Internal War--Neocons And The Tea Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting Back To Business--Iran And The Bomb

President Obama has allowed that he is "not reconciled" to the notion of Iran as a nuclear weapons state. He quickly tacked on that he believed the "international community" was not reconciled to the idea either.

The Obama wording is delightfully ambiguous. Does he mean that while he is not yet "reconciled" to Iran gaining a nuclear weapons capacity he might become such at some time in the nebulous future? Or, is he implying that his current status of not being "reconciled" might eventually harden into one of total irreconcilability?

The President did not deign to explain and the Associated Press reporter did not press him on the matter, preferring to elicit comments on the NBA and the death of Michael Jackson. The placement of the I-am-not-reconciled statement near the end of the interview seems to indicate that neither the president nor the reporter considered the matter of the "Mahdi Bomb" to be one of gravity.

Certainly not the gravity of the President's view of Validimir Putin's having "one foot in the past." It is, of course, Russia's (which is to say Putin's) position on Iranian matters which bode well to continue to prevent any possibility of real and effective sanctions being employed against the mullahocracy. The combination of an election conducted in the manner and with the lopsided outcome typical of the Soviet Union and its satellites with the killing repression of protesters has hardened political support in Europe and elsewhere for more effective sanctions against the Iranian government.

The outre Iranian arrest and detention of local employees of the British embassy in Tehran has united the European Union in a completely atypical desire to "do something" which might at least symbolically punish the mullahs for their egregious violation of diplomatic norms and international conventions on the status of diplomatic mission employees. The "correlation of forces" seemed to be swinging in favor of turning the screws at least a bit on Iran.

Then, along comes Putin's Russia. Let the record show that Russia fancies itself to be a member of the European community (construed broadly and when it is in Russia's interests.) Putin obviously sees himself as a European statesman (albeit one who looks better with his shirt and tie off than when trussed in full business attire.)

In a way which merits President Obama's characterization of having one foot in the past, Putin's government is opposed to any imposition of sanctions over such mere bagatelles as rigged elections, suppressed dissent, and the arrest of locals working for an embassy. As the Soviet (oops! Bad Geek,) Russian press notes with a becoming accuracy, not only is Russia the prime foreign backer of Iran in international fora, its government was the first to both recognise the re-election of Ahmedinejad and congratulate him on that feat.

Russia is building Iran's heavy water reactor which is eminently capable of producing more plutonium than the antiquated North Korean unit at Yongban. It is providing the start up fuel and other services, not all of which may have been mentioned publicly. And, along with NATO stalwarts German and France, it is in the "Billion Dollar Club"regarding last year's trade with the Islamist jihadist Tehran regime. (For the record, China is also in the club, and the US with over eight hundred million dollars of food sales is bucking for membership.)

When the "Billion Dollar Club" is considered, the harsh words of Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy for both Iran's nuclear adventure and its electoral misconduct ring hollow. Factoring in the unlimited diplomatic support of Russia and China, there are strong hints that the sanction regime espoused by the US these many years is but a mixture of empty rhetoric and wishful thinking.

Or, to put it slightly differently and focusing sharply on President Obama's call for "engagement" with the mullahs of Qom and their frontmen in Tehran, it is a quxiotic exercise at best. The President is (in the words of the Geekness who has an unmatched capacity to mangle cliches,) "honking up the wrong tree."

Which brings us to John Bolton. As readers (if any) of the Geek's maunderings will no doubt recall, the Geek is not a big fan of the neocon one-time US ambassador to the UN, Mr Bolton, who has never been in combat nor any closer to the killing and dieing than the Diplomats' Lounge at the UN, is a resolute supporter of war against countries such as Iraq under Saddam or Iran at any time subsequent to 1979.

He has re-entered the lists flying the banner of Israel. It is his position that the time has come for the Israelis to exercise the military option and abate the nascent nuclear menace of Iran. He deposes not on the probability of an Israeli success in the endeavor, apparently either considering such mundane matters as, "will it work?" to be beneath the dignity of a man of his political and intellectual sophistication or subscribing to the notion that the IAF is a collection of Supermen flying aircraft with capabilities transcending those ascribed to UFOs by mavens of that subject.

The consensus of informed and realistic opinion is that an IAF strike or strikes on the complex of hard and hardened targets comprising the Iranian nuclear research, development, and production universe would be, as Wellington said of Waterloo, "a near-run thing." The Iranian government and military have long reckoned with the possibility of an attack by either or both Israel and the US. They have taken impressive measures to make the task tougher and the results more debatable.

While the Iranians are given to bluster in the megaton range, it would be a mistake to undervalue their capacity for mischief making in response to any attack. Even if the Iranians did nothing, not even pushing the "go" button on their terrorist surrogates, the exceptionally nervous crowd known generically as "speculators" would push the price of oil to never-seen-before levels. This action without any other measure being taken by Tehran would be severely disruptive of the US and global economies.

Not a result that Mr Obama would like to deal with, particularly considering his ambitions for "transforming" many basic features of American economic and social life.

But, Mr Bolton has apparently convinced himself that even severe economic and, potentially at least, political turmoil throughout the West and much of the world which would necessarily follow an Israeli attack is of no moment. It is inconceivable that such a staunch supporter of Israel as Mr Bolton has not thought through what the reaction directed against Israel would be if a global economic shock caused by escalating oil prices resulted in the days and weeks following the bombs falling.

Or, perhaps, Mr Bolton is convinced or at least hopeful that the Iranian reaction would be so bloody, so shocking, that the world would rally as one to the defense of Israel. Perhaps not the world, but surely the US, he may have told and sold himself.

Considering the delusional state of Mr Bolton's contention that the current unrest within Iran provides an excellent opportunity for "public diplomacy" to convince the Iranian people that any attack on the nuclear facilities is not an attack on the Iranians--only their government, it is within the realm of plausibility that he has been equally self-deluded on the critical matters of global and US response to the aftershocks of the Israeli attack.

No, Mr Bolton, the Israeli option is not a good way to go.

The Geek is not in favor of a nuclear armed Iran. Iran may or may not be governed by rational men capable of understanding and acting upon the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD.) The mullahs may or may not be equal to Saddam Hussein who, when he received word via Jordan's King Hussein that the Israelis would respond with a nuclear strike to any use of chemical weapons against their country, never ordered the already loaded and good to go Scuds to be launched.

Saddam was a rational actor. The mullahs and their subordinates may or may not be such. It is a risk the US and the rest of the world should not have to entertain. Certainly the Israelis or for that matter the Sunni Arab regimes of the Gulf should not face the very real existential threat that a nuclear armed Iran would constitute regardless of the applicability of the MAD calculus.

This leaves a very unpleasant, quite brutal option. Should President Obama mutate from being merely not "reconciled" to "utterly irreconcilable," the only remaining option is that of a direct US attack on the facilities. There is no genuine doubt that the US could obliterate the nuclear constellation.

The results would not be pretty. The oil shock would come as day follows night. Unless neutralised, the Iranians would respond with conventional and surrogate or proxy forces against the US and its allies both in the region and elsewhere. The Muslim world (at least publicly) would be all frothy with expressions of hatred and demands for revenge. There would be Islamist jihadists aplenty to take up the call and act on it.

Even allies which had given at least tacit and private approval to any American attack would be afflicted with morning after regrets. These regrets would be exhibited in numerous ways, all of which would be unpleasant. Rivals to the US such as Russia and China would leap to take any and all advantages which they might see. The consequences of this feature alone are difficult to prognosticate in detail but would be both extensive and negative overall.

Indeed, a powerful argument can be mounted for the contention that an American attack, even one which was totally successful, would constitute an existential threat to the US in its aftermath. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the nascent nuclear capacity may never present a genuine, direct threat to the US. Have a problem with that? Well, then consider the asymmetry resident presently as well as in the near-term potential of a maturing missile defense technology and a (barely) emergent delivery system technology.

Since the Obama administration is not one particularly enamored with either foreign affairs or contemplating the potential of military operations with a potential for unintended consequences far worse than the threat they were oriented toward countering, it is unlikely in the extreme that the American option would be exercised. It is almost as unlikely that the Obama administration would do anything other than strain every sinew to prevent the exercise of the Bolton supported Israeli option.

So, what does that leave?

Two possibilities.

The first is a diplomatic miracle requiring Russia being induced to switch sides, China, ditto, and the French and German governments cutting their own economic throats by dropping membership in the "Billion Dollar Club." (Oh, and the US deciding that food exports to the citizens living under the current regime were no longer "humanitarian" in nature.)

The second is for President Obama to suddenly realise that he is totally "reconciled" with the idea of Iran joining the Nuclear Club.

A great set of choices, isn't it?

John Bolton And North Korea

John Bolton is a man with whom the Geek rarely agrees. At the moment regarding US policy toward North Korea, we are in tandem. The provocation for this rare moment of congruence is found in the WSJ, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121478274355214441.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.

Getting rid of the Yongbyon plutonium production reactor is a good idea. But, in and of itself the decommissioning of the reactor does not solve the major questions regarding the isolated autocracy's nuclear weapons program. Nor does it turn the overly aggressive Soviet era enclave into an outpost of peaceloving good nature.

Be that as it may, the US is rewarding the petulant paranoids of the North Korean regime for its current semi-bad behavior as well as its previous record as an international rogue.

The current administration may be doing the end zone victory high-five, but behind the smoke and mirrors of victory being celebrated without having been achieved lurk the big unknowns.

Unknown number one. Neither the fourteen month late Declaration nor earlier accounts under the 1994 Agreed Framework provide hard data on precisely how much plutonium was produced, extracted, made into weapons or remains somewhere on a shelf deep underground waiting fabrication.

Unknown number two. A similar state of ignorance exists regarding the availability in North Korea of warhead designs such as those found on the A.Q Khan network computer in Switzerland. The existence of designs based on tested and refined weapons both simplifies the fabrication process and nullifies the need for tests. Of course, better designs stretch a limited Pu-239 budget further.

Unknown number three. With the exception of the Yongbyon clone under construction in Syria, the full extent of North Korea's proliferation related activities is lost in the diplomatic fog.

Now for some knowns.

Known number one. North Korea is and always has been a secretive militaristic state given to selling weapons technology to states hostile to US interests.

Known number two. The North Korean clandestine service has engaged directly in acts of terror (albeit not recently) and the regime has given no credible evidence of having renounced this means of warfare,

Known number three. North Korea is an economic disaster area. Starvation looms for many North Koreans.

The US is sending food. Overall a half million tons of US grown food will be sent. The first thirty six thousand tons have arrived already.

The current administration stated that no linkage exists between the humanitarian relief effort and the issuance of the nuclear declaration. As an old spookworld saying has it, "Thank God for coincidence."

(It is passingly interesting to note that the North Korean regime rejected the South Korean offer of corn. Not the kind of response one would expect from a government dealing with massive food shortages.)

There was a clear, direct and open linkage between the North Korean (partial) fulfillment of its obligations and the US removing the country from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. In that North Korea remains under a series of other sanctions both unilateral and multi-lateral, the practical implications of this reward are limited.

The symbolic significance should not be overlooked. Removing this onus from Pyongyang will make it easier for the regime to receive aid, international institutional assistance and financing and other necessities of survival. Even the provision of food alone helps remove unpleasant burdens from the regime. If others are feeding its population; if others provide material and financial assistance, the regime will be free to focus its energies and resources upon the military and akin structures.

North Korea will be able to continue its sixty year old role as a regional thug as well as its more recent one of global troublemaker. The legitimacy provided Pyongyang by de-listing will free its hands for more mischief.

Regardless of what diplomats, past and present, might aver, this is no policy success. The diplomats along with the current administration might wish it to be such--they have so much political and personal ego invested in the process, but wishing does not make it so.

Smooth words and mood music regarding "verification" and continued sanctions as well as "engagement" do not cover the corpse of failure.

Neither do plaints regarding the "starving millions" of the North Korean peasants. For all the fond hopes and warm feelings of High Minded Humanitarians, the feeding of the multitudes is counterproductive. Full bellies will not bring smiles of peace.

The US did not win. John Bolton is right. The North Korean regime did.

Ah! A Refreshing Sound--The Voice of Realism, Robert Gates

For the last several years (and the past several months in particular) the Geek has flinched to the bombast of ideologues whether neo-con ninnies such as the Geek's favorite targets, Paul Wolfewitz, Doug Feith, Donald Rumsfield, and the ever gripless Dick Cheney or the Surrender, Now! crowd clustering like sheep around Senate Majority Leader Reid, Speaker of the House Pelosi, presidential wannebes Obama, Edwards, et al and John (The Mouth Without a Brain) Murtha. Oy veh! The cacophony of the mindless!

Comes now Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense and late of the brutally realistic world of intelligence. How the Commander Guy ever let a realpolitiker slip into the current administration will only become clear when (and if) the relevant documents are declassified.

In any event, thoughtful Americans should be pleased by Gates' presence in the administration. He is a man who has a firm grip on the realities of the world today--and the limits of US military power as shown in his recent speech at the College of William and Mary. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/defense_secretary_gatess_nonro.html

Long before Mr Gates took the helm at CIA, the Geek had heard the wry comment that when an intelligence officer smells flowers he looks for the coffin. Later, the Geek learned the same is true with historians.

It is not true to assert that intel folks and historians are pessimists. It is much more accurate to say that both occupations require submergence in the dreck of the human condition to such an extent that coffins are more expectable than flowers, rain more the order of the day than sunshine.

Both intelligence personnel and historians need disciplined imagination to connect the dots of ambiguous facts, factoids, anti-facts, and artifacts to create an accurate picture of complex events and personalities. What separates the two endeavors is the simple reality that the historian looks at the past and the intelligence officer must predict the future.

When disciplined imagination works, intelligence can accurately predict the future. This was the case time and time again in the fog covered swamp of Vietnam. CIA was so correct so often that the administration of Lyndon Johnson stopped reading the Agency's dreary, but accurate predictions concerning both the necessity and direction of the war. (Psst: The spooks said the war was unnecessary--and we were losing it.)

When disciplined imagination fails, or when its product is ignored, the results are rarely good for US interests. That has certainly been the case in Iraq and, to an only slightly lesser extent, Afghanistan.

This is why Mr Gates' presence in the administration gratifies the Geek. It is why Secretary Gates' words concerning Iran and the future of Iraq demand and deserve attention by all Americans.

The Secretary and the Geek are in tandem on several important matters. The first is that an attack upon Iranian facilities must be a measure of absolute last resort. On this critical policy decision, ideologues such as John Bolton, the former Ambassador to the UN and current globe trotting sage for the American Enterprise Institute, are as wrong as grilled watermelon.

For Mr Bolton's current line see the following story from Australia. It's a hoot says the Geek. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/19/2037418.htm

The Geek has little doubt that Secretary Gates would agree that the world could learn to live with a nuclear capable Iran. It wouldn't be comfortable, but as the Geek has argued in a previous post, life in a world where Iran joins the ranks of potential nuke slingers wouldn't be impossible.

War as the SecDef noted in his confirmation hearings is inherently unpredictable. Even every one's favorite German philosopher of matters military, Karl von Clausewitz, allowed, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."

Mr Gates would probably agree that while the US could wreak terrific havoc on the Iranian nuclear, military, governmental, and economic infrastructure, the problem of the day after would be well neigh unsolvable at any acceptable political, diplomatic, military, and economic cost. He might well counsel that war is like icy water--don't dive in, take it one toe at a time.

The Secretary is also refreshingly uncommitted to the absurd notion of exporting democracy to Iraq (or anywhere else) on the tip of an American bayonet. The Geek thought that was a well understood reality. Even the neo-con crew should have been aware that such attempts have been made before. They have failed.

President Woodrow Wilson tried to "teach those Mexicans to elect good men," by landing the Marines at Vera Cruz. The Mexicans ignored the old Princeton professor's lesson. After that splendidly ignored experience, we've tried in other places and other times. None have worked, at least after the US troops came home.

(Don't pull the Japan after World War II gambit on the Geek. That was a unique situation. It has not been repeated in Iraq. It would not be repeatable in Iran. Get a grip!)

What Iraq and the Iraqis need is stability. Stability over time. Our forces can provide stability in the short-term. But, they can and must leave. Thus, our bayonets cannot provide even the appearance of long-term order.

Only the Iraqis cannot do that. It may take the emergence of a strongman to assure that short term stability turns into long-term order. SecDef Gates is aware of that. He isn't disturbed by the knowledge.

The Geek agrees. Democracy works. But not for every country all the time. Iraq may need a strongman who can maintain stability, inculcate order, and provide a basis for the country's future development. We may not like authoritarian regimes. But, as long as they are neither overwhelmingly bloody at home or expansive abroad, we can share the planet with them.

Obnoxious regimes have been commonplace over recent generations. Few of them have merited military operations to force regime change. Even when some have, past administrations have touched a toe or two into the cold water of contemplated war--and backed out quickly.

There's an old cliche holding that a person should choose his enemies carefully. Like all cliches, it contains a large grain of truth. SecDef Gates is realist enough to recognise that it is even more important for a country to choose its wars very, very carefully.

He's got a grip.