The Otherworldly Realism of T-Paw

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty is stuck in the second tier of Republican hopefuls despite a strenuous effort to break to daylight.  He has already taken a definite stand on matters economic with strong support from the media and no palpable result in the public polling.  Now he is trying to do the same in the area of foreign affairs, putting distance between himself and the neo-isolationists of the GOP on the one hand and the neocons of the George W. Bush days on the other.

T-paw's essay in self-definition came yesterday n a speech delivered to the Council on Foreign Relations.  While represented as a tour of the horizon, the candidate focused on the Mideast, Israel, and Obama's failures of policy in the region.

There is little doubt but the Obama approach to affairs in the Mideast specifically and the world generally have been marked by far more failure than success.  The primary reason for this is to be found in the world view of the Nice Young Man From Chicago with its blame-America-first core.  Being a perfect academic, Mr Obama is given to avoiding action in favor of words whenever possible.  Then as a matter of personality, the Clueless Guy in the Oval resembles a Pearson's Puppeteer.

(For those of you who do not read science fiction, the Pearson Puppeteer was an alien species created by the fertile mind of Larry Niven.  The species is characterized by a degree of caution which surpasses the merely cowardly.  The "leader" of the Puppeteers is called the Hindmost--which rather resembles in concept the idea of "leading from behind" offered recently by a member of the administration in admiring tribute to Obama's presumed statesmanship in the Libyan Affair.)

The characterization of Mr Obama's approach(es) to the "Arab Spring" and the Israeli-Palestinian Question offered by Governor Pawlenty are unexceptional.  So also is his emphasis on the importance of Israel to US national interests.

Where T-paw misses the cliched bus is in his fervently expressed belief in the ability of the US to act effectively in the creation of freedom and democracy in the Mideast in the wake of the recent and ongoing tumult.  He is of the view that authentic democracy, genuine freedom, real Western style government with full fledged protections of minorities including women and non-Muslims can be created and maintained over time with the assistance and support of the US.

It would be very nice if the Pawlenty vision was accurate.  It is not.  Whether dealing with the environment of post-authoritarian Egypt or Tunisia, or contemplating how "reforms" might be facilitated by American efforts in kingdoms such as Jordan, Morocco or, most importantly of all, Saudi Arabia, Mr Pawlenty discounts the force and universality of Islam, particularly the form of Islam embraced and promoted by Salifists and Wahhibists.

The well-meaning Pawlenty (or his advisers and speechwriters) ignore the fundamental realities of Islamic thought which focus upon the deity as the source of all legitimate law.  Also overlooked is the oft-repeated meme that neither democracy nor liberty as understood in the West is compatible with the dictates of the deity contained in the sacred literature as interpreted by generations of scholars of Islamic jurisprudence.  The Pawlenty stance also overlooks the fundamental orientation of Islam on the duties of the believer.  Not to put an inaccurately fine point on the matter, Islam elevates duty, duty to the deity over any and all personal rights. In short there is no concept of individual rights which equates in any way with the prevalent definitions of rights and responsibilities in the US or the West generally.

The failure to comprehend accurately the impact of faith and its all-inclusive nature constitutes the rock on which Mr Pawlenty's ideas of constructive engagement with the new forces of the Arab states must founder.  While the people oriented toward secular concerns and world view dominated and continue to dominate the media coverage of events in the Arab states, these folk are a minority, even an endangered species.  Many of the more secular minded are quite aware of this aspect of the post-authoritarian dynamic as is seen with the repeated calls in Egypt for a delay in the elections so as to allow the secularists to organize well enough to take on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist political groups.

Mr Pawlenty's call for the next president to motivate the Saudi royal house to take the path of reform is also quite otherworldly.  The House of Saud exists today because of the bargain made generations ago to link its fortunes with those of the Wahhibists.  There is no way on this Earth that the austere world view of Wahhibism would continence let alone participate in any sort of reform such as mentioned by T-paw.  There is no chance that the Wahhibist theology is about to go along with extending any rights to non-Muslims or see the error of Mohammad's ways regarding the status of women.

In his remarks Mr Pawlenty warns against the elections which produce results antithetical to genuine democracy, authentic freedom.  He may have had Iran in mind when he said this as there is no better example of a people committing political suicide at the ballot box than that.  It will take far more than support for the "reform" movement of 2009 for the verdict of self-destruction by vote to be reversed.  The Iranians willingly and to the later regret of some surrendered all vestiges of political autonomy to the dictates of theology.  The same may happen in at least some of the Arab states celebrated as having sounded the tocsin of freedom by Mr Pawlenty.

A central point made by the presidential aspirant deserved more emphasis.  The reality of political Islam, particularly violent political Islam will be with us for many, many years to come.  As long as that reality existss the US will be the major target of its hate and violence.  This status will not be removed even if the US were to unilaterally withdraw from every last member state of the Organization of the Islamic Conference--or even if the US were to vote for the dissolution of Israel.

The necessary conclusion is the US must not retreat to some sort of Fortress America.  Surrender to violent political Islam is not an option simply because surrender will not work.  It will not immunize the US against future attacks, future terror, future war.  Nothing short of every last American--all 312 million of us--facing east and banging our foreheads on the floor would grant immunity from the hatred of the groups dedicated to violent political Islam.

The US may have, as Mr Pawlenty suggested, one political party which argues for American decline, withdrawal, disengagement and isolation.  He thinks that there is no need for a second.  He is right.  He would have been even more on target had he said that one such party is one too many.

Once Again It's Escalation Time In Bahrain

When the Saudi troops and armor moved down the causeway to Bahrain, any observer well oriented in time and place would have concluded that the countdown to a crackdown had commenced.  The observer might also have mused that the number of hours on the clock was not great.

The troops have moved.  The protest encampment in Pearl Square has been cleared.  People have been wounded.  Some have been killed.  The ante in this particular game of bluff has been raised.  So have the stakes for all players: the royal family and its Sunni minority supporters, the Shiite majority protesters, the backroom crowd from Tehran and, not least, the US for whom Bahrain is an important strategic outpost.

The Obama folks responded to the most recent clearing operation as they did the previous one.  All the right boilerplate phrases have been pulled out of the word processors, "urge restraint," "deplore violence," "need for dialogue" and all the other routine yabba, yabba, dabba, dabba, yadda, yadda.

On the other side of the hill, the side occupied by the royal family of Bahrain, matters are seen differently.  The Bahraini royals and their supporters see a strong probability that Obama is going to pull the plug on them as they believe was the case with Hosni Mubarak.  There is a strong perception not only in Bahrain but also in Saudi Arabia and the other states of the Gulf Coordination Council to the effect that President Obama either though inertia and indifference or under the pressure of personal ideology allowed the overthrow of Mubarak and is likely to do the same with the assorted royals of the Gulf states.

The same perception, or one so close as to be operationally identical, must run through the minds of the Mullahs and their frontmen in Iran, Syria, and within Hezbollah.  The vacillating stances of Obama and his secretary of state during the "Lotus Revolution" were seen not only in Egypt but elsewhere as the product of a weak person with no political will.  This would embolden the adversaries of the status quo (including Iran) and force the current governments under threat to take more robust actions more rapidly than might otherwise be necessary, let alone desirable.

This analytical stance must lead to the conclusion that the Obama administration and the president himself bear a direct responsibility for the deaths in Bahrain.  It also means the same applies with respect to the inevitable deterioration of political stability in Bahrain.

It doesn't matter that the authoritarian regimes have lasted so long in the region in largest measure due to American support.  The reasons for that support matter even less.  The reality that the US policy of supporting dictators and semi-dictators regardless of the rhetoric favoring democracy was fully justified considering American national and strategic interests as well as the threats presented to them matters least of all.

In Bahrain currently as in Egypt a couple of weeks ago, the US was caught between the two primary pillars of its foreign policy: the idealistic long term commitment to democracy and other political, social, and cultural values and norms on the one hand and the pragmatically sanctioned realistic need to defend and advance certain short term national and strategic interests against clear threats.  This dynamic of contradictory policy imperatives both hamstrings and brands as hypocritical whatever the US seeks to do when confronted by a sudden political change as rapid and devastating of the old order as a tsunami.

Worsening the situation has been the chronic administration focus upon splitting the difference and postponing decision making under the transparent cover of appearing to be deliberate and prudent.  A nice show which may play in Peoria, but one which falls on its flabby rear end in the streets and squares where the political battles are fought.

As a result no ruler in the Mideast can be sure the US will support him when doing such might require actions running contrary to the myth of constant American upholding of truth, democracy, and the American Way.  King Hamid cannot trust Obama to remain a consistent supporter even if the current regime does enter into legitimate negotiations with the dissident Shiites.  The same applies to King Abdullah next door in Saudi Arabia.  Ditto for all the other feudal rulers of the GCC states.

Can you blame them for concluding they are on their own?  Can they be blamed for taking robust action in the hope (perhaps forlorn) that by doing such enough order to allow minimal concessions might be achieved?  And, can anyone blame these endangered rulers facing not only domestic threats but the machinations of Iran for ignoring the fine words of the Obama folks?

The answer to each and all these questions is simple: Of course not.

The sorry record of the Obama administration compels the local rulers to ignore Washington completely.  The indecisive nature of the administration, its reliance on speeches and verbal lines in the sand never backed by actions which might be effective in the short term, the inability of Mr Obama and his "team" even to come to terms with the realities in Libya, all of these combine to reduce American influence in the region to zero.  Even if the local kings and sheiks had been so tone deaf as to miss the significance of Obama reversing decades of US policy toward Israel, they could scarcely overlook the lack of resolute or even visible policy in Egypt.

The King of Bahrain and his peers throughout the Gulf region have no one to look to except each other and themselves.  The US is worse than a mere nonentity.  It has become a distrusted player, a potential enemy who claims to be a friend.  So they act reflexively, violently, coercively in the hopes it might bring a time out during which some sort of internal deal might be brokered.

The reliance on coercion may well be misplaced, fatally so.  But in that event at the least the current governments will have been stabbed in the chest.  That, the rulers must believe, is better by far than waiting for Mr Obama to plunge the deadly knife into their backs.

Mr Obama and his adherents may convince themselves that the President is a perfect model of statesmanship: cool, deliberative, refusing to act precipitously.  This is an illusion.  In sharpest point of fact, the Obama "team" is assuring more unrest, longer unrest, and an ever growing mound of corpses.  In the final analysis the blood must be seen as staining the hands of the Deep Thinkers of Washington far more than it does the hands of the locals.

The Darkness Of The Future

Some years the future is clear.  For example, the global political stage was highly visible and future developments easy to predict during much of the 1990s.   It was evident that the weak responses of the Clinton administration to the aggressive acts and "declaration of war" by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda would result in more, larger attacks.  It was not exactly difficult to predict that the "opening" of China to US trade would result in an ever growing torrent of money flowing to the Trolls of Beijing who would use the swag to power up their ambitions to have a global footprint.  Nor was it mentally taxing to conclude that the combination of hectoring and paternalism with which the US treated Russia would stoke the two primary characteristics of Russian policy--messianic zeal and galloping feelings of inferiority vis a vis the West coupled with a pervasive sense of insecurity.

In the background lurked the Iranian Islamic Revolution, the impact of which was growing across the Islamic world during the Nineties.  The growth of political Islam, particularly violent political Islam was evident not only with al-Qaeda but with the triumph of Taliban in Afghanistan, the presence of Iranian agents in the southern Philippines, the rise of political Islam in Pakistan, and the sectarian conflict in the rubble of Yugoslavia.  From that context prediction of the future trajectory was close to being a no-brainer.

It is not so easy today.  The rapid series of political disruptions in North Africa and the Mideast has introduced a set of complications which greatly complicates the prediction of future international trajectories.  If the current conflict in Libya continues and becomes a long duration (more than three months) internal war, the complications will be magnified.  

It is plain that Iran will continue to seek advantage in the Gulf region.  Its struggle with Saudi Arabia for regional hegemon status will both continue and grow.  Tehran will seek to exploit the Shiite disaffiliation in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.  Similarly, it will use its agents of influence in the less than monolithic Iraqi government to fill the vacuum which will necessarily develop further as the American presence recedes.  At the same time there is no doubt Ayatollah Khamenei will keep on consolidating power in his hands.  The carefully orchestrated removal of Ayatollah Akbar Rafsanjani from his post as head of the important Assembly of Experts is the most recent gambit in Khamenei's march to total and unquestioned authority.  It can be expected that the handpicked tool, Ahmedinejad, will follow up on this with a move against the Larjani family.

The imponderable (at least as to timing) in Iran is when will the lash back take place.  The Rafsanjani family like that of the Larjanis is both wealthy and powerful.  The more moderate clerics of Qom are much enamored of Rafsanjani and not overly impressed with the theological credentials of Khamenei.  Nor are they thrilled with the progress of Iran socially and economically the past few years.  The Green Movement has demonstrated a degree of committed perseverance totally unexpected in the wake of the first protests nearly two years ago.  So, the big question is: When will the balloon go up?

There are some features of the future which are clear.  Russia will continue to be an obstruction to effective collective action in Libya.  So too will China.  Both countries will also act to impede the implementation of a solution to the North Korean nuclear question.  And, should the continued centralization of authority in Iran reach the point of provoking widespread and violent internal unrest, both will be an obstacle to finding a viable solution for that challenge.

Another clear future of the tomorrows to come is the increasing potency of political Islam oriented groups and individuals in the new governments of Tunisia, Egypt, and other countries with governments under internal threat.  The presence of advocates of political Islam in governments of Egypt or Tunisia or Bahrain tends to scare the hell out of at least some Americans.  This degree of alarm is not necessarily justified as shown by the AKP in Turkey which is far more nationalist in its political philosophy than Islamist.  

The head of Tunisia's Renaissance Party has pointed to Erdogan and the AKP as a relevant role model.  So has Moussa, a leading candidate for the first post-Mubarak civilian president.  The historical experience tends to favor nationalism trumping Islam.  This does not mean there will be a total absence of Islam, a wall between mosque and state.  Rather it implies that while features of a country's internal and judicial policies will be tilted strongly in the direction of Islamic requirements and strictures, and public criticism or opposition to Muslim groups practicing violent political Islam will be muted in deference to the Islamic imperative on community solidarity, the governments will pursue national interest and not that of some mythical caliphate.

While there is some historically based reasoning to be calm in the face of governments dominated by political Islam, this does not imply that the future is secure or even that it can be seen so clearly that one has a high confidence in predictions at this point.  The assorted advocates of violent political Islam including those with the unlimited goal of a global caliphate will continue to exist.  They will also continue to be creative in their use of local grievances in the context of the "will of Allah" to recruit supporters and silence dissent from their goals.  But their potential growth will be limited if the US and other Western states pursue policies which give due regard to the very easily bruised nationalism which exists in all the countries experiencing unrest or its aftermath.

This suggests strongly that caution is the word to use when considering no-fly zones or any other intervention in Libya--or in some country yet to implode.  Interventions no matter how justified in terms of stopping massacres outrage national sentiments.  When the national sentiments are magnified by feelings of religious persecution, the result is very negative for the outsiders.  It is like domestic violence situations--ask any street cop what happens when the battling partners are faced by the well intentioned outsiders there to enforce the impartial law.  So it is with people  generally--unite against the outsider, particularly when that outsider represents another, maligned religious community.

The combination of prickly nationalism and religious imperatives also suggests that the US and other Western countries had best develop realistic and limited goals for their policies concerning new governments.  It is all well and good to play upbeat mood music about democracy, but that is not a policy, let alone a realistic and limited one.  The process of formulating appropriate policy goals starts with a coldly realistic assessment of just what national and strategic interests are in play in each country of the regions.

Here we encounter the real basis of why the future is dark.  The current administration has yet to demonstrate that it understands what national and strategic interests might be.  There is no general text covering national interest or its extension, strategic interest.  Rather there have been hazy almost bumper sticker mouthings such as "comprehensive Mideast peace" or "fostering democratic and transparent government without corruption" or "assuring women play their full role in the new system."  

Nice sound bites do not make policy, let alone realistic, achievable policy oriented toward the goal of achieving American national and strategic interests.  Nor are appeals to the "international community" and multilateral bodies a substitute for policy aimed at US interests.  

To say the Obama administration is adrift at the policy level is almost too kind.  Yet that is the ground truth at work today.  This means there is a real danger that Congress will interject itself into the making of foreign policy.  Congress may have its strengths, but the formulation and execution of foreign policy is not numbered among them.  Worse, absent definite policy a severe uptick in the level of violence in Libya or one of the other instable venues might excite the emotions of We the People to the point that political considerations compel action.  History records that such hasty, politically predicated excuses for reasoned policy are well described by a single word: failure.

The US has lurched from failure to failure under the forces of ideology and sheer naivety for most of the past eighteen years.  As a consequence, an avoidable one, the US has witnessed a progressive decline in its status and influence around the world.  If this sorry record continues through the current round of developments, the result will be a US which is irrelevant, a US which finally merits that Sixties vintage appellation, "a pitiful helpless giant."

Time Is On The Side Of War

In the years before World War I large sections of the British politically articulate classes became increasingly convinced that British power, particularly naval power, had peaked and would soon decline in relation to Germany. The idea of war became increasingly thinkable as there was a pervasive belief that time was on the side of the Kaiser and not Britannia.

Today the same situation exists but now it holds forth on both sides of the great divide and not just one. There is good reason for Iranians and Israelis both to have the idea that time is working to the disadvantage of each.

It is arguably true that Iranian power is peaking in comparison to Israel's. When Iran gains even a rudimentary nuclear capacity, the Jewish state is under real and immediate threat.

It is arguably true that Iran is facing potentially fatal internal opposition now that the merchants of the bazaars in Tehran and other large cities have been expressing not only anti-tax but anti-government sentiments. The Iranian government's stability is in no way assisted by the effects of the new sanctions imposed by the European Union and the US. There will be more shortages, more unemployment, more unrest, more repression.

In a very real sense then the rulers of Iran may be expected to conclude that now represents their last, best chance to go to (indirect) war for purposes of regime maintenance and diplomatic diversion. The availability of competent proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas provide the needed avenue for indirect war.

On the Israeli side of the hill it is to be expected that the country's strategists have seen all the alternatives available to the mullahs in the proxy war category--and will not be diverted from their main enemy, Iran. The awareness that being distracted, tied down both militarily and diplomatically in a proxy war in Lebanon would provide advantage only to Iran must pervade the corridors of Israeli political and military command.

In a quirky way the situation resembles not only that before August 1914 but the contest over who would invade Norway first in 1940, Germany or England. For Iran, it is critical to let the Hezbollah dogs of war loose before Israel makes the go decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. For Israel the necessity is hitting Iran before the proxy war, the Hezbollah threat, puts the diplomatic kibosh on any hope of a direct attack on Iran.

Both Iran and Israel have good reasons to resort to war. At the moment the conventional advantage rests with Israel. However, Iran has demonstrated great skill at offsetting conventional advantage with creative use of proxies and terror.

And, at the moment, Iran has the initiative. Iran can decide when and to what initial extent Hezbollah is to be cranked up. After that, of course, Iran will not be able to control either the extent or the intensity of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, which includes the potential that Israel will be able to ignore diplomatic strictures and go for the master behind the puppet.

Israel's freedom of action as well as its ability to ignore any diplomatic repercussions resulting from retaliating to Hezbollah provocations is enhanced by the general perception within the Arab states that the world is much better off if Iran does not get the Big Bomb than would be the case if it did. While only the UN representative of the UAE has made this explicit, there can be no doubt but he was speaking publicly what all others have been saying in private.

Other than Syria there are no Iran fans to be found in the Arab states. The depth of Syrian commitment to the Iranian cause would be tested severely if Israeli retaliation to Hezbollah spilled over into Syria. It would be tested even more severely should Israel seek to buy its peace on the Syrian front by giving the Golan Heights back. That option would have more appeal when taken in conjunction with an ongoing confrontation with Hezbollah and the need for a hard strike on the main enemy, Iran.

Iran has allies on the wider stage but only one, China, is a Great Power. Others, including Russia and Germany, may have interests, primarily economic, in play in Iran but are not or are no longer willing to go to the mat to protect Iran's right to join the Nuclear Club. Words may fly like automatic weapons fire at the UN and other fora but without real conviction and without backing on the action front.

The American administration may, in contemporary jargon, "be deeply conflicted" over any Israeli retaliation to Hezbollah provocation as well as a go-it-alone Israel strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities but will be unable to do anything about it. The political realities of America assure that the Obama administration would be unable to do more than rhetorically hand-wring and counsel "restraint" without expecting the Israeli government to heed the exhortations.

No one will be happy should push come to shove in Lebanon and Iran. Any attack on Iran will derail the fragile global economic recovery as oil prices spike. The noise of terrorist bombs and the body parts of suicide bombers will shatter the quiet and litter the landscape as political Islamists seek their opportunity in the window of chaos opened by any Israeli attack on Iran--or occurring as a sideline to the Hezbollah proxy war.

When the war comes, when Iran unleashes Hezbollah or when Israel preempts by hitting Iran's nuclear constellation, it will be in large measure the result of failed US diplomacy. Two successive American administrations--W. Bush and Obama--have faltered before the challenge of Iranian ambitions. Tough--overly tough--words were backed by weak and vacillating actions to the ultimate advantage of the Iranian regime. Lines were drawn on ever-shifting sand, again to the ultimate advantage of the Iranians.

It must be recalled that whatever benefits Iran acts to the disadvantage not only of Israel and the Mideast but the totality of the world. That is the most discouraging implication of the dismal record of two administrations. The US failed completely in its paramount goal of acting to preserve the global balance of power which acts not so much to the advantage of the US as to the peace of the world.

With every passing day Israel is in more of a get-or-get-got position. Every day the choice for Israel narrows: Fight the war of our choice or fight one of Iran's choice and timing.

Any reasonably able strategist knows the answer to that problem.

Violence Never Settles Anything!

To which the Geek replies, "Like hell it doesn't!" For definite proof simply channel the Carthaginians as to what matters were like for them after the Third Punic War. Or, if channeling isn't your thing, simply look at the maps of Europe at various times during the Twentieth Century.

Look particularly at Germany. Notice how it expanded and contracted according to the fortunes of war.

Then consider Poland. You see how the whole damn country moved west as the guns fell silent in May 1945. The Soviets simply took a goodly chunk of the eastern marches of Poland. As compensation, (that's right, the fine old word, "compensation" which decorated so many treaties ending the multifarious wars of Europe in previous, presumably less enlightened centuries), Poland was given a nearly equal sized section of Germany--Silesia.

This dual land grab was sanctioned not simply by the greed of Stalin but by the good wishes of the leaders of the other Great Powers, Great Britain and the US as well as the pretend Great Power, France. No one blinked over the ethnic cleansing which accompanied the move of the borders. No one was perturbed over the loss of lives, mainly those pesky Germans, which resulted inevitably from the forced relocations.

Wars are noted as real estate transactions. Indeed, that has been their primary characteristic and major reason for existence. And, contrary to the popular assumption, most settle the questions of who owns what and who lives where.

Even countries such as the UK and Japan, which are fortunate enough to be defined geographically by their status as islands, owe their identity to aggressive warfare. In each of these cases as in so many others including the US, the indigenous population was invaded and defeated by outsiders. Whether exterminated or banished to remote and unpleasant locations as well as political and social marginalization, the result was the same. A new nation existed by virtue of war.

Filled with the adrenaline of success against the deeply fractionated and demoralized Christian populations of the Mideast and North Africa, the Muslims made a play for Europe. They were stopped at Tours in France by Jeff the Hammer and his boys but held fast to the Iberian Peninsula for a goodly spate of years. In the fullness of time, however, the Muslims were ejected after a very long and quite bloody war of reconquest by the Catholic Spanish. Since the late Fifteenth Century there has been no question about who owns the Iberian Peninsula.

(Admittedly there has arisen within the more primitive minded sort of Muslim the strange and specious notion that Islam must reassert its "historic" sovereignty over the Peninsula. These Koranic fantasists dream of undoing the verdict of war fought hard and long to say nothing of reasonably fairly and quite openly with a campaign of terror, kidnapping, and assassination. These Mighty Warriors of Allah must be partaking of the same hashish which gave the original Assassins their name.)

Then, of course, there are the more than simply annoying Muslims who fail to acknowledge that the Israelis beat them fair and square in a series of wars between 1948 and 1973. None of these wars were necessary. In particular the first wars, those of Israeli Independence, were the result not of Jewish greed or Western machinations but rather of pure, unadulterated Arab Muslim stupidity and obstinacy to say nothing of an unrealistically high belief in their own military competence.

Having failed at both war and diplomacy to settle who owns what and who lives where, the irredentist Muslims have practiced the low and dirty craft of terror coupled recently with an even more abysmal effort at provocation and delegitimization. Unlike other populations who have experienced the nation defining effects of war--for good or for ill--the Muslims of the Mideast driven by the primitively violent diatribes of a religion from the barbaric wastes of the Arabian Peninsula cannot accept the verdict of battle.

The Arabs lost. The Israelis won. What is so hard to understand and accommodate?

The Ottoman Empire died in war. The recent effort by Erdogan in Turkey to resurrect in effect if not in name the golem of the Ottoman Caliphate and Sultanate is an effort to deny that history happened. That the Ottoman welter of bureaucratic inefficiency, fiscal mismanagement, and pure military incompetence allowed the Empire to expire in the throes of defeat in no way matters to Erdogan the Muslim Revanchist.

A case can be made for the desirability of an Ottoman Restoration. Under the Ottoman loose hand, the Mideast was stable and comparatively peaceful. Islam was worn lightly. The dreams of conquering Vienna had faded before the need to secure Istanbul against the Russians, the Bulgars, the Greeks. The fringes of the Empire slept quietly, quaint destinations for tourists.

Unfortunately, that halcyon past can no more return than can the days when the crescent and scimitar flew over Cordoba. Violence settled the Ottoman Question just as it created the secular Turkey which Erdogan desires to expunge.

Muslims are not the only folk eager to rewrite the decisions of battle. The Mexicans (who can rival a Muslim in fine fettle when it comes to whining about history) want to pretend the war between their country and the US either did not happen or was the result of Gringo aggression. As long as one overlooks the simple reality that the Mexicans wanted war, were so proud of their war plan that they published it and were assured by both the British and French embassies that their fine army would clean Anglo clocks, the Gringos-Did-It-To-Us thesis passes muster.

In point of fact the Mexicans promoted war expecting victory. Their plans were good. Their estimate of the impact of political divisions within the American population bang on. Much of their army was good and their cavalry excellent.

It didn't matter. They lost. The Yankees won. As Mexico was prostrate, the US could have sought to occupy the whole damn place. Being smart enough to understand the sheer impossibility of absorbing a very large number of Spanish speaking Catholics into an American population which was not only predominantly English speaking but afflicted with profound fear and loathing of all things "Papish," the Gringos took only California (not for the gold but rather so as to have a face on the "Ocean of Tomorrow," the Pacific) and the sparsely populated future states of New Mexico and Arizona.

That's history for you. The war did settle who owned what and who lived where. It is a ground truth that cannot and will not be reversed by "migratory rights." The Mexicans have no real choice but that of accepting that what happens on their side of the border--for good or for ill--is the sole responsibility of Mexicans. The freight cannot be offloaded onto the back of Uncle Sam.

The Mexicans and the Muslims have to get a grip on the same reality as have so many others (including that portion of the Geek which is forever Apache.) Here it is, boyos, war, which is to say, "violence" does settle a lot. In particular it settles who lives where and who owns what.

A Goy And Yom Hashoah

When the Geek was born, while he suckled, learned to walk, felt the pleasures of beach and water for the first time, snuggled deeply in the warmth of love and security, millions of humans, many no older than himself were systematically, mechanically murdered as the direct result of hatred given power by state policy, conscious decision, and methodical execution. At least half of those who rode the cattle cars to the ovens and foul pits of destruction did so simply because they were Jews and there was no one, certainly no state, ready to protect them.

The Geek was touched deeply but indirectly by war's devastation through the death of his father in early combat, but he came of age a close friend of people whose lives had been blighted by the hideously effective machinery of death assembled by the Nazis. They had sat safe in the far away land of safety, the US, as brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and grandparents were forced onto the thousands of Murder Expresses and ended "up the chimney" in the camps of Germany, Poland, and other places under the swastika. He came to know and understand deeply the power held by the creation and survival of Israel for these people.

The Geek also came to know and believe that the existence of Israel held profound significance for non-Jews, the goyim. Israel is not only a symbol of Jewish survival against the implacable forces of hatred, dehumanization, and the constant need for an "other" on whom all ills and misfortunes can be blamed. Beyond that potent reality, Israel is a symbol to all humans that places of refuge and sources of protection must exist as any of us can become the dreaded "other," the next target of hate and dehumanization.

Israel also exists to remind us that a good can result from the most repulsive evil. Israel was founded in the ancient land of the Hebrews in large part due to the recognition on the part of peoples and leaders that they shared a degree of culpability for the Slaughter of the Innocents perpetrated by the Nazis with the eager assistance of many who were not Nazis, whose land was occupied by Nazis, who labored under the whips and guns of the Nazis but sympathized not with those marched into the gas chambers, but rather with their fellow haters of all things Jewish and all Jews.

It was an act of penance for the moral sins of the Nazi period when Western nations generally, including the US ignored the many warning signs of what was happening under the Hitlerites. Shamefully, the governments and many people throughout Europe and North America had refused to hear the cries of warning and shrieks of anguish alike until it was far too late.

Only after the evidence of the Slaughter, the Holocaust, the Shoah, was shown around the world, time after nauseating time, did the West, the US, act. The act was the creation of the state of Israel.

The act of Israel's birth was accompanied by blood, pain, and a degree of injustice to be sure, but that is often the case with birth, of individuals and nations alike. Perhaps the most important thing to recall about the birth of Israel is not the ministrations of the West, of the US, or even the Soviet Union in bringing the birth to pass but the utter, complete, total, and quite unjustifiable efforts by the governments of the surrounding Arab Muslim states to kill the infant before it had fully emerged from the womb.

Arguably, the actions of the Arab governments constituted an attempt to finish the job started by the Nazis or, failing that, to assure that Jews in the Mideast and elsewhere would be left without a refuge or protector. While any number of exculpatory glosses have been and continue to be placed upon the Arab attack on Israel-the-borning, the underlying fact is that the movement of tanks and troops was motivated by hatred, dehumanization, and a view of Jews as the ever-evil "Other."

As the years have rolled by since Israel was created from the ashes of the Holocaust nothing has shifted the hostility, the hatred felt and constantly expressed by various and sundry Arab and Muslim states. If anything the hatred has grown, the hostility increased, and the potential for war both conventional and otherwise has increased in capitals across the Mideast and throughout Northwest Asia.

The reason for this escalation in hate, threat, and menace usually invoked is the bad treatment of the "Palestinians" by the Israelis. End the "occupation," restore the "borders" extant before June 1967, compensate or allow the return of any and all Arabs (or their descendants) "forced out" of their homes way back at the beginning and all will be peace, harmony and goodwill. Or so runs the Arab-Muslim narrative.

Right. All the problems diplomatic, political, and military, all the rebirths of ancient blood libels, emerge from the sincere concern on the part of the assorted Arab and Muslim leaders for the fate of their "Palestinian brothers."

That constant theme, that undying plaint is a crock. Pure and simple, none of the many advocates on behalf of the "Palestinians" gives a tinker's dam about the "Palestinian people" now or in the past. Arab and Muslim regimes, dictators, kings, and elected presidents alike have used the "plight of the Palestinians" time and time again for their own subjectively defined self-interest. The "Palestinians" have been pawns or less in the Mideast Game of Nations. They have been expendable assets used for purposes of state. They have been pliable and easily exploited puppets dancing on strings controlled by distant and quite indifferent political and military figures.

Behind the screen of a nonexistent Israeli threat, the mullahs of Tehran pursue a nuclear capability with zealous determination not to protect the "Palestinians" but to enhance the power held by Iran in and beyond the region. The Turkish government has turned on their one time ally, Israel, not because the Islamist leaning government is worried over the repression of the residents of Gaza but because of desire bordering on need to diminish Israel.

The real deal behind all of the recent expressions of antipathy directed toward Israel and solidarity with the "Palestinian people" is based on a very mundane consideration. The assorted regimes are scared to death of the Islamist jihadists in their own populations.

The ever hardening line espoused by Arab and Muslim states most recently aimed at the Israeli nuclear arsenal is based on the palpable fear that appearing to give in in the slightest would be to excite the Islamist jihadi to strap on their suicide vests and "bring the war home." Given the deeply rooted antisemitism in Islam per se, stoked year after year by clerics and others and considering the explosive growth of Islamist based and directed violence, the anxiety permeating the governments of Arab and Muslim states is understandable.

Equally understandable is the Israeli reaction of hardening intransigence. Without excusing the land grab nature of the Six Day War, the current view of the Israeli government and people is well founded. The only wall around Israel, the only way of assuring that Jews not only in that country but around the world have a refuge and protector is the strength of the Israeli military. That strength includes the nuclear weapons resident in assorted bunkers.

It is quite true that Israel faces both external and internal problems, even large problems such as demographic, economic, and educational trends. Yet a more fundamental truth is that Israel must survive as a viable state if those are to be solved.

Survival relies in very large measure on the capabilities of the Israeli clandestine services as well as its defense forces. It relies at least to an important degree on those warheads presumed to exist on Israeli bases.

Israeli survival also rests in part upon the understanding and support of us who are non-Jews, the goyim of the US and Europe. Our predecessors not only did the wrong thing in the long dark years from 1933 to 1945, they did the right thing three years later when they midwifed the birth of Israel.

We do not need to support Israel without question. Not every decision or action by the government of Israel is correct, nor does it merit agreement simply by virtue of having been made in Israel.

However, without Israel as both a reality and a symbol, it will be only a matter of time before the Extermination Expresses take to the rails again. The next time those on board may be Jews.

Then, again, those who ride the next trains may be some other "Other." They could be any of us.

So How About All That Mideast Oil?

There is a widespread belief that the US imports beaucoup oil from the Mideast with the result that we must make nice to the various feudal despotates of wonderful, zany world of oil, sand and Islamism. So, as they say in the sports world, let's go to the videotape.

Well, to err on the side of accuracy, let's go to the figures for last October (the most recent that the Geek has found) and examine just where our foreign origin oil originated. The numbers come from the Energy Information Office of the Department of Energy.

The number one source of imported oil was that dangerously unstable and often hostile country Canada which provided 2.066 million barrels per day. Canada far outstripped the number two offshore source, Saudi Arabia. The Saudis provided 1.435 million barrels per day. At this figure the Kingdom barely edged out Mexico which held the number three position with 1.256 million barrels per day.

Next in line was Venezuela. The neo-Castroite regime of Hugo Chavez provided 1.027 million barrels per day. Fifth place was held by strife torn Nigeria with 0.935 million barrels per day.

If the top fifteen exporters of crude oil to the US that month are considered, the total amount provided was 9.098 million barrels per day. Of this the four largest Arab sources (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria and Iraq) furnished 2.693 million barrels per day or roughly 22.2 per cent of all American imports.

(To put these numbers in perspective it should be recalled that the US is the third largest producer of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia and Russia. The most recent figure on US production the Geek's less than nimble computer fingers could find showed a domestic production of some 8.3 million barrels per day.)

The clear implication is simple. Should oil from the Arab states suddenly end such as it did during the prototypical oil embargo of 1973, the impact on the US would be significant but not crippling. A second implication is equally clear. The US can and should move to take mitigating actions, particularly as regards Mexico.

Mexico could furnish a greater amount of oil to the US in the near-term if its present producing fields and associated infrastructure could be improved. The mid-term prospects for Mexican oil would be greatly enhanced if the new off-shore fields could be brought online expeditiously.

The problem for both the near- and mid-term development of present and projected fields is money. More specifically, the lack of money by the Mexican national oil company and the government that owns it.

The source of this dilemma is historical. After Mexico nationalised its oil fields in a frenzy of justifiable nationalism three-quarters of a century ago, the laws of the country prohibit foreign ownership which is to say foreign investment in the Mexican oil patch. There is no doubt that the Mexicans were right in their desire to kick the foreigners (primarily Americans) out of their natural resource base given the record of crass exploitation and concomitant corruption.

But, that was then and this is now. The need and rationale for nationalistic zeal are gone. Gone but far from forgotten.

Enter diplomacy.

While the US casts about for viable, repeat, viable ways to reduce its overall use of fossil fuels, particularly oil without crashing either our styles of living or economy to pre-Twentieth Century levels, we have a genuine national and strategic interest in reducing, preferably ending, our importation of oil from the Mideast. The reasons for this conclusion are (or should be) self-evident.

Mexico has a need. From the perspective of the government and ruling elites the need is compelling and will grow more so in coming months and years. The Mexican need is simple. To paraphrase a recent statement by a committee from the Mexican Senate: Mexico must insist that the Obama administration and the American Congress reform laws so as to permit "fair and open migration."

Translation: Mexico wants the US to be the land of opportunity and remittance so that the surplus Mexican working age population can move North of the Border and send money home. This means some species of "immigration reform" which will provide real, substantial and material benefits directly to unemployed, ambitious Mexicans and indirectly to the stability of the ruling elite.

Given that immigration reform of this nature is at least as unpopular with a large number of Americans as opening the oil patch of Mexico is to the nationalist minded folks to the south, the outlines of a deal are apparent.

Mexico changes its laws so as to allow foreign investment (at least from its NAFTA partners) in the upgrading and development of its oil resources. The US engages in an exercise in immigration reform which meets at least the minimum Mexican concerns and apparent needs. The degree of openness in investment would be mirrored by the degree of openness in the US-Mexican border.

It's an old diplomatic practice. Goes by the technical term "you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours."

The Mexican government and elite might also be gently reminded of two important realities. The first is that Mexican nationalism can be protected by limiting the percentage of foreign ownership. The second reality concerns the internal Mexican economy. Improving and expanding the petroleum industry will mean more, higher paying technical jobs in Mexico and for Mexicans.

For the Mexicans it is a win-win proposition. All the government and elite have to do is put a bridle on nationalistic fervor.

For the US it is a win-sort of win deal. Cutting loose from Arab oil liberates foreign policy, puts more options in play, reduces the incentive for the continued deployment of American military forces in the Mideast and Persian Gulf. It also provides the potential for a "profit deal" (as Steve Martin once put it) investing in the new and improved Mexican oil patches. At the same time it introduces more foreign (both with and without documents) workers into the US at a time of economic distress with the potential for social and political turmoil that implies.

It is however, a time of (to quote President Obama) of "shared sacrifice." And, as history shows time after time, sacrifices are never equally shared as between a society's elite and its hoi polloi.

Sacrifice is necessary if the US is to achieve even the necessary minimal level of energy independence--that of eliminating Arab and, if necessary, other Muslim dominated states from our roster of oil suppliers. Energy autarchy, if that is what is actually meant by the buzz phase of "energy independence" will be a long time coming. Energy autarchy will require not only time, it will demand much money and some basic technological breakthroughs.

Lost in the Gore-ite and similar deep green rhetoric over the need to end human caused climate change (if such actually is at work) with its focus on still semi-exotic technologies of renewable energy and conservation is the need for measures which will meet US national and strategic interests in the foreseeable future. The US must vigorously pursue actions from those such as the diplomatic quid pro quo with Mexico to purely domestic matters such as mandating the use of irradiated foods (to reduce refrigeration requirements) and on-demand hot water heaters in lieu of the current practice of keeping jilly-poo gallons of water hot 24/7.

Finally, We the People and those who purportedly represent us at the Federal level must decide just what the hell we mean when we bandy "energy independence" around. The term has been with us for the best part of forty years now and we still don't have a consensus on what it means. Without that, any measure which we take is more likely than not to run afoul the Law of Unintended Consequences.

While we scratch our collective heads over that basic matter of definition, let's at least get a grip on the need to remove the assorted sand-and-oil despotates from our list of suppliers and look to our neighbors both north and south for agreements which meet best our collective interests. Anything less will simply be a matter of self-destructive political and ideological posturing.

Wow! Is Hezbollah Amped Or What?

The Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, did a fine imitation of a rooster in full flush on al-Manar TV in Beruit last week. Of course, the man did have something to crow about--victory.

While the Lebanese Army stood around with its collective thumb up an anatomically improbable location, its commander waited the call---

No. He wasn't waiting for a call to arms. That came. He declined.

Michel Sleiman, the reluctant general became Michel Sleiman, eager president. That was the call he wanted. He got it.

From Hezbollah. Nasrallah characterised Sleiman as "our ally" in his speech and further declared (no doubt accurately) that the Lebanese National Army "will never be used to disarm us."

Between that statement and the fact that the agreement worked out in Doha gives Hezbollah the effective veto in the new government, Nasrallah has the strings of the puppets in his hands. Not a bad few days light work for a militia which no doubt had some kind of fun killing Sunnis and Druze or for negotiators who labored in the upscale surroundings of Qutar with the full support of both Syria and Iran.

From the reaction of George W. Bush (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=aNbQ4atY9pn8&refer=africa) one would get the idea that somehow democracy had triumphed in Lebanon. If the current Decider Guy really believes that, Nasrallah doesn't agree.

In his speech, the Hezbollah jefe maintained that his organisation had defeated the democracy movement in Lebanon and the government it had produced. He extended that undoubtedly accurate observation with another. By the success of the armed (can we say, "terrorist?") action and the Munich Conference in Doha, Nasrallah decreed Hezbollah had shown Washington that it could not move ahead with its "freedom and democracy" strategy anywhere in the Mideast and particularly in Lebanon.

The Geek ain't going to argue with that proposition.

Of course, the Geek has long held that the neocon ninny notion of imposing democracy in the frightfully infertile soils of the Mideast was a non-starter since assorted neos first muttered about the need for doing such nearly twenty years ago. History shows that efforts to impose democracy are exercises in futility compared to which masturbation with steel wool is both productive and enjoyable.

Nasrallah offered an alternative model to the "peace and democracy" strategy. It is one that he is certain will prove to be as successful elsewhere in the Mideast as it has just been in Lebanon.

He urged Hamas and Islamic Jihad to continue using "terror operations" on the Hezbollah model against both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. He also stated flatly that Hezbollah will support armed action against what he termed the "political process" in Iraq.

The phrasing "political process" is vague but implies to the Geek that Nasrallah means supporting actions directed against the current regime in Baghdad as well as the US and Allied forces. This could make for some interesting complications concerning Hezbollah's relations with Iran as both Iran and the current Iraqi government are Shia in affiliation.

Perhaps that is why the General Secretary moved quickly to add that Hezbollah was proud to be under the Vilayet e-Faqih of Iran. Nothing like a strong declaration of loyalty to the Khomeinist version of Islamism/jihadism to pour preemptive oil on the waves.

The affirmation of faith must be taken in conjunction with the challenge Nasrallah heaved to the West generally and both the US and Israel in particular when he stated that Hezbollah would fight any external intervention and that it had showed the way of successful "confrontationism."

The Geek has seen too much both directly as a practitioner and vicariously as a historian to be of an alarmist nature. Nonetheless, he is of the view that Hezbollah is a greater threat over the near- or mid-term than al-Qaeda.

If nothing else, the Hezbollah victory in Lebanon makes the possibility of an Israeli-Syrian rapprochement move from the "slim" category to the "essentially no-chance-in-hell" level. It also may serve to embolden the mullahocracy in Iran at a critical time when the mullahs are running out of viable options to deal with the combination of economic collapse, social unrest and external pressure.

Hezbollah saw its opportunity and took it. Successfully. One can only hope that Tehran (or Qom) doesn't see the Lebanese model as a guide for for Iran.