Cuba--It's Way Past Time For A Change

The Fiftieth Anniversary of the triumph of the Cuban Revolution will be upon us in a couple of days. In the spirit of New Year's Resolutions and the inevitable accompaniment of nostalgia, the Geek wants to take a retrospective view of US-Cuban relations and argue that the Cold War is over, the Cuban Revolution is a fact on the ground, and it's time for a change.

The Geek is ancient enough to remember the victorious entrance of Fidel Castro and the rest of his bearded crew into Havana on New Year's Day 1959. Like many of his age he had watched the progress of the rebels with supportive interest over the previous years.

Indeed many Americans cheered Castro and the 26th of July Movement as they fought rather romantically through the hills of the Sierra Madre against the inept forces of the corrupt and brutal dictator, Batista. The Eisenhower Administration had done much during 1958 to assure the success of Castro and Company. For example, the administration stopped the flow of military supplies and instructed our ambassador to suggest strongly that Batista and his cronies seek retirement somewhere (other than the United States.).

The Eisenhower Administration acknowledged both publicly and privately that there were good reasons to see Castro replace the kleptocracy of Batista and his buddies from the American organised crime syndicates. The Administration hoped but was never really sure that other, non-criminal investments and property in Cuba would be safe from expropriation. There were hints of an emerging consensus within the second tier of administration officials.

The consensus focused on the idea that should expropriation occur it would be accompanied by appropriate, fair compensation. Balancing this was the fear that the nature of the compensation, while actually fair, would be seen by interested parties as not being fair. The parallel was with events in Guatemala following the Arbenz government's seizure of United Fruit company property. The Guatemalan government had offered compensation based on the declarations of value made by United Fruit for tax purposes. Not surprisingly these artificially low evaluations were unacceptable to UF and the race was on to oust Arbenz as a "Communist Menace."

Virtually all Eisenhower hands who had bothered to scan the intelligence assessments of the 26th of July Movement leadership acknowledged that the Castro brothers, Che and others were Marxist. Some of the administration officials, again mainly those on the second and third tier, saw this as no barrier to normal relations. After all it could (and was) argued that the US had reasonably normal diplomatic and commercial relations with Tito's Yugoslavia.

In the opposing corner were memories of the "Who Lost China" attacks which had performed yeoman service to Republican Party political fortunes in the 1952 elections. How much worse it would be if the Democrats could in 1960 demand to know just who had let the commies into the Western Hemisphere.

The result was the Eisenhower administration's decision not to decide but rather to engage in a combination of watchful waiting and "correct" relations with the new Cuban government. The administration and the American public didn't have to wait and watch for long.

The Cuban Revolutionaries were a young, highly emotional bunch. But much more than mere boyish enthusiasm was at work as the firing squads plied their dreadful trade in the dry moat of Morro Castle as crowds yelled, "Parado! Parado! at informal open air trials of alleged Batista goon squad members The American public including many who had been pro-Castro were nauseated to say the least.

Firing squads were followed by the paper work of expropriation (with compensation in the form of Cuban government bonds) and waves of Cuban refugees. As the US found out in recent years from its experience in Iraq, refugees and expats, particularly those of the former elite, are piss poor providers of accurate and useful intelligence.

Goaded by the expropriations--or, to err on the side of accuracy, the mighty moans of those corporate and private entities whose financial bull had been gored by the Cubans and annoyed by the seemingly irresponsible actions of Castro during a visit to the United Nations, the Eisenhower Administration made a major error.

While the Ike boo-boo might not have been in the same league with that of George W. Bush and the neocon ninnies in 2003, it was nonetheless both large and long lasting in effect. The root cause of the blunder was the Administration's acceptance of Cuban refugee protestations to the effect that Castro was hated by the Cuban people and could be deposed. Easily deposed.

To make a long and very sad story short, the Administration withdrew diplomatic recognition, ended economic aid, and used its diplomatic muscle to isolate the revolutionary government. This masterstroke produced an easily predictable result. Cuba and Castro turned in the direction of the Kremlin. In turn the Russian bear hugged the island and its bearded, fatigue wearing leader to its warm and furry breast.

The 26th of July Movement and its Marxist leaders had not been some sort of syphilitic chancre on the body politic of the Western Hemisphere. The American attempt at strangling the revolution in its crib made it one.

The first Eisenhower blunder had been bad enough. But, it got worse. Much worse. And, fast.

In a classic case of how not to run covert operations, the Administration ginned up a bloated CIA operated series of hit-and-run attacks on Cuba. This was followed by the planning for the landing of a guerrilla force recruited from the refugee stream with the goal of fostering an anti-Castro general uprising.

Lest one get the impression that only Republican Administrations are capable of committing world-class acts of stupidity consider the next tragic chapter. The Administration of JFK proved itself both more persistently idiotic than its predecessor and more robust in its ill-considered actions.

Instead of cancelling the planned insertion of exile "freedom fighters: before they were landed in the Bay of Pigs, the New Frontiersmen beefed the exercise up to the level of a minor amphibious forcible entry. Compounding the chaos of error, President Kennedy tried to abort the operation as it was underway, thus assuring that it failed in a highly visible and humiliating way.

Neither JFK nor his younger, even more testosterone driven brother, Robert were inclined to allow humiliation to pass unpunished. The Brothers Kennedy went after Castro hammer and tongs with (c)overt operations, assassination attempts and finally the plan for a full-bore, all-out US invasion of the island which was ended by the killing of JFK in Dallas only months before the scheduled D-day.

It should not be forgotten that the overly muscular and completely unjustified exercises in removing Castro nearly brought about a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR in October 1962. The Russians stood "eye ball to eye ball" with us and "blinked first." This sort of thing is not a tribute to rational statesmanship.

The Republicans played the Cuban card as part of the successful Nixon era "Southern strategy" in 1968, thus giving the Cuban exile communities of Florida and New Jersey a political power which they neither deserved nor earned. As a result Cuba became one more "third rail" in US politics so that no reevaluation of the failed US policy of isolation and confrontation was possible.

Cuba soldiered on. Dependant upon subsidies from the Soviet Union it became a less than totally reliable Soviet proxy but nonetheless proved itself capable of causing much mischief in both the Western Hemisphere and Africa.

The collapse of the Soviet Union ended the Kremlin's dole, but Cuba and Castro continued on. The accomplishments of the Revolution were both real and secure enough to survive the years of economic deprivation which ensued. In the past decade Cuba has recovered economically to a sizable extent thanks to the rest of the world not being so politically fossilized as the US.

Fidel lingers on still making the occasional pronouncement. The Cuban people survive, even begin to prosper at least in some part. The Revolution has created, as the Israelis like to say, "facts on the ground." The time has come at long, long last for the US to get a grip on the facts.

It is time for a change. Without any preconditions or apologies, the next administration should enter into discussions with a view to normalising relations with Cuba quickly and completely.

Yes, the aging expat community as well as some of the children and grandchildren of the refugees will whine and moan. Yes, some of the Right will howl that the Obama Administration is "soft on Communism" or that it tolerates "human rights abusers" or some such irrelevant zaniness.

There are sizable benefits which might accrue to the US and its national interests by dropping the half century of lunacy regarding Cuba. Normalising relations would have the potential of impairing the new neo-Castroite regimes of Venezuela, and Bolivia. It would rock the born again Sandinistas of Nicaragua. It might even show the countries to our south that the US is capable of acknowledging and rectifying mistaken policy--a first.

Oh, for all those capitalists out there, Cuban waters cover sizable deposits of that much maligned but still quite necessary commodity--oil. And, there is one heck of a potential used car market down there. All those Fifties vintage pieces of good American iron are getting in real need of replacement.

Isn't The Campaign Over?

As far as the Geek is aware the election is over. Even the Electoral College ceremony has been concluded. Barack Obama is the one and only President-elect. Except for a few very disgruntled types on the far right wing who continue to question the location of Obama's birth, the country seems to have agreed on the identity of the next president. That's where the Geek thought reality resided.

So, please would someone brighter and more firmly rooted in the here-and-now than the Geek please tell him why the Official Obama/Biden Foreign Policy Agenda as released the other day by the transition wallahs reads like a poorly connected series of campaign blurbs? Please ease the misery of the Geek who believes now that he must have been abducted by ufonauts and dropped off in some alternate reality by letting him know there is a good, sound, well-rooted reason for the blathering of vapid feel good phrases and calling it a foreign policy agenda.

If you haven't read this sophomoric exercise in pandering to the Great Unwashed, it is available on line. The Geek pulled it from Maxim's, but there are probably other sites holding it. http://www.maximsnews.com/news20081215obamaforeignpolicystatement10812150102.htm

The Geek is perfectly well aware that incoming administrations are not given to laying out a real foreign policy agenda. He also is acquainted with the historical record which shows how the best intentions can be rendered nugatory under the compulsion of events.

Ike limited himself to a campaign trail promise "to go to Korea" with the implication that by so doing he would end the unpopular "police action" there. He went and eventually did help bring about an armistice.

LBJ promised that "American boys will not be sent to fight and die for Asian boys." The boys such as the Geek who were already ducking bullets and pulling triggers in Vietnam were not impressed by either the realism or the honesty of the Texan's commitment.

Nixon said as how he "had a plan for Vietnam." He did. More Americans died in that unpleasant place after His Richardness took office than before.

Jimmy Carter promised to work for peace in the Mideast. (What was the alternative? To work for war?) His efforts eventually did lead to the Camp David Accord. A nice agreement brought about by the compulsion of events in the region, but scarcely a milestone on the road to peace.

In short, incoming presidents tend to make few promises in the foreign policy arena. Those which they do make are usually vague and misleading. Most are kept in the breech far more than in the observance.

However, Mr Obama ran on the mantra of "change." In large measure he was elected because a hell of a lot of We the People very much desired a change after eight years of neocon ninnie agenda driven debacles.

Is it too much to expect--no--to demand that the Obama Administration come into office with something different? A change from past pre-presidential performances? Is it somehow out of line to want an outline of foreign policy goals and objectives that transcends campaign rhetoric? That is demonstrably related to the real problems of the real world? Which shows that the new team on the block has a sound grip of current and near-term future challenges to US national and strategic interests?

While one might cling to the thin rope of hope provided by Mr Obama's appointment of Robert Gates and General Jones, that isn't enough. It is offset by his designation of Susan Rice as UN ambassador with cabinet rank. It isn't helped by his tabbing of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Both of these latter appointees are correctly understood as carriers of ideological agendas rather than being realpolikers.

Rather than do a complete disection of the "Obama/Biden Foreign Policy Agenda" as released, the Geek would prefer to take just a couple of salient points. Consider the matter of nuclear proliferation and fissionable materials control.

Nuclear Weapons
A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
He joined Senator Dick Lugar (R-In) in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
He joined Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While working to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama and Biden will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.
Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama and Biden will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Move Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global

Sounds good, doesn't it? But that's all it does. Looked at closely the statement not only says nothing, it shows a remarkable lack of grip on reality.

We all know that both North Korea and Iran have already been the targets of a wide variety of admittedly inconsistently imposed sanctions. So far the sanction campaign has had nil results. Given the realities of Great Power dynamics today and into the foreseeable future this is unlikely to change. Extremely unlikely.

Unless and until other Great Powers (and a whole passel of the Not-So-Great Powers) see that it is in their own self interest to prevent these states from acquiring more of a nuclear weapons capacity than they already have, no sanction regime will have an effect. Neither will an approach that combines sanctions with inducements.

The self-interest of countries such as North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan include components far less easily quantifiable than gross domestic product or other economic factors but which are equally or even more important. These include the concept of national sovereignty, national dignity and pride, the political capital investment of the regime. None of these motivators of conduct are considered by the Obama/Biden Agenda.

Nuclear arms reduction by the US or Russia is both possible and desirable. But, reduction should never be confused with elimination. No country currently in possession of a nuclear force-in-being is going to be ready to renounce this capacity. The world is a very long way from achieving a political order that makes the nuclear option obsolete. The incoming administration recognises this. It has offered the extension of the American "nuclear umbrella" to Israel and other threatened countries should Iran gain a nuclear weapons capacity.

The efforts made to date to secure weapons grade fissionable materials should be continued. But, it must also be realised that there is not now nor is there likely to be a realistic way of tracking down and gaining custody of all the highly enriched uranium or plutonium which has been made or will be made. The nasty stuff is going to continue to float about in the shadows of the globe.

Now take a close look at the "Obama/Biden Agenda" as it regards Israel.

Israel
Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, and believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the region. They support this closeness, and have stated that the United States will never distance itself from Israel.

Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.

Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems

What about this differs from the position taken by any of the past ten or eleven presidents? With the sole exception of the reference made to the disastrous 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, any incoming administration from Eisenhower on could have (and did) make virtually identical commitments.

Apparently it is not yet time for a change in the area of American policy regarding Israel. We will continue to be held hostage by the political power of the Israel Lobby. Thus the dog of American foreign policy will continue to be wagged by the tail of Israel. This means that the US and others will keep trudging along a treadmill to nowhere in the Mideast.

Not surprisingly the "Obama/Biden Foreign Policy Agenda" is solidly behind the Global Poverty Act and its UN progenitor, the Millennium Development Goals. The Agenda promises a doubling of US foreign aid to achieve all sorts of High Minded things. Unfortunately the Lofty Ideal is presented without acknowledging any of the real world caveats such as the inability of the UN to do more than blather or the supreme skill with which assorted kleptocrats both in and out of recipient governments see foreign aid as being a highly personalised benefit of position.

The New Team, the fountainheads of "change" stand for "tough and direct" diplomacy--whatever that might mean. Do they think that the US has been noted for its "weak and indirect" practice of international politics in the past? The Agenda is also in support of a "new partnership" with Asian countries. That's nice, but what, exactly, has been wrong with the "old" partnership? The Agenda is silent on that point.

The Agenda is silent as well on other matters of salience. The sound of collapsing states in Africa is ignored. So also is the emergence of potential threats to US interests and security in Latin America.

It is inconceivable that the Obama/Biden bunch is unaware of recent developments to our south. That they have not noticed the election of governments in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay that are not favorably disposed to the US passes belief. Can the new crew possibly be heedless of the current conditions in Mexico?

But, the Agenda makes no reference to any of these.

Also unmentioned in the Agenda is the latest elephant in the living room. The critter isn't a recent arrival. It's been there for years now. It just keeps on eating and growing. As it noshes its way to greater potency, it keeps being ignored by the polite folks.

The elephant is the international trade in illegal drugs. More accurately it is the relation between the drug cartels and the rebirth of hostile insurgent movements. From the Taliban in Afghanistan to FARC in Columbia, drugs and violence directed against US interests are joined hip and shoulder. Now Sendero Luminoso which had been declared dead a decade ago has lurched back from the grave, resurrected by drug money.

But, the polite people of the new kids on the foreign policy block ignored this stark and highly unpleasant reality. A reality which will demand full attention in the months and years to come.

The Geek agrees that it is time for a change. Unfortunately, the Agenda indicates that the Obama Administration doesn't agree.

Time For A Change--Defining America's "Mission"

Recently Oxfam America launched a petition drive with the view of calling upon the incoming Obama Administration to develop (and, presumably, implement) plans to end the sexual violence directed against women in the Congo and elsewhere in Africa. The nature of the petition as well as its wording implies strongly that this act represents a test of the American "mission" in the world.

Oxfam America and others of like mind have, with this petition, joined the chorus of groups and individuals demanding that the US live up to its global "mission" by alleviating global poverty, ending anthropogenic climate change, feeding those who are hungry, protecting the tropical rainforests, halting acoustic pollution of the oceans, and other tasks too numerous too mention. All of these activities are necessary. All are important. All would serve to the greater benefit of humankind.

But, to what extent are they incumbent upon the United States? How can one argue that any or all constitute America's "mission?"

Getting a grip on what, if any, "mission" accrues to the United States is manifestly necessary. It is necessary if the Obama Administration is to formulate a coherent foreign policy and gain the support of We the People--or at least the politically articulate portion which is concerned with foreign affairs.

For a half century there was no debate over the American "mission." It was consensually understood and agreed that the "mission" of the US was to act as Leader of the Free World in the apocalypse freighted Cold War with the Soviet Union and its clients.

With the end of that confrontation, uncertainty replaced the consensus. The records of the Clinton and W. Bush Administrations demonstrate this uncertainty and confusion, albeit each in a different fashion.

As any number of diplomatic historians have argued over the past century, any confusion regarding the "mission" of the US in the world has stemmed from a basic split in how Americans and their governments have balanced the pursuit of ideals with the requirements of realism. The recurrent shifts between realism and idealism in American foreign policy have existed almost from the beginnings of the American experience.

The roots of idealism are to be found in the "mission statement" implicit in the views of the founders of the Puritan colony of Plymouth. To the Puritan mind, they were on an "errand into the wilderness." The nature of that errand was to continue the process of purifying their community so that in the fullness of time and consonant with the will of God, they would be recalled to England. Recalled to save the mother country from the creeping evil of "Popishness."

You don't get more idealistic than that.

Despite a brief flurry of revolutionary zeal which saw the American Patriots attempt to export the beauties of their revolution to Canada by force of arms, the leaders of the Revolutionary and early Constitutional periods were remarkably free of the idealistic fervor which normally propels a nation born of war. As the underlying pragmatism of the Constitution shows clearly, the "decider guys" of the Federal period held ideals well tempered by a healthy regard for the requirements of reality.

The writings of the Founders and their immediate successors indicate that realism trumped the excesses of idealism. In foreign affairs the universal position was commercial friendship with all who reciprocated and a total rejection of any sort of intervention in the affairs of other countries. It was believed and argued that by focusing its efforts upon developing its land, resources, and, most importantly, its domestic institutions of government, the United States could provide an example worthy of emulation.

In short, the Americans of the early Nineteenth Century were in favor of a sort of leadership-by-example approach to foreign policy. By so doing and by the fact of success, the US would encourage the peoples of other countries to embrace our form of government, economy, and social organisation.

Not until the last years of the 19th Century did this general consensus fray. When it did start to ravel, it came apart with speed and ferocity. Expansion across the continent, at first peaceful (unless you were an indigenous American in the way), morphed into the more muscular Manifest Destiny of mid-century. This in turn transmogrified into the euphemistically expressed imperialism of the Internationalist Progressives.

The Internationalist Progressives were activist oriented ideologues. To their eyes, the US had a "mission" which went far beyond filling a large chunk of the North American continent. Far transcended mere success in the development of resources and institutions. Going much further than leadership-by-example and its essentially realistic view of costs and benefits, the Internationalist Progressives were gung-ho for the forcible exportation of American institutions to other peoples regardless of the desires of the recipients.

The Internationalist Progressives were eager to take on the challenge offered by Rudyard Kipling. They rushed to pick up "the White Man's Burden."

Whether Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt or Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, US Administrations with the backing of the majority of We the People mounted interventions and occupations throughout the world. The Internationalist Progressives never argued that pragmatic interests or the requirements of reality demanded these interventions and occupations except in passing.

The real motive was always idealism.

The ideal in play was simple, easily understood, and agreed upon by virtually all Americans.

Here is the ideal, short and sweet

The nature and character of the United States and its institutions were superior to those existing elsewhere. The exportation of these were in the best interests of the recipients. The moral nature of America demanded that we right presumed wrongs by providing better government, better economic structures, better social institutions.

We could do no other. It was our "mission."

President Wilson put it perfectly as he ordered the landing of troops at Vera Cruz during the midst of the bloody and expropriation minded Mexican revolution. "We will teach the Mexicans to elect good men."

The grunts fighting to suppress the Philippine Insurrection put it just as well. They were a bit more cynical, but such is the prerogative of the guys at the bloody tip. They had a jingle which contained the chorus, "Under the wide and starry flag/We'll civilize them with a Krag." (The Krag-Jorganson rifle was the standard issue weapon of the time.)

We the People and our governments stuck with the idealism of the Internationalist Progressives until the awesome let down of the Twenties. Reality slapped us in the face. The "War to End Wars" had not ended wars. The "War to Make the World Safe For Democracy" hadn't performed that miracle.

World War I was a failure from the American perspective. Lives had been expended for nothing. Blood out, zilch in.

The Internationalist impulse was replaced, not by realism, but by another form of idealism. We the People became self-absorbed both during the years of apparent plenty--the Twenties--and during the time of poverty--the Thirties. This was the time of our total disengagement from the affairs and threats of the world. This was the time of Isolationism.

The reality of threat kept knocking on Uncle Sam's door as the Thirties ended. Few were ready to listen. Ultimately reality with a thwacking great boot kicked the door in on 7 December 41.

During the war, We the People, with the full and often knowingly duplicitous encouragement of the Administration of FDR, were filled with the ideal of a world that would be made peaceful by the joint efforts of a war-winning coalition. We were assured (and we assured ourselves) that once the grand combine of the US, the UK, the USSR (as well as the tag-alongs, France and China) had obliterated the aggressors, they would continue to guarantee a world of peace through the United Nations.

That idealistic view was proven to be hallucinatory even before the UN Charter was signed in San Francisco. With the acknowledgement of the Cold War as being real, very dangerous, and long term in nature, realism came out of the shadows for the first time in generations.

The Containment Policy as interpreted by Truman and then Eisenhower was profoundly realistic. It accepted the limitations imposed by reality. It accepted the world as it was and sought to remake the global political order slowly on the margins until the internal weaknesses of the Soviet Union caught up with it.

The policy of roll back espoused by most Republicans on the Right and even some Cold War Liberals on the Left was idealistic. When attempted even in limited form, roll back proved that ideals could be quite deadly. (Consider the Cuban Missile Crisis and hold your breath at just how close we came to the very unpleasant reality of a nuclear exchange.)

Whew! We're through a quick background sketch of the zigs and zags of US foreign policy and its companion, the nature of any American "mission."

Without recapitulating the ideologically propelled debacles of the past twenty years, suffice it to say that recent history parallels the history of long ago. Idealism leads to interventions in the affairs of other peoples and countries without due regard as to the human terrain upon which our well-intended efforts are to operate.

Realism, which has been conspicuously absent over the past decade and a half, demands that We the People and our governments take the world as it is.

Realism requires that we properly appreciate what our core national and strategic interests actually are.

Realism insists that we evaluate closely and carefully what the risks and benefits of a particular policy option might be.

Realism is based upon a full understanding of the strengths and limitations resident in our instruments of national power.

Realism also is predicated upon an accurate reading of the human terrain upon which our policy will operate.

Given the nature of the world's political and economic order today, the pure leadership-by-example model that served the nation well during the first century or so of its existence no longer is sufficient to protect, let alone advance, our core national and strategic interests. It was realistic back then. Now it is not.

The realism of the Cold War is no longer realistic. It is not applicable in a multi-polar world. It would only become realistic should the current conflict expressed as the Global War on Terrorism become a seemingly permanent bifurcation between the Islamist oriented states and all other countries. This Huntington "Clash of Civilizations" is unlikely, but not impossible. Not impossible by a long shot.

A new definition of realism must not only take account of global problems in which the US must play a collaborative role in its own national interest, it must acknowledge that not every "human wrong" no matter how despicable can be addressed by the US acting alone or in concert with other like-minded countries. This is why the Oxfam America and similar High Minded efforts are both wrong-headed and, if acted upon, would lead only to failure.

The collapse of states, the plunder and rapine of kleptocracies and kleptocratic movements are filled with nauseating abuses of human rights. They are filled with the most reprehensible of human cruelties.

These miseries and crimes are real. But, that does not mean that it is realistic for the US or the EU or even that central depository of the High Minded, the UN, to intervene, particularly to intervene with military force.

Nations, even Great Powers, must choose their battles carefully and cautiously. Care, caution, proper detailed planning based on accurate understandings of the human terrain to be targeted as well as the goals to be accomplished are all hallmarks of a realistic foreign policy.

An even more central feature of realism in foreign policy is knowing what the nation's core interests are and how the proposed policy will serve to defend or advance these interests.

Idealism, no matter what form, no matter how lofty the aspirations behind it might be, serves only to cloud the eye and befuddle the mind of a nation. Blind and stupefied countries rarely, if ever, have any useful "mission."

Time For A Change--Pirates And Somalia

The US has floated a new proposal at the UN Security Council. Under its provisions foreign forces would be allowed rights of hot pursuit right past the high tide line and onto Somalian territory. Such rights would, of course, be attendant upon the permission of the UN sponsored Transitional National Government. (No mention was made of the fact that the Somalian central regime is highly transient, not at all national and a government only by courtesy.)

The effrontery of the American proposal apparently rankled the African Union, which made any number of unkind comments regarding the "wealthy" nations being ready to use force against a handful of hardscrabble fishermen trying to eek out a living through seizing ships while being "indifferent" to the fate of Somalia and the Somali people. There was a subtext of implication. An implication that the same"wealthy" nations had promoted the collapse of Somalia nearly twenty years ago.

The fine folks at the African Union might want to refresh their acquaintance with history. The history of their own continent. Specifically, the history of Somalia during the last couple of decades. The US undertook to protect the humanitarian operations of the UN in the early Nineties. The mission was well intended but failed as a result of High Minded aspirations of "nation building." The US effort was ably backed and humanitarian aid offered by any number of the so-called "wealthy" nations.

(It might be recalled as well that during the time of the US intervention in Somalia, the African Union as well as the governments and media of several member states including Kenya severely reamed out the US for practicing both "neocolonialism" and "genocide." Say what!)

The ultimate failure of this first effort at nation building was the responsibility of Somalian leaders. The rise of the Union of Islamic Courts was also a product marked "Made in Somalia."

The overthrow of the Union of Islamic Courts occurred, not because the US wanted it to (although no tears were shed over the corpse of an Islamist/jihadist entity in Washington,) but because exiled Somalis and assorted member states of the African Union wanted this eventuality to occur. They did it through the agency of the Ethiopian Army which, while receiving a certain level of gratuity from the US for the effort, represents a government which is a member in good standing of the African Union.

The subsequent failure of the Transitional National Government is the responsibility of the Somalis and the African Union. The AU has an up close and personal interest in Somalian stability. This is a far more direct interest than the US has with regard to the place. Our anxiety, which is well-rooted, revolves around the viability of Somalia as a terrorist training and basing site.

The states bordering that geographical expression called Somalia should exercise the most direct involvement. Kenya along with Ethiopia have the greatest interest in providing stability in Somalia. Kenya perhaps more than Ethiopia since the majority of refugees find heading south to join the already large Somalian population in Kenya both easier and more attractive than crossing the wastes of the Ogaden to find sanctuary in Ethiopia.

The African Union along with any number of High Minded but evidently gripless groups and individuals seem to think that the pirate problem in the waters off Somalia can not be abated unless and until the simple fisherfolk turned pirate can return to steady jobs at a good income in a peaceful pursuit.

Get a grip!

Some of the pirates early on in the game might have been unemployed fishermen in search of a (dis)honest couple of bucks. But those days, if they ever existed, are long in the past. Piracy is a big money maker for all concerned. The parties include not only the trigger pullers in the skiffs or the crews of the motherships, they include Somali clans and tribes scattered throughout the refugee communities of Europe. The parties include as well terrorist groups. Given the profits from this year alone--in excess of 100 million dollars of ransom, there is money enough for all and then some.

The US and other maritime nations, wealthy or not, have a direct national interest at stake in the Gulf of Aden. Piracy drives up the costs of shipping. Piracy delays cargos. Piracy costs, in short, both time and money. This means countries heavily involved in maritime commerce have national interests in play.

Here is a ground truth which the AU might not find palatable. Right now the US and other maritime nations have no national interests in play in Somalia. Somalia is not worth anyone's effort because no one has a vital national interest at risk there. Nobody that is except Kenya and to a lesser extent, Ethiopia.

So far (with the laudable exception of the French and British) the nations represented in the waters off Somalia have been long on speeches, advice, and having pretty boats drive around the blue waters but have been very short on direct action against the pirates. Many fine words have been expended upon the need of an appropriate court in which to try "alleged" pirates. Somber faces have propounded questions regarding international law, its limits and exceptions.

Speeches, advice, and questions of international law are fine--in their place and time. Noble and High Minded expressions of sentiment regarding the need for a stable government in Somalia and well-paying jobs for Somali fishermen are good for filling space in the media both old and new--but massively irrelevant to the needs of the real world.

It is time for a change. The change must have two components.

The first is short, simple, and unpleasant. Start killing pirates. Accept the inevitable errors and the equally predictable wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth by the High Minded over the terrible catastrophe of pirates becoming fish food. Over the vast sweep of history from the expeditions of a young Julius Cesar to the closing days of the Nineteenth Century, the only way in which piracy has been stopped is through the shedding of large quantities of pirate blood.

The second choice is not simple or short. It is unpleasant. The African Union and the UN have two choices. Here they are.

One is to allow the Transitional National Pseudo-government to walk the plank when the Ethiopians withdraw their forces. The most militant of the tripartite Islamist/jihadist movement, the Shahab, constantly state that during the period of the Union of Islamic Courts there was no piracy. OK. Put them to the test. They are going to take over Somalia if and when the Ethiopians leave. No doubt about that. Somalia will become, as the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff warns, a center for jihadist activities. The US will have to do something robust when that happens. It will be in our national interest.

The second choice is to insist that the African Union clean up the mess in Somalia. This will not be easy. It will be expensive in lives, money, and time. Taking military action will carry with it the risk of blow back to those countries with a sizable Islamic population. The outcome may well be ambiguous enough to assure the long-term probability of an Islamist/jihadist threat remaining in Somalia for years and years to come.

The African Union will demand the assistance and support of the UN and the "wealthy" nations of the world. This support and assistance should be forthcoming. It will be in the collective interest of the world.

The problem(s) presented by the failed state of Somalia are difficult to settle and impossible to predict as to final outcome. This is not a reason to resist making the tough choices.

The time for dithering, talking, excusing, justifying, and ignoring the pirates of Somalia or the land which gave them birth and gives them sanctuary is past. It is time for a change.

The incoming Obama Administration has to get a grip on the reality and take a leadership role in at least the matter of killing pirates so the sealanes will be safe. That is the minimum necessary strategic interest of this country.

As the old Nike ad put it, "Just do it!"

Time For A Change--Iran

Of late it seems as if every "foreign policy expert" has come out either for or against opening some sort of dialogue with Iran. Even former Agency analysts and fieldhands have come out of the shadows with a view on the necessary next step in the dance between Washington and Tehran.

Looking at the problem through the lens of history, the Geek is persuaded that the time for talks has come. The Geek has come to this conclusion by considering the effects of the self-donned chastity belt of "non-recognition." The US demonstrated a marked preference for ignoring the reality of political changes of which it did not approve over the course of the Twentieth Century.

For a few years we pretended that revolutionary Mexico did not exist. Then for more than a decade we turned a Nelsonian eye to the Soviet Union. After World War II we went to the absurd length of ignoring unpleasant facts of political reality in China. Every Administration from Ike to W. Bush averted their eyes from the island of Cuba.

Of course we cocked our collective snoot at Iran since 1979.

In every one of these cases except the last two, the US finally had to get a grip on reality and engage in normal diplomatic relations. In every case the policy of non-recognition had no useful effect. The illusion of some sort of moral purity never matches the cold, hard reality of dealing with a government--no matter how unpleasant it may be--as one more nation-state with interests.

The mullahocracy of Tehran and its puppet sham parliament and president are obnoxious. The Tehran regime is unpleasant in the extreme. Nonetheless it exists. We have to deal with it. We have to get over its insults, its threats, its internal repression, its sponsorship of lethal groups.

We have to talk with the mullahs, or at least their frontmen. We have to talk directly, face to face.

Opening direct, public, high profile relations is not necessary. Nor is such desirable. It is not in our better interests.

The process followed by the Nixon administration with respect to China provides a useful template. The coinciding interests of the US and Iran regarding Iraq and Afghanistan provide the necessary context.

Neither the mullahs nor ourselves wish to see a close approximation of civil war in Iraq. Neither ourselves nor the mullahs want to see Taliban back in power in Afghanistan. (In a related matter, neither Tehran nor Washington hopes to see a Taliban in control of Pakistan.)

While the sporadic low level conversations between US and Iranian personnel in Iraq have been without real useful result, they provide the opening wedge. Using backchannel means of communication we should arrange for a suitable mid- to high-level member of the Obama Administration to make an unannounced trip to Tehran.

(The same level of secrecy which attended Kissinger's first trip to China is no longer possible. The media are no longer so cooperative as to sit on a story as they once were.)

If the mullahs refuse the offer or prove disastrously uncooperative in maintaining the low profile nature of the trip and conversations, fine. The Lads in Tehran will have made their choice. We--and the world--will know where the mullahs stand. There will be neither reason nor demand that we try again or try harder or offer more concessions.

If, however, the visit proves productive, the basis will have been laid for a path toward normal diplomatic relations. There will be ground on which to build regarding the vexing issues of nuclear material production, sponsorship of terrorist groups, and so forth.

Most importantly, the attempt at low-visibility diplomacy will help to answer a vital question. It will help provide an understanding of the most important single question confronting the world regarding the nature and character of the Iranian government.

The question?

Is the source of Iranian conduct eschatological or not? Is the government and the mullahs in the back room oriented toward international affairs with the perspective of a real world oriented nation-state or is it seeking the end times, the coming of the Mahdi through the mechanism of apocalypse?

The answer to this question is fundamental to all other considerations of policy toward Iran. We have to get the answer ourselves. Only the conduct of the Iranians from the very first contact will provide a basis for an accurate answer.

Time For A Change--Pakistan

The US has coddled the hell out of the military and intelligence service of Pakistan for the past eight years. The billions of dollars spent there have bought no noticeable improvement in the counter-terrorist or counterinsurgency capacities of the military. The effort has been without success.

The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) continues to be a fortress of Islamism/jihadism. The military is not much better. These two unpleasant ground truths are the reason that most, if not all, terrorist roads end in Pakistan.

The time has come to get a grip on this reality. It is really long past time to drop the pretense that Pakistan is an ally in the effort against al-Qaeda, Taliban, and Lashkar e-Taiba.

It is time to publicly acknowledge that Pakistan provides ready sanctuary, easy cover, and competent training and support to the people fighting the US, killing Americans, and seeking the goal of ejecting the US and the West from the sub-continent.

Unless and until Pakistan ceases being the recruiting, training, financing, and general purpose rest and recreation center for the jihadists of the world, the world has no hope of being rid of their noxious presence. The instruments of American national power, along with those of other countries which have a realistic appraisal of the threat presented by jihadism and the critical role played by Pakistan in facilitating jihadism, must be employed to alter Pakistan's behavior--radically.

This does not mean another great adventure in regime change. There is no need (and even less possibility of success) for a Iraq type invasion.

What is needed is the application of economic and diplomatic pressure on the government of Pakistan to take two specific actions. Get a grip on them. It isn't hard even though the current administration couldn't (or wouldn't) do it.

The ISI must be disbanded. Period. Reform of the ISI so as to remove the Islamists/jihadists is as impossible as reforming the Mafia to remove the Tony Soprano types.

The Pakistani military has to be reoriented from wishing for yet another losing war with India. The job for the armed forces of Pakistan is twofold. Secure the borders between Pakistan and India as well as between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mount a sustained counterinsurgency and pacification campaign not only in the FATA but Swat and other jihadist heartlands.

In short, the armed forces of Pakistan should take on the greatest challenge and perform the most important mission any military can--insure the structural integrity of the government. Make sure the government of Pakistan and only the government of Pakistan has authority over the population of Pakistan.

Given the parlous economic conditions of Pakistan, conditions that can only be worsened by the current global recession, the US and its partners (we assume the US will have partners globally after next January 20th.) can put the squeeze on Pakistan with a high probability of success. Yes, the government of Pakistan will squawk like the cliched stuck pig about foreign dictates and the beauties of national sovereignty. That is only to be expected. Let them scream all they want--as long as they also do what is required.

Cut off all military and economic assistance until the required twin efforts have been undertaken, at least to the extent that results are visible. Then and only then reprogram the aid. This time emplace sufficient oversight that the money is spent only for purposes consistent with stamping out the terrorist groups and their supporters.

"But, wait a minute, Geek! The Paks have nukes. They have plutonium. We can't take the risk."

The Pakistani bomb is one of the reasons we have to go the "tough love" route. Their assembled, deliverable nuclear arsenal represents a threat to India and--potentially--Iran. One of these countries already has a nuclear deterrent and the other one seems hellbent to do the same. In any event, the Government of Pakistan is well aware of what might (will) happen if some of its nuclear material ends up as a mushroom cloud somewhere. The bomb is not a reason to cease pressure on Islamabad. It is a reason to increase it.

The administration of George W. Bush swived the pooch with respect to Pakistan. The reasons for this severe failure are still unclear. In so far as the past is prologue, in this case it is the cause of a very dark future. Coddling Pakistan, its military, its ISI, has not only brought the Taliban resurgence, it has brought the world Mumbai.

To have a better chance of a future without more Mumbais there must be a change. To have a better chance of a future without one, two, many Talibans, there must be a change.

The change must happen in Pakistan. The change must be started in Washington.

How Close Is Mexico To Collapse?

The Mideast continues to exercise black hole level appeal to the US mainstream media and the attention of those few politicians who can tear their eyes (and calculations) away from failing banks, collapsing auto makers, and an imploding economy. Everyone has gotten into the act of offering advice to Barack Obama on what he should/must/can do to assure Mideast peace in our time.

From former Iranian presidents to the current Nobel Peace Prize recipient come torrents of well-intended suggestions for peace. When not gazing like a spotlighted deer at the Israel-Palestinian morass, attention is given to the swamp called Iraq and the ongoing war in Afghanistan and, most recently, the attacks in Mumbai. Except for an occasional glance tossed in the direction of the Merry Pirates of Puntland or the "humanitarian crises" in Darfur, Zimbabwe, and the Congo, the foreign policy and national security focus of the US stays firmly on the Mideast and Northwest Asia.

This is in keeping with the sweep of American foreign policy over the past century or so. Things falling apart far from our shores and even only tangential to our interests get the attention. Grave matters right next door are met with yawning indifference.

It's true that a few people looked askance at the rise of Hugo Chavez and his stridently anti-American agenda backed by improving relations with Iran and Russia. But hardly a soul noted the advent of equally anti-American regimes in Bolivia and Ecuador. Even fewer seemed to notice that Paraguay is lurching into the anti-US, pro-Hezbollah constellation.

Now to the nitty-gritty. Mexico. A place more deadly than Iraq. More lethal than Afghanistan.

The government of Felix Calderon inaugurated a full scale war on narcotrafficking in 2007. The use of the term "war" is appropriate as the Mexican army has been employed on a massive scale and the body count is impressive to say the least. The term "war" is also appropriate as the drug industry has grown to a level of power and has so penetrated the government and police forces that it poses an existential threat to the central regime.

This year the violence of the war has increased greatly--no--monumentally. Through the end of November some 5,376 people have been killed in the fighting between the government and the drug smugglers or in the inter-gang violence. In comparison only 2,477 died during the same period of 2007. (A further comparison of interest: The body count for 2008 alone is greater than the aggregate total of Americans killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan from day one through today.)

The killings have not only escalated in numbers, they have escalated in sheer barbarism as well. The drug gangsters have adopted the jihadist notion of decapitation with an exuberance which boggles the mind. They have even added some wrinkles which have eluded the jihadists such as rolling cut off heads like bowling balls into restaurants and bars.

The drug related massacre has been accompanied by a grotesque increase in the number of kidnappings for ransom. No longer are the victims of this practice (which often ends with the victim's body being found in an abandoned car) confined to members of the Mexican rico class. Now even the children of street market booth proprietors are at risk. Since the overwhelming majority of kidnappings are never reported to the police (often from fear that the police are themselves involved in the crime), the exact number of snatches will never be known with precision. Estimates range from a low of not quite one per day to a conservative high of three each and every day.

The apprehension felt by many Mexicans that the police are involved in crime has been borne out in recent weeks by the high profile arrests of individuals ranging from file clerks to department heads on charges of corruption--of being bought and paid for employees of the smugglers.

While low level corruption has been endemic among the poorly paid and badly trained Mexican police for decades, the recent revelations of corruption in the highest levels of law enforcement have rocked confidence not only in the criminal justice system but in the capacity of the central government to provide even the most fundamental service of government: protection of the citizen from violence.

There are other very disturbing indicators of a state in distress, a state on the verge of collapse. Over the past eight years more than 150,000 men have deserted from the Mexican armed forces. That's right 150,000! Of these, some fifteen hundred have been members of various "elite" formations. These are the units most often called upon for the most dangerous operations against the drug cartels.

It might also be mentioned that at least some of these deserters, including those from the elite units which have received training by Americans or in the United States, now provide the most effective "muscle" for the cartels. Los Zetas has gained the highest notoriety in this area of endeavor but is not the only such group.

There is yet another consideration. Mexican stability like the well-being of many Mexican families depends upon the flow of cash from the US. In 2007 the Bank of Mexico reported that a record amount of dollars--23 billion, 979 million--flowed to the country from "migrants" primarily those resident in the US. This year the total is expected to reach 23.5 billion.

That's only a slight decrease. But it is a sign of things to come. Remittances are falling along with the US economy. They may drop to less than 20 billion next year. They may drop more.

While the total loss of remittances from "migrants" in the US can not be predicted with certainty, we can get a grip on one inevitable consequence. Social instability will increase. Another consequence is almost as inevitable. Reliance upon drug smuggling will grow. Along with that, violence will escalate.

Mexico's neighbor to the south, Guatemala, is suffering partial collapse as the result of the operations of drug cartels. Last week, cartel violence along the Mexico-Guatemala border reached a level that the redeployment of Mexican national army units was necessary to contain it. Much of Guatemala is outside the control of the central government. This government is fragile in the extreme. It must be remembered that the country underwent some thirty-six years of insurgency which ended only in 1996 after costing more than 100,000 lives.

The drug cartels move into governmental vacuums and such has been the case both in Guatemala and the southern states of Mexico. (You might remember the uprising in Chiapas state which garnered an inordinate amount of transient media attention some fifteen years ago.)

The vacuum is spreading in Mexico as the economy goes south and the drugs flow north. Thus, it is to be expected that violence--including an increase in attacks on the less than robust infrastructure of the southern Mexican oil fields--will reach the level that so far has been experienced only in the northern states along the US border.

Columbia almost went down the abyss of collapse. It was almost destroyed by a combination of drugs and insurgency. It still isn't a model of stability although it no longer teeters on the ragged edge of failure. But, Columbia survived due in large measure to an unprecedented amount of American attention and assistance The direct US aid to the Colombian military and police forces exceeded the four hundred million dollars promised Mexico under current plans by more than an order of magnitude.

So there it is. Violence which touches the lives of many, many Mexicans. Fear in the middle class that has resulted even in migration. Loss of confidence in the government and the instruments of national security. The prospect of even more of the same in the foreseeable future.

It is long past time that the situation in Mexico can be ignored by the US government and media. There is a collapsing state on our southern border. The implications of this are not at all good from an American perspective. The US government and We the People have several options available to us. None are completely palatable. But, one must be discussed, chosen, and implemented.

It is time for a change. One can only hope that the President-elect and his policy crew are aware of this. One can only hope that they get a firm grip on the reality to the south and move quickly to help Mexico solve the existential threat it faces.

Obama Better Not Quit Smoking Quite Yet

Reputedly cigarettes are an effective anodyne when a person is tense--stressed. The way things are going in Afghanistan (and elsewhere around the world) the incoming administration will be facing a very high uptightness factor.

To put it bluntly, the US is further away from the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing" in Afghanistan today than it was even a few months ago. While the downhill trajectory of US fortunes in that miserable geographic expression was apparent early this year, only recently have the Deep Thinkers inside the Beltway gone public on it.

The most salient indicator of declining American fortunes comes with the announcement that US troops must be deployed in Logar and Wardak provinces south of Kabul. This is the first time that US combat units have been sent to these provinces. The first time that the US had to establish what amounts to a close-in perimeter defense of Kabul.

This development means that the roughly four thousand members of the 10th Mountain Division will not be going to the critical area on the Pakistan border. Rather than carrying the war to the bad guys on their transit routes to and from base camps in Pakistan, the 10th Mountain's Third Brigade will be guarding the Afghan capital. Protecting the rear so to speak.

Logar and Wardak have never been noted as centers of strong support for the Karzai regime. In recent months the reinvigorated Taliban has thoroughly penetrated the provinces, gaining significant (and growing) support from the folks who live there. It is clear that Taliban has made propaganda capital not only out of every US/NATO airstrike which produced civilian fatalities but also from their own "successes" such as the killing of three US troops and their Afghan interpreter last June in Wardak.

The level of popular support as well as the number of Taliban initiated incidents shows no sign of leveling off. Additionally, US and NATO intelligence in the two provinces is extremely limited to say the least. (Perhaps we should airdrop some satellite telephones or at least a few hundred cell phones so COMINT can have something to catch.)

Wardak and Logar have the potential to become the functional equivalent of the Parrot's Beak and War Zone D during the Vietnam War. Like these two infamous areas near Saigon, the two provinces have the real possibility of becoming black holes whose gravity wells have the power to suck in an endless number of American troops on missions which have importance only to the extent that they prevent or limit enemy offensives directed at the capital.

Wars are not won (or even "not lost") by defensive orientations or by granting the initiative to the enemy. They are not won (or even "not-lost") by protecting a capital, guarding a government, or preventing mediagenic enemy launched spectaculars of the Tet Offensive sort.

Wars are won (or "not-lost") by taking the initiative and holding it. They are won or "not-lost" by eroding the enemy's material capacity and political will to continue. In Afghanistan that means the critical physical terrain is along the border--not adjacent to the capital.

A second very strong indication of just how badly affairs are going in Afghanistan is the expectation that there will be no winter stand-down this year. Each of the past winters Taliban has invoked that hoary old notion of going into winter quarters when the weather turned from the merely miserable to the utterly execrable. Our side reciprocated in kind.

This year life will be a lot different and a lot worse for the grunts in-country. Taliban shows no sign of losing its momentum by retiring to warmer climes for the winter. Our technology gives us certain advantages even as the winds hit gale force, the snow gives new meaning to the term "blizzard conditions," and the ceiling drops to zero (along with the thermometer.) Taliban is taking a risk by keeping the war going but its leadership evidently believes that maintaining its psychological and political momentum is worth it.

A third indicator of the parlous state in which the US finds itself is the attack on the logistics support facilities in Peshawar. (OK, to err on the side of accuracy, the targets were two parking lots filled with US vehicles.) While the twin attacks might not have impaired US combat capacity, they do serve as another warning about the tenuous lines of supply on which our augmented forces will be dependent.

About three quarters of the supplies needed by our and allied forces in Afghanistan flows out of Peshawar up through the Khyber Pass. As any number of historical examples show, the Khyber is an easily blocked choke point. Before getting to the Khyber Pass the supplies must be trucked from the port of Karachi to Peshawar. Think of the highway as a long, long ambush site.

The Pakistani armed forces have not shown a convincing capacity to secure the land lines of communication. Heck, the Pakistani army couldn't even respond to the attacks in Peshawar despite having a large number of troops in the city. Given the prickly sensitivities of the Pakistanis regarding sovereignty, there is nothing the US can do directly to assure the proper securing of the critical lines of supply.

The President-elect opined this weekend that the economic conditions in the US were going to get worse before they get better. The same may be said concerning our efforts in Afghanistan. With one critical difference.

The difference?

We can be reasonably certain on several bases that the economy will improve ultimately. The same assurance does not exist regarding Afghanistan.

Our situation in Afghanistan will get worse. Of that we can be sure. There is no certainty that it will then, perforce, get better.

Best not quite smoking quite yet, Mr President-elect. The real high pucker time is yet to come.

Susan Rice Scares The Geek

"Say what, Geek! You sure get a case of the knocking knees right easy."

Yeah, it is easy to say that. Very few people get an anxiety attack over a UN Ambassador--particularly before the person takes office.

To err on the side of candor this is a first for the Geek. He has been able to yawn his way through every previous naming ceremony--even that of John Bolton.

Not this time. This time is different. Come along with the Geek as he lays out his case.

President-elect Obama often promised (before the appropriate audiences only) that he would put a new emphasis on the United Nations and assure that the US played a constructive role in that institution. He has made good on that particular campaign promise--at least symbolically--by restoring the UN Ambassador to cabinet rank.

Without passing on the merits of Obama's decision, suffice it to say that the PR will have a greater, more direct influence upon critical foreign policy decisions than would have been the case had the office been left at its sub-cabinet position. The enhanced influence of the PR on the making and execution of foreign policy undoubtedly will cheer those who seek a greater harmonization of US and UN policy.

The High Minded advocates of greater global cooperation under the blue UN flag will be quite happy with the restoration of the PR's "lost" status. They would be even more gratified if the reality of the next months and years is the PR being not only the American ambassador to the international organization but the UN's ambassador to the Oval Office.

These considerations in and of themselves do not cause the Geek undue apprehension. However, the elevation of the PR to cabinet rank is a necessary part of the context producing the Geek's current anxiety attack. Another contextual factor is the presence of the High Minded, who would be ecstatic should the UN gain greater leverage on American foreign policy,

Another key component of context is the radical shift in the orientation of the UN at both the Security Council and General Assembly levels in recent years. The "mission creep" exhibited by the ever-more-ambitious UN has changed much in the way the outfit operate. It has also served to alter the way in which the organisation views itself and its role in world affairs.

It must be recalled that the primary reason invoked for the creation and maintenance of the UN was the preservation of international peace. The UN was presumed to be both the deterrer of aggression and the punisher of aggressive war when it occurred.

Although often prevented from executing its primary function by the dynamics of the Cold War and the use of the veto by one or more of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the UN did punish aggression at least twice, once in 1950 and again forty years later. The potential, let alone the actuality, of the UN operating to promote effective collective action against an international aggressor gave the organisation legitimate claim upon the support of the American government and people.

The UN provided other useful services to the global welfare over the years. Its attempts to maintain international peace through monitoring and "peacekeeping" forces were meritorious even if rarely effective. Similarly, its efforts at ameliorating the human misery attendant upon both war and natural disasters have been commendable, if, again, less than spectacularly successful.

Starting in the waning days of the Cold War and proceeding at an ever escalating rate, the UN has sought to carve out a new role for itself which is only tangentially related to its original functions. That role can be best described as intervening in the affairs of distressed or collapsing states.

The UN Charter was carefully crafted to prohibit the organisation from interfering in the internal affairs of member states. This principle of non-interference has two champions on the Security Council: China and Russia.

Despite both the strictures imposed by the Charter and the self-interest of at least two Great Powers, the UN has involved itself in more and more internal operations. The involvement has normally been covered by either the declaration of a "humanitarian" crisis or the invocation of a compelling consideration such as "genocide."

From Somalia fifteen years ago to Darfur and the Democratic Republic of Congo today, the UN has sought an interventionary role. It has gained strong support for this species of mission distorting creep from those in the European Union and the US who see national boundaries and national sovereignty as obsolete or at least obsolescent barriers to the full protection and expansion of human rights.

What this means is both simple and alarming. Should a US administration become convinced for whatsoever reason that the situation in a distressed or collapsing state had progressed to an unacceptable level of bloodshed, it would find a ready and willing collaborator in the dispatch of armed force to protect lives, restore stability, and insure the exercise of human rights

Who could object to such fine, noble, and altruistic sentiments and objectives?

Certainly not Susan Rice. And, here comes the reason for the Geek's trembling.

Ms Rice when she was a staffer on the Clinton National Security Council experienced an epiphany. She saw the aftermath of the bloodletting in Rwanda. She was on the killing fields. She smelled the stench. She saw the death.

And, apparently, she vowed, "Never again." Or, at the least, she has maintained publicly, repeatedly, that she "would go down in flames" in the effort to stop mass killing in the future.

Mass killing is not stopped by simply asking the killers to cease and desist. Wholesale murderers are not famed for their readiness to stop. It takes force to stop force.

It takes killing--and dying--to stop the killing.

Before the peace can be kept, it must exist. It must be imposed. Imposed impartially by an outside military force of high competence, high firepower, high levels of training, high levels of command and control, high levels of discipline. The record of the past several decades demonstrates that such force is possessed by few countries, most of which are located in Europe and North America.

It takes a significant number of troops and a fair risk that some of these will be killed to provide the sort of stability oriented peace imposition mission for which Ms Rice would be willing to go down in flames. Back during the Clinton Administration the US showed both an unwillingness to send enough force or to take casualties when our military was tasked with the "humanitarian" mission in Somalia.

Apparently, Ms Rice missed that. Or, the memory of what happened after a poorly planned and executed Special Forces operation ended in both American deaths and the televised desecration of American bodies. Or, the memory was wiped away by the tears shed for the dead of Rwanda.

Then there is another set of problems which may have eluded Ms Rice in her passionate commitment to assuring more Rwandas do not happen. Sufficient force, sufficient killing and dying can assure that internal violence is halted, domestic peace restored. It can even serve to arrest those suspected of crimes against humanity.

But that is all the outsiders can do. Their guns cannot do more than silence the guns of the killers within. Guns can arrest putative evil doers. Those are the limits of force.

What happens next? What will be done once the killing stops? What other than feeding and housing and caring for the wounded, the fugitives, the fearful?

Will the UN and its member states build a new nation-state in the wreckage of the old? Who decides what type of nation, what variety of state, what form of government, what sort of economy will be erected on the rubble?

How long will it take? How much will it cost? Most importantly, will it work? Is there any realistic chance that a viable entity can be created for the benefit of the residents by the well intentioned High Minded outsiders?

Ms Rice would be very well advised to take a good, cold look at the consequences of the invasion of Afghanistan. Before eagerly sending American and other troops off to Darfur or the Congo or Zimbabwe or Somalia or any of the other states which are or shortly will be distressed, Ms Rice should smell the air of Afghanistan, walk the streets of Afghanistan, smell the dead of Afghanistan.

Ms Rice would be well advised to ask herself if there was any realistic probability that the well intentioned efforts of progressive High Minded folks would result in any better state of peace for the locals than the adventures of the neocon ninnies of recent memory.

Will Ms Rice do any of these things? The Geek is willing to bet hair that she will not. And, that is why her appointment scares him. Ideology, whether of the Right or the Left, does not serve the interests of the US. It doesn't even serve the UN well.

Fifteen Thousand Marines To Afghanistan?

There are currently some thirty thousand US troops in Afghanistan. Additionally, there are roughly thirty thousand allied forces, many of them in non-combat roles and relatively safe locations.

The US Marines are bored in Iraq. Long ago the mission of the twenty-two thousand jarheads in Anbar Province shifted from active combat operations taking the war to the black turbans to one of providing civil operations and back-up to the Iraqi security forces.

The possibility of shifting fifteen thousand of these under-employed, offensively oriented personnel to Afghanistan has been under active consideration by the Corps. The notion seems to have gained traction not only among the senior leadership of the Marines but with guys down the food chain, the men who do the killing--and the dying.

At first sight the transfer of the more-or-less out of work Marines to Afghanistan seems to be a good idea. The commanders in Afghanistan have long and correctly called for more boots on the ground. The President-elect has maintained that Afghanistan is the "central front" in the "War on Terrorism."

Then there is the simple, but unpleasant reality that the US and its allies are nowhere near having accomplished the minimum necessary strategic goal, which is "not-losing." The term "not-losing" means the clear demonstration that the enemy, al-Qaeda and Taliban, cannot defeat us either militarily or through the enervation of our domestic political will.

It is important to understand that the concept "not-losing" is not the same as "winning." The underlying reality in Afghanistan is that there is no meaningful way in which an outsider such as the US can hope to "win." The failure which was built in to the American headed invasion of Afghanistan was the notion that we could "win" through the implantation of foreign political institutions such as a secular, pluralistic, liberal democracy in the rocks of Afghanistan.

The willful ignoring of the realities operating on the human terrain of the Afghan population caused by ideological considerations assured that we and those with us would enter the country without a proper political goal, definition of victory, or means of achieving the goal and victory as defined. Since "winning" was an impossible option from the moment the first missile hit or the first US boot touched ground, there have been only two potential outcomes for this adventure in a remote, rugged and hostile land.

The more obvious potential end for the Afghan effort is the one which, at this moment, seems more likely. In a word, losing.

No matter how it might be camouflaged, a withdrawal under pressure from Taliban and al-Qaeda would be seen by the Islamist opposition worldwide as the military defeat of the "Crusader states," most important of which is the US. Foe, neutral, and friend, including many Americans, would see the US exiting Afghanistan under pressure as a military and political defeat. The consequences of this would be large, long duration, and unpleasant from an American perspective.

The only alternative to defeat is that of "not losing," of leaving Afghanistan after having reduced both the military capacities and the ability to use them of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. "Not-losing" means that the Afghan political situation will remain in a state of flux with the final outcome to be determined by the Afghan population. That Taliban will remain as a player in the political sphere is to be expected. The potential of Taliban re-emerging in or even as the government must be accepted.

The "not-losing" option is the one which finally obtained in Iraq following the success of the much debated and often maligned "surge." The final shape of internal Iraqi politics is still in process and at may eventually prove quite unsatisfying from an American perspective.

Whether the final outcome of Iraqi internal politics meets with our approval or not is quite irrelevant. The relevant consideration is simply that the hostile elements in Iraq did not force a military defeat upon us or cost us the totality of our political will to continue the war.

"Not-losing" has been a good enough outcome for US policy in both Korea and Iraq. While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it is a better end to an effort than was the barely hidden defeat of American political will in Vietnam.


It has been long established that counterinsurgency is a manpower intensive kind of war. When SecDef Donald Rumsfeld tried for victory on the cheap through high tech "shock and awe," he overlooked one of the two most important historically derived principles of interventionary war: It takes a lot of people. People on the ground operating over time is the second of the three pre-requisites for success, even the limited success described by the term "not-losing."

(As a side note, Rumsfeld wrote an op-ed piece in today's NYT. He comes across as though he was a born-again member of Code Pink. The Geek can't help but wonder where his expressed concern for the Afghan people and the necessity of them making the decisions on what sort of government they want might have been hiding back during the days of testicle grabbing mouthings of "shock and awe?")

The shifting of fifteen thousand Marines from Iraq to Afghanistan would provide a very significant increase in ground combat power. Given that the Marine Expeditionary Force includes it own air as well as ground units, the force would be tightly integrated and capable of operating with extreme rapidity and effectiveness to actionable intelligence. This has been shown repeatedly in the past, in counterinsurgency operations stretching back from Iraq to the so-called "Banana Wars" of the Twenties and Thirties.

On the downside of course are the considerations of logistics. While these are solvable, even if it means relying all the more on private Russian contractors operating ancient Soviet era cargo aircraft, the problems of supplying another fifteen thousand personnel are not beyond our capacities.

Indeed, if diplomacy were to be employed effectively, we might be able to regain the lost cooperation of some of the adjacent Central Asian Republics. The current administration lost that cooperation due to its usual inept, heavy-handed efforts at diplomatic coercion over irrelevant matters of human rights. What diplomacy has lost, it should be able to regain.

A far more important downside effect of redeploying the Marines is that to do such would mean an increase in the tempo of combat operations. That means an increase in Americans killed and wounded.

The real risk for the decision makers both in and out of uniform is simply what additional stresses can American political will accept? Given all the bad things happening in our collective life, can We the People take more news of more Americans killed in the pursuit of something so hard to grasp as "not losing?" Or, if Taliban and al-Qaeda inflict enough death upon our troops, if these black turbans cause enough destruction, death and turmoil that success no matter how limited in definition seems impossible, will We the People simply give up and call the troops home?

As the British say, "That is a bit of a poser, what?"

Questions That Nag At The Geek

Let's see if I've got this right.

North Korea has a nuclear reactor that made plutonium. We are very, very upset about that. We along with South Korea, Japan, Russia and China just had to do something about this obnoxious development.

At the same time North Korea has been assembling a centrifuge cascade which can manufacture highly enriched uranium. We and the other members of the Grand Coalition Against North Korean Nukes seem completely unconcerned about this activity.

Iran has a centrifuge cascade spinning away enriching uranium. By some reckonings the Iranians have over six hundred kilos of low enrichment stuff. That's enough to commence making weapon grade material which is the easier portion of the task.

We are very, very disturbed by the Iranian machines. We and the other members of the P5+1 have been working overtime for years now trying to do something about this horrid, scary development.

At the same time the Iranians have been building a heavy water moderated "research" reactor which would have the capacity to crank out plutonium. We and the rest of the Permanent Opposition to Iranian Nukes seem totally unconcerned about this construction work in progress.

Just what is the Geek missing here?

There has to be something going on here that the Geek has missed as well.

Somali Islamist pirates have been seizing ships. It is a profitable enterprise. In the past twelve months the pirates have received some 150 million bucks in ransom payments.

The pirates have kept some of the money. That's obvious from the plush new houses being built in Puntland and some other sections of the Somali geographic expression.

Much money has flowed on to assorted international Islamist/jihadist groups. How much cannot be said since darn few CPA's have audited the accounts.

Some of the ships taken by the Happy Buccaneers of the Somali Coast prior to this past week have been owned and operated by Iran. Iran, that is the Islamic Republic of Iran, is an Islamic country.

So is Saudi Arabia. The Saudi owned VLCC Sirius Star with a cargo valued at 100 megabucks more or less was hijacked by the pirates last week. A 25 megabuck ransom has been demanded.

Comes now an armed convoy of al-Shabab Islamist fighters to the port nearest the captive tanker. The jihadists vow to retake the ship because it is sinful or something for ships owned by Islamic countries to be taken.

Considering that al-Shabab goons were totally unconcerned when their coreligionists and ethnic brethren hoisted the Jolly Roger over ships owned or operated by Iran or other Islamic states such as Pakistan, why the sudden rush to the service of law and order?

Is it possible that the Fearless Upholders Of Islamic Law are motivated more by the prospect of sharing (or taking all) a thwacking big ransom? Oh! Tell the Geek it ain't so. Tell the Geek he is missing something and the armed inheritors of the Islamic Courts Union really, really is motivated only by the dictates of Quran and sharia.

Or, is the Geek missing something?

The Geek must be missing something about the importance of the United Nations as well.

With the dubious exception of those few times when the UN has provided a convenient and useful baby-blue fig leaf as a cover for American policy genitalia, it is an institution that has long outlived whatever utility its High Minded sponsors saw for it sixty some years ago.

Leaving aside some of the specialized agencies operating under the UN umbrella, the organization has long been a forum for bashing the United States. That is annoying but far from the major difficulty with the body.

Far more important is the UN's sheer inefficiency, it's blundering ineptitude in discharging its major reason for existence--keeping the peace. There is a reason for this--the Geek thinks.

The UN in both the General Assembly and the Security Council have ignored the difference between keeping the international peace and trying to impose internal peace upon societies and polities experiencing internal violence. There is a vast gap between the UN operating appropriately to maintain international peace (as illustrated by the Security Council's actions authorizing member states to repel aggression in the Korean Conflict or following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) and attempting to compel order in collapsing states (such as Sudan, Somalia, or the Democratic Republic of Congo).

Similarly, there is a vast, unbridgeable gulf between authorising the use of force in Korea or against Iraq in 1990-91 and complying with the mendacious demands of the W. Bush administration for regime change in Iraq nearly seven years ago.

The badly misnomered "peace keeping" operations whether in Darfur or the DRC show the UN is gripless regarding the realities in states that lack the organic coherence to function. Rather, these misadventures and their well deserved lack of apparent success demonstrate that the world body is intellectually corrupt, clinging to the hopeless notion that a state once called into existence by whatsoever means has a writ to last in perpetuity regardless of any realities extant within the so-called state.

This intellectual corruption far surpasses in evil effect the mundane economic and financial turpitude demonstrated so well in the "Oil For Food" program applied to Iraq during the Nineties. The fundamental intellectual gangrene of the UN's addiction to keeping states without a reason for continued existence alive on the machinery of humanitarian relief and peace keeping is far more destructive of long term stability both local and global than its well documented sins of administrative inefficiency, centripetal interests, and bureaucratic self-seeking.

More recently another form of pestilence has infected the UN. The vector of infection is the largest single bloc in the body--the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC is backed by the wealth of Saudi Arabia, a notoriously reactionary regime linked hip and shoulder with the most backward looking version of Islam, Wahhibism.

The pathogen carried by the OIC and the Saudis is the most direct threat against free speech ever contemplated, surpassing even earlier efforts brought to the Hudson River Follies by authoritarian states such as international restrictions upon journalism and communications. This time the pathogen wears a coat of religious tolerance and multi-cultural harmony which, its backers hope, will defeat the political immune systems of countries in the West. The protective garment is one of preventing defamation of religions.

In principle, that would mean all religions but, in practice, it means only the prevention of any sort of criticism or questioning directed at Islam. Certainly, the recent actions of the OIC and member states including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia make that clear.

The bizarre redefinition of criticism or questioning of Islam as "racism" constitutes a new low in the denaturing and distortion of words. Considering that Islam fancies itself a global religion and has adherents of every color and ethnicity imaginable, the claim that criticism of the faith or any of its manifestations such as suicide bombing, stoning women, beheading journalists, killing daughters and wives for "honor" is racism boggles the mind of any person well oriented as to time and place.

That the proposal of an international convention placing the "moral" weight of the UN behind the stifling of free expression should be received by the UN with any reaction other than gales of derisive laughter is equally mind boggling. Yet the OIC/Saudi idea of "tolerance" and "anti-defamation" has been accepted not only with equanimity at the General Assembly but with the support of the current General Assembly's president d'Escoto-Brockman of Nicaragua.

So, let's see if the Geek has it right. The UN is intellectually, financially, and morally corrupt. It has no grip on its major function of keeping the international peace. It bashes around blindly and ineffectively trying to keep collapsing states intact. It is a forum for Yankee-bashing without equal. Its operations cost the American taxpayer a fair amount of money (22 percent of its general budget and 25 percent of its "peace keeping" one.)

Comes now a passel of "foreign policy experts" headed by a set of monuments to failed US foreign policy, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright (guaranteed to hit any diplomatic historian's list of Worst SecStates of the 20th Century), and accompanied by an assortment of equally failed practitioners of the dismal arts of diplomacy with an ad calling for an increased US involvement in and cooperation with the UN. Admittedly none of these individuals has a distinguished record of success in formulating and implementing foreign policy, but many of them will be influential with the in-coming administration.

In short, they will have the ear of President Obama and his Secretary of State. They will be positioned to play their Love-the-UN music loud and long in ears already primed to hear the tune and dance to it.

Either the Geek is right with his dystopian view of the UN or they are correct with their New UN Day Is Dawning perspective.

Surrendering to overwhelming numbers and aggregate years of putative experience, the Geek can only wonder: What is he missing?

It's Official! China is Espionage Central

The Geek always gets a warm glow when an American governmental body publicly admits something that has been known sub rosa for a long, long time. Just today, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bi-partisan group created to advise Congress on matters involving US relations with the Global Gorilla on the far side of the Pacific, issued a report acknowledging among other things that the Chinese government is hoisting every bit of data it can hack from American businesses including defense contractors. It has also been doing its best to swipe everything that isn't virtually nailed down from the Pentagon.

Holy shrimp egg rolls, Caped Crusader!

Say it ain't so! Tell us that really the Chinese are what President Bill Clinton promised they would become when he opened the door to nearly unimpeded trade with the Mandarins of Beijing. Doubters such as the Geek were assured that a vast and fast growing web of commercial ties between ourselves and the Chinese would not only benefit the American consumer through lower prices but would guarantee peace and prosperity globally by bringing China fully into the world wide market.

Yeah. Right.

Then there is president-elect Obama. Unless he has taken a firm grip on reality in recent weeks, his view of China is every bit as out-to-lunch as Bill Clinton's. When campaigning, Obama held that "China is on the rise." (With that the Geek is in full agreement.)

The Nice Young Man From Chicago went on to observe that "China is neither a friend nor an enemy. It is a competitor. (With that the Geek is in full disagreement.)

While it is true that all countries routinely do a spot or two of espionage against all other nations including "friends," China's boisterous efforts are far over the edge. The wholesale pilferage both accomplished and attempted in no way comports itself with the usual range of espionage conducted between "friends" or even "rivals." No. China's gargantuan appetite for stolen information, as well as the uses to which the proceeds have been placed, takes it out of the "rivalry" category and places it well in the space marked "hostile."

As the Commission states, the recent Chinese efforts in military modernization and space oriented activities are both "impressive" and "disturbing." When coupled with statements of military doctrine coming from Chinese defense intellectuals in the past couple of years regarding the centrality of aerospace and information warfare, the very rapid increase of Chinese capacities in these areas is beyond being merely "disturbing." They have reached the level of "alarming" or even "scary."

There has been little doubt for years that the Chinese seek regional hegemonic status at the least. Beyond that, the Mandarins of the Forbidden City want to limit the capacity and will of the US to operate freely not only in Asia but globally. The Commission's report did properly appreciate the first, more limited goal. It did not directly address the second.

The foreign policy players of the Clinton administration apparently were so blinded by the light of globalization, of free movement of goods and capital, that they never considered what China might do with the money and technology access it acquired from the United States. Ideology overwhelmed prudence.

Now we face the consequences. Consider just a couple of significant bits of data. One is military and the other is financial. The military note: Chinese air defenses are improving at such a significant rate that within a very short time no aircraft in the world other than the American B-2 and F-22 will be able to penetrate their airspace without unacceptable losses. The financial consideration: China holds (as of the end of September) nearly six hundred billion dollars in US T-bonds--the largest single holding in the world.

There are other significant pieces of the Chinese puzzle which can be adduced as well, but to do so would only depress the Geek. So, for the moment we'll depart this unpleasant subject.

Apologists for a "go slow and talk soft" policy with respect to China are eager to underscore the obvious--that China holds a veto in the UN Security Council. Well, that's something that never crossed the Geek's mind and he is utterly terrified at the possibility that China might resort to the (dare he write the word?) Veto. You mean, actually vote nyet! on something the US would like to see passed? Oh! Perish the thought!

Apologists would also like those sceptical of Chinese good intentions to remember that the US needs the cooperation of Beijing on critical matters such as the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons threat. Well, the cooperation of the Chinese might be nice, but it is not necessary, nor would it be sufficient to deal with these two challenges or nuclear proliferation generally, or terrorism, or any other matter.

As the Geek has posited in previous posts, the Chinese need us (or at least our cash and our technology) more than we need them. He has also suggested that a "work-to-rules" treatment of Chinese imports might send a message which would be unsubtle enough to be understood in the deepest reaches of the Forbidden City. The FDA has recently adopted this approach regarding imports containing milk or milk derived components. Finally, the FDA has done something useful!

The mood music players of the MSM have sought to assuage the doubts of people such as the Geek by insisting that President Obama will "govern from the center." The mooting of numerous Clinton Administration retreads is a guarantee that the Obama Administration will be staffed by experienced practical people with a sound understanding of how Washington and the world work.

Sure. Right.

The Geek is much relieved. It is so comforting to be told that the same gripless bunch who handed the keys to the vault and the store alike to the Chinese are now going to be in charge of dealing with the consequences.

Ah, with this in mind, the Geek can sleep the sleep of the saved.