic rooted only in a will-to-power.

George W(oodrow Wilson) Bush

The American president holding the all-time record for an inability to pursue genuine US national security interests was formerly the one-time political science professor turned politician, Woodrow Wilson.

The Geek maintains that ole Woody has been replaced. By George W. Bush, one time playboy and part-time fighter jock turned politician.

There is irony to the situation. Both Woodrow and George were motivated in their successful quest to harm the interests and standing of the United States by the same driving force.

Both men gave ideology primacy over a realistic assessment of American national interests and American national security. Both men chased the same mirages, making the world safe for democracy and abating the nuisance of war.

Sure the details are different. That's the nature of history. Detailed differences but broad similarities if not identities.

Wilson ordered two invasions of Mexico. He ordered the Navy and Marines to Central America. Sent troops to revolutionary Russia twice. Worst of all, he sought American intervention in World War I in pursuit of his vision of a New World Order but leading instead to World War II. (He was also instrumental, if not critical in creating a country once known as Yugoslavia against the advice of an expert commission as well as dismembering the old Ottoman Empire, again against the advice of those who were experts on the Mideast.)

Not bad as a record of policies for today without a thought for tomorrow. Hard to beat.

However George W. Bush has done it. Let's go to the record. A misfought war in Afghanistan, which has served only to strengthen and spread the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Then there is the totally unnecessary war in Iraq, which has served only to increase the perception that the US is on an anti-Islamic crusade while frittering away American military capabilities and weakening the political will of the American public to make some hard choices and go through some necessary and very painful changes.

Worst of all, the Bush Administration has managed single-handedly and single-mindedly to do a fine job of starting a new confrontation with Russia. That represents a masterstroke of international relations that boggles the Geek's mind.

The first question is one of motivations. What was the reason which links all these stunning debacles which has cost the US most if not all of its international credibility and stature?

The short answer is ideology. The longer form is the current administration is full of neocons firmly convinced in the face of historical and cultural evidence that American style democracy replete with separation of church and state, ethnic and gender equality, liberal institutions, an independent judiciary and an affection for free-market economics can be successfully translated in a short time frame by force of arms.

In short, the current administration and its crew of neocon ninnies has updated and expanded the old Wilsonian dictum of teaching-the-Mexicans-to-elect-good-men.

In Afghanistan the administration was presented with two clear alternatives.

One was a sharp, short campaign directed to the end of killing the Taliban chieftan Omar, his henchmen and as many Taliban jihadists as possible along with bin Ladin, Zawahiri and the rest of the al-Qaeda leadership cadre along with as many jihadists as possible and then getting the hell out. We would then let the Afghans sort out what came next. The goal was to abate a clear and obvious menace to the US. Not create a better Afghanistan.

The second envisaged creating a Little America in the deserts and mountains of the tribal country. This task would be accomplished by a few US troops on the ground, a huge passel of American firepower overhead, a bunch of local proxies from the various ethnic minorities and regiments of civilian contractors. Time was not of the essence.

We know which option Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and company took. We are watching how it turns out every day now, nearly seven years after the first bomb fell.

Eliminating Saddam Hussein was pure self-defeat in terms of real US national security interest. Under Saddam, admittedly a very un-nice person, Iraq along with Syria under Assad were watertight bulkheads against the stream of Islamist jihadists from points east. We didn't have to ask them, bribe them or threaten them. It was in the national interest of both Iraq and Syria to keep the uncontrollable jihadists out and to tightly control their own clients.

The toppling of Saddam along with the completely counterproductive alienation of Assad fils ended the blockade of the jihadists along with further destabilizing the Mideast. Other than the fact that Saddam was thoroughly unpleasant primarily to his own people and Assad's regime pursued policies in Lebanon in ways the current administration (and Israel) found annoying there is no justification for either the adventure in regime change or the alienation of Syria.

Neither has increased American national security. Both actions have lessened our security and weakened our capacities.

At this point the ideologues of the current administration would have given the Progressive internationalists of Wilson's day a run for the prize of foreign policy idiocy. But, the neocons had one more set of blunders to haul out to the disadvantage of the US.

Bush, et al, for reasons that escape explanation even by a psychiatrist, just had, absolutely had, to treat Russia as if it were a defeated, has-been power now prostrate in the rubble of a lost war, reduced to, at best, second class status. For years the current administration's tone in speaking to or about Russia alternated between patronising and condescending with occasional gusts of hectoring.

As the Geek has posted before on several occasions, the current administration failed to recognise the historic insecurity of Russia, its centuries of feeling massively inferior to the West, and its decades of seeing itself as inferior compared to the US. The current administration failed to treat Russia as the Great Power it believed itself to be--regardless of any reality.

It isn't so very hard to treat a second rate power as if it were actually of Great status. We did that for years and years with respect to France and even longer with our absurd pretense that Taiwan was really, really and truly China. Doing the same with Russia wouldn't have been nearly as difficult and the rewards would have been greater.

In the event, we ignored Russia's claims and stated interests regarding the independence of Kosovo. Then we made the catastrophic blunder of not taking the Kremlin's offer of using their ballistic missile warning radar in Azerbaijan.

(Yes, it wasn't as good a radar as the one we were going to build in the Czech Republic. But, we could have "partnered" with the Russians in upgrading theirs Sure, they would have stolen everything they could, but we would know just what they stole.)

Then, taking a handful of rock salt and rubbing into old wounds, the current administration loudly sang the praises of democracy (and NATO membership) in and for Georgia. This was complemented by a similar chorus on behalf of the Ukraine with its large Russian population and important Russian naval base.

The brilliant Bush team headed by the incomparable Decider Guy, even before the current Russo-Georgian contretemps, had gone a long way to resurrecting the corpse of the Cold War from the graveyard of history. Not even Woodrow Wilson could do the equivalent.

The next question is this. Who can better deal with the mess left by the current administration? The Nice Young Man From Chicago, Senator (and Cook County machine pol) Barack Obama and his foreign policy "expert" running mate, Joe Biden, or the one time Navy zoomie and ever-so-muscular opponent, John McCain?

The Geek has his idea.

Iran, The Bomb and The Candidates

George W. Bush brought the matter of Iranian nuclear ambitions back out of the closet during his speech last week to the Israeli parliament. Apparently he continues to think that the Iranians are up to something icky-poo in that area and believes something should be done about it.

That's nice.

The question of what might or should be done was not addressed by the Decider Guy.

Neither has it been addressed meaningfully by any of the senatorial trio seeking electoral preferment.

We the People know the following. One candidate, Senator Obama, would go the route of negotiations backed by incentives--including a summit meeting without preconditions. The second, Senator Clinton, would go with negotiations and incentives albeit at the sub-cabinet level until fundamental agreement had been achieved. Finally, Senator McCain eschews negotiations beyond those necessary to lower Iranian involvement in the Iraqi War and would employ sanctions to achieve an end to unacceptable Iranian nuclear programs.

Those platitudinous adumbrations fail to impress the Geek. They should fail to impress anyone well oriented as to time and place as well.

The Iranians and their nuclear ambitions are not going to just evaporate no matter how hard any of us might wish they would. The mullahocracy is not going to have a sudden change of heart and mind.

They are going to need an effective kick in their collective rear end to mend their troublemaking ways. Perhaps a hard kick.

Now, don't go thinking that the Geek has joined up with the neocon ninnies and their hallucination of improving the world through force imposed regime change. He hasn't.

The Iranians have already preempted the next offer of inducements by the P5+1 (US, UK, France, Russia, PRC and Germany) by their letter to EU negotiator Solana and UN SecGen Ban Ki-moon. In it the Tehran regime allows that it might join an international consortium provided that its domestic enrichment program goes on as scheduled. With an arrogance that is breathtaking, the letter goes on to demand that any discussions also consider a remarkable range of irrelevant matters including the Balkans, the Mideast, Africa and Latin America!

The Geek is of the opinion that had the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on gay marriages a few days earlier, the Iranian letter would have placed that on the agenda as well.

The EU in its attempts to show Washington how real diplomats do the job has offered Tehran train loads of carrots with the results best illustrated by Iranian progress in deploying more improved centrifuges in their enrichment cascade. With this reality establishing the context, it is easy to see why the Tehran regime exhibited such intransigence and arrogance in their letter.

Senators Obama and Clinton, particularly the former, should think long and hard over the experience of the European Union before embracing inducement based negotiations.

In addition that Nice Young Man From Chicago, B.H. Obama, might take a cold hard look at the personality of the current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Leaving aside Ahmadinejad's jeremiads against Israel, attention might be given to the Iranian Chief Executive's statements regarding the direct involvement of the Twelfth Imam in the daily actions of the government (a position rejected by many clerics in the mullahocracy) or his comment that his country's economic problems might be solved if more Iranians followed a "culture of martyrdom." Whatever that might mean.

Check out one Western account of the call for martyrdom from the French press agency, a good source, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jelVVHDZfukEAiK80qF88B6Q1Tpg.

On balance, Ahmadinejad gives the impression of being off balance.

To date the various rounds of sanctions imposed by the UN and followed with varying degrees of enthusiasm by countries and companies around the world have hurt Iran.

But hurt isn't enough. The hurt hasn't worked. The centrifuges keep on spinning.

This doesn't mean that sanctions will not work if more are applied with greater precision in targeting and greater compliance by corporate and government agencies.

Get a grip on these unpleasant (for the Iranians) realities. PRESS TV admits the inflation rate in Iran ran twenty-four percent for the year ending last April. The outlet quotes the Central Bank in its coverage. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=54275&sectionid=351020102) Ahmadinejad responded by firing some financial wallahs and claiming that the inflation rate was lower, only about nineteen percent and claiming Iran's "enemies" were responsible anyway.

Then there is the unemployment problem. About one out of every four young Iranians doesn't have a job. http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=080512115831.nd5ex4ol.php. In urban areas the figure is over twenty-eight percent. That's a right large passel of unemployed, frustrated teens and twenty somethings. Worrisome for any government.

But wait! There's more.

As if massive unemployment, exo-atmospheric inflation, chronic shortages and periodic "wage holidays" weren't enough, the Iranian government is proceeding with its "privatization" program. Over the past three years privatization has been an ad hoc affair, but as of 15 May, it went official, organised with the release of five or so percent of Republic Shipbuilding to the public.

The well-off, well-connected (or the sons thereof) will do even better than they did under the previous fit-and-start approach.

The idea apparently is to sop up some of the excess liquidity which has driven so much of the inflation to date. But, like previous attempts sponsored by Ahmadinejad, including housing construction and an order that banks lower interest rates to say nothing of directed increases in government salaries and pensions, this stab at privatization will prove counterproductive.

The economic difficulties confronting Iran suggest that strengthened sanctions calculated to hit the Iranian commercial class and sagging infrastructure may yet prove effective. This will take a greater effort on the part of the P5+1--particularly the PRC.

To accomplish the goal of more effective sanctions more effectively implemented will require more patience on the part of the current, lame duck US administration. Even that won't be enough.

For the sanction approach to work it is necessary that Tehran be allowed no comfort in the thought that barely more than six months from now a new administration, presumably with new policies and approaches, will take office.

Only John McCain to date has refused to give Tehran that comfort.

"What about oil prices?" You ask.

"What about the new Iran-Venezuela axis?" You object.

The Geek buys gas and LPG. He knows the pain in the skinny wallet all too well.

But, he also knows history. The US has been through periods of (at the time) astronomical oil and gasoline prices. During the previous oil shocks in 1973 and 1979-80 and the late '90s, the US was hurt badly by rising prices. But, we muddled our way through. The market forces eventually worked.

They will again. Provided the wallahs in Congress can hold their emotions (and driving need to be re-elected) under control. While not an unreconstructed free marketeer by any stretch of the imagination, the Geek cannot help by notice that the market has worked better than government actions in limiting and eventually reversing the damage of shocks to the economy.

Taking a quick look at Iran's attempt to horizontally escalate its confrontation with the US by linking with Venezuela (a subject for a later post), the Geek gives it a thumbs up.

What!

Yes, the Geek thinks it couldn't happen to a better bunch of guys. Hugo Chavez is clearly as deep an economic thinker as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs as his latest nationalization scheme shows. Venezuela is expected to have an inflation rate of twenty-six percent. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=70644, http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/05/07/en_eco_art_inflation-at-1.7-per_07A1561241.shtml. Food prices have jumped over forty percent--and it isn't because of the oil price boom. http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/05/14/en_eco_art_venezuela-records-th_14A1576685.shtml.

With a meeting of such potent economic minds as those running Iran and Venezuela, the outcome can only be beneficial to those who live in other countries.

The next administration will have a full foreign policy plate whether they want to eat it or not. The incompetent neocon ninnie cooks in the current regime have made sure of that. We the People had best demand full, candid explanations of goals and means of acquiring those goals from the candidates.

We must not let any of the wannabe residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue glide on by with a handful of poorly thought out but nice sounding campaign platitudes.

Unless we want to see us and the rest of the world slide further down the slope so well greased by the Bush-Cheney regime.