Voting, Voting And More Voting

Forty some years ago the protest folk singer Phil Ochs did a dreary ditty about the loss of the nuclear submarine Scorpion. It contains the line, "The crew have turned to voting; the officers to drink." Well, the Geek rather reckons that voting both in Afghanistan and the UN Human Rights Council may drive the Obama administration--or at least its foreign policy section--to drink.

In the Afghanistan theater of operations (which on occasion resembles a theater of the absurd) the voting is that of a contested nature. OK, it should not surprise anyone oriented as to time and place that Karzai's crowd stole the election. It is unfortunate that so many Americans and others in the West ignore the commonality of fraud, election theft, ballot box stuffing, and other related peccadilloes throughout the world. (Heck, leaving aside the questionable role of the SCOTUS in the 2000 election, electoral fraud was a major contributor to the 1960 presidential election right here in the good ole USA.)

The crucial factor in the Afghan elections is not contained in the question, "Did Karzai win fair and square?" Nor is to be found in the closely related query, "Will Karzai beat Abdullah Abdullah fair and square in a (so far hypothetical) runoff election?"

The critical question is actually, "What difference in the course and probable outcome of the war in Afghanistan will it make if Abullah wins?" The answer is simple, "Not much."

Abdullah will preside as has Karzai over a government which is disunited, inefficient, and riddled with corruption. None of these unpleasant realities is unique to Karzai. (Indeed, none are unique to Afghanistan or the Afghan culture.)

True, the Tajiks might enjoy more of the blessings(?) of power and closeness to the money stream. Equally true, some of the Pashtuns displaced at least temporarily from access to money and power may show their displeasure by uniting with their fellow Pashtuns in the Taliban. Neither of these developments will either aid or hinder the US and its allies in the task of militarily subduing the Glorious Warriors of the One True Faith.

The only possible impact the election of Abdullah might have on the course of events in Afghanistan is with respect to Pakistan. The Tajiks were the majority of the anti-Taliban oriented Northern Alliance. The Pakistani memory regarding such things runs long and deep. There is little reason to believe that an Abdullah presidency will have any real, positive impact upon Islamabad--and particularly on the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence. When Abdullah was foreign minister in the Karzai government, his ministrations had no good effect on the movers and shakers of ISI, the Pakistani government, or Army.

A further complication which might well ensue upon an Abdullah victory in the proposed runoff comes from his deficiencies as a politician Afghan style. The lack of personal charisma, personal appeal, magnetism and charm was the main reason the US chose Karzai as "our man in Kabul."

One of the implications of Karzai's personal skills exists in his capacity as a deal maker. This, of course, is one of the main things we have against him and his fraudulent election now. He made deals then and now. Back then, the US, the UN, and all the other outsiders liked his style. Over the ensuing years, his deal making orientation caused us and all the rest to see him increasingly as an undesirable fountainhead of corruption and, (perish the thought) potential maker of a separate peace with Taliban and the other Islamist jihadist groups.

Politics in Afghanistan has always come in one of two forms. The lesser form is that of a ruthless central authority which cozens and coerces the several antipathetic ethnic and tribal entities into a moment of unity--normally against an external threat or invader. The greater form is one of national level Let's-Make-A-Deal. In this area Karzai is superior to Abdullah.

Now take a dekko at the importance of Let's-Make-A-Deal. Every insurgency ends in two distinct phases.

The first is hostilities termination. That means simply the fighting stops. It may stop because one side sees itself being defeated. It may come because both sides are exhausted. One or both sides no longer have the political will to keep on shooting.

The second phase is conflict resolution. Unless and until the insurgency--which means both the insurgent and the status quo--reach the stage of being willing to hammer out a way of coexistence, of power-sharing, of alleviating the grievances which led to war, simple hostilities termination means a temporary armistice, not a permanent or semi-permanent peace. The nitty-gritty of conflict resolution is making deals, pure and simple. Deals must be struck, bargains made on how power is to be shared, on how money is to be apportioned, on what the basic institutions of society and polity will be.

While outsiders may be useful in achieving hostilities termination (and that is the definition of success for the US in seeking to assure the Islamist jihadists cannot claim a military victory over all of us "infidels") the outsiders are useless in achieving conflict resolution. The second, more critical stage in ending an insurgency is an insiders-only game.

Conflict resolution means quite bluntly that at some time, in some place, somebody from Kabul must sit face-to-face with Omar or his successor and make a deal. At this place and at this time the presence of outsiders is not only superfluous, it will be counterproductive.

From all reports, Karzai is better equipped to play the role of deal maker than is Abdullah. It is also important to note that Abdullah will not be a negligible quantity when deal making time comes. He knows that. Karzai knows that. The question is, "Does the Obama administration not only know that but is it willing to act on that knowledge?"

The Obama administration and other outsiders can and should play a key role in assuring that Karzai and Abdullah work together regardless of elections past or future so that both men can play their roles when conflict resolution time comes around. This may mean overlooking the irregularities of Karzai's reelection. It means going along with Karzai should he reject any negative conclusions from the Electoral Complaints Commission. It means accepting whatever "vox populi, vox dei" emerges should a runoff be held.

The Obama administration and all the other well-intentioned outsiders have to keep their collective eyes on the prize. The prize for us is that of "not-losing," of achieving hostilities termination without giving the slightest excuse for the Islamist jihadists to claim victory over the "forces of infidelity." (Memo to the administration: al-Qaeda and Taliban still declare that they and they alone "defeated" the Red Army way back when during the days of Reagan/Bush.)

Now, gang, the other vote. The Human Rights Council has once more shown the truth behind all the accusations that it, like its ill-begotten predecessor, exists only as a cudgel with which the countries of the Arab-Muslim World can bash Israel. Once more, the worthy nations of the Council led by the Arab states and ably supported by human rights champions such as Russia and the Peoples Republic of China passed a resolution which endorses the justly criticized Goldstone Reprt.

Exacerbating the sin committed against both truth and impartiality, the resolution made specific reference to Israel alone. It ignored even the mild negative comments made by Justice Goldstone and his colleagues concerning the wrongs committed by Hamas and other groups in the months and years before Operation Cast Lead.

The US opposed the resolution along with five other courageous countries. Eleven other countries abstained. Five, including the UK and France, declined even to abstain showing a degree of gutlessness which surpasses rational understanding. Twenty-five states, primarily members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, voted in the affirmative.

Now the issue passes along to the Security Council. The US--if the POTUS is to be believed--will do whatever is necessary to block the report and its associated (or grafted on) provisions and recommendations. Presumably, this means the US will exercise its veto.

A veto in the UNSC does not mean the end of the Goldstone Report or the included demands that the International Criminal Court be invoked against Israeli governmental and military personnel. The OIC is inventive. It is persistent. And, it has potent support from at least two Great Powers (Russia and China) as well as a host of Small Powers in Africa and Latin America.

With the members of the European Union apparently afflicted by a massive case of Kick The Stubborn Israelis Around, it is not beyond the pale to think that a General Assembly move will be made to circumvent the Security Council. Nor is it unthinkable that the relevant committees of the UN will lean hard on Israel to acknowledge its nuclear arsenal--and abandon it.

While there are a number of negative potentials with the Goldstone Report, one ground truth already exists. The Obama plan for a comprehensive Mideast peace is dead in the water. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear.

The "international community" or at least the UN did nothing, zero, nada, to stop the rain of rockets, mortar rounds, and other attacks conducted by Hamas from the Gaza Strip of which it has been the de facto government since it shot its way to power back in 2007. Now Justice Goldstone, his committee, the UNHRC have condemned Israel, and Israel alone, for the actions it took in legitimate self-defense.

Israel took the self-same "international community" including the UN at its collective word in 2005 when it withdrew from the Gaza Strip. The word was worthless as events proved beyond a shadow of a doubt--reasonable or otherwise.

It is totally illegitimate to expect Israel to take more "risks for peace" in the wake of the Human Rights Council's action. It is totally without foundation in the consensually accepted reality to expect Israel to look to any entity beyond its borders for defense, for protection, or even for support when the rockets fly again. No Israeli government would now be so lacking in sense as to take any action whatsoever which might increase the risks faced by the citizens of Israel.

Well, the action of the Human Rights Council was democracy in action. The majority rules. And, the Obama administration now has to face the unpleasant fact that its Mideast policy is a casualty of democracy. All of the genuflections to Muslim sensibilities, all of the distortions of history in favor of the Muslim sense of self-worth, all of the pressure on Israel regarding the "settlements" have come to nothing.

If anything the famed Obama "open hand" has emboldened the intransigence of the members of the OIC. The same "open hand" and apologies for presumed past American "sins" also emboldened countries whose interests and policies are inimical to the interests of the US. The cliched chickens have come home to roost.

Perhaps the time to grow up is upon the Nice Young Man From Chicago. The time is over for him to believe his own press releases about his greatness. The time is now for Mr Obama to accept that he is the president of a Great Power--and act like it! The time is now for an end to apologies, for explanations of how he is not George W. Bush, for "open hands." Most of the countries in the world expect the US to take a stance, a clear and consistent stance with policies which reflect that. Like us or hate us, the nations of the globe expect the US to act as a leader, to say without ambiguity what is and is not acceptable to the US. And, to carry out with deeds what we announce with words.

Another Problem With Lawyers---

While the Geek is not yet quite willing to join in the ancient cry, "First kill all the lawyers," there are times when he tilts strongly in that direction.

The cause this time is the Goldstone Panel Report regarding alleged Israeli (and, almost as an afterthought, Palestinian) war crimes and crimes against humanity. Even if one is willing to assume--against all promptings of realism--that the Goldstone Panel was not following a pre-determined script and intended to indict Israel in the eyes of the world, the basic premise of the panel was flawed.

Goldstone and his fellows on the panel, not unlike the legal profession generally, is powerfully inclined against war. It is not that the Geek is in favor of war. He is not, a position commonly found among the Great Brotherhood Of Those Who Have Been Shot At. But, unlike Richard Goldstone, the Geek accepts war as an unpleasant, brutal reality of the human experience. There are times--numerous times--when the sublimated combat of the courtroom cannot substitute for the reality of bullets, blood, and destruction.

Hamas, the de facto government of Gaza since shooting its way to power nearly two years ago, undertook an unsupportable, unconscionable, and illegal campaign of terror attacks against the civilian population of Israel. That fact is incontrovertible. The Israeli government responded over the many rocket filled months with remarkable, even unprecedented restraint. That fact is also incontrovertible.

When the instruments of the "international community" demonstrated complete inability to halt the Hamas sponsored attacks, Israel had no choice beyond that of self-defense. The resulting incursion into Gaza, Operation Cast Lead, was robust. The historical record demonstrates clearly that whenever Israel uses its military, the use is full throated, full bore, and overwhelming.

On many occasions the Israeli military riposte has been disproportionate to the stimulus. The actions of Detachment 101 under Sharon back in the Fifties come to mind in this regard. However, the conduct of Operation Cast Lead does not put it in the category of overreaction.

Apparently, the fact that Hamas intentionally embedded its trigger pullers and bomb heavers in the civilian population thus hoping to blunt the Israeli attack completely eluded the lawyerly mind of Justice Goldstone. Instead, he and his colleagues were blinded by the unsupported testimony of people with a direct interest in both indicting Israel and protecting the heavies of Hamas. Instead of examining the responsibility of Hamas in its intentional placing of civilians and their property in harm's way, the lawyer from South Africa was appalled at the effect of munitions, whether small arms, artillery rounds, or air delivered ordinance.

The worthy lawyer was horrified that war causes devastation. His neat and tidy mind accustomed to the dry text of statutes and court decisions was overloaded by the up close and personal exposure to the actuality of war. He evidently went into mental overload and brain gridlock when he discovered that bombs blast all in their path into protoplasm covered rubble.

Reason fled and Mr Goldstone went to some sort of default mode. Israel is a modern, advanced country with a flourishing democracy and a long tradition of judicial independence and military accountability, therefore it must be held to some sort of otherworldly standard of conduct. The Arabs, Hamas, the Islamist jihadists, the rocket-firing, mortar-toting, bomb-heaving, trigger-pulling men were, he must have concluded, were so primitive that they could be given a pass on such niceties as protecting civilians under their sway or refraining from indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

Mr Justice Goldstone concluded on the basis of his encounter with the effects of war that Israel should have mounted some sort of bloodless operation in which buildings were not destroyed and people were neither killed nor wounded. Hamas could kill and wound and destroy without criticism beyond the pro forma since they were lacking the refinements of civility that must, perforce, confine the Israeli forces to using flower power not firepower.

War must and does have laws, customs, and regulations which limit its conduct. These have evolved over centuries and are often more honored in the breech than in the observance. Yet, these laws and customs of warfare have often prevented military operations from falling over the edge into purposeless butchery.

It is often difficult, even impossible, to determine when and if the shaky fence of law and customs has failed to restrain a particular military operation from becoming mere and quite unjustifiable slaughter. The guiding star for most military jurisprudence has been the commander's intent as distinguished from the results of a particular action or operation.

On the basis of commander's intent it is quite hard to find more than a handful of actions in the context of Operation Cast Lead which are questionable. The most notorious of these is the use of white phosphorous artillery rounds in a populated area. But, one or a even a few miscalculations, misappreciations, or inappropriate use of munitions does not constitute grounds for an accusation of war crimes let alone crimes against humanity.

War is brutal. Anyone and everyone who has been in a combat zone knows that well. War is also not tidy, neat, and clear in its conduct. Once again everyone who has been in a combat zone knows that quite well.

The nature and character of war, the realities of combat, its tempo, its overload of stimuli, its emotional content, are antithetical to the atmosphere, the nature and character of the courtroom, the judge's chambers, the lawyers pleadings. While matters of great moment, of life and death, may be the subject of both arenas, only in the noise and fury of battle do these occur in pressures of time, emotion, incomplete and contradictory information, and the ever present reality that lives are at risk every fraction of every second of every minute of every endless hour.

Mr Justice Goldstone and his coworkers on the panel would have far more credibility if they had spent time under fire, making decisions on which the lives of people actually depended. If they had spent some days or even hours trying to make sense of the battle around them and the enemy ahead of them, all with the hand of death resting on their individual shoulders.

The Goldstone Panel lacks integrity not simply because it was, arguably, a put up job, but because it was conducted by lawyers. It was undertaken by people who are not only unequipped by training, education, and experience to understand the complexities of life and decisions under fire, but who are by virtue of their orientation utterly opposed to war, even one of utter necessity.

Combat exists as one of the greatest of great divides in life. It is an experience which cannot be replicated in any other environment. As such, those who stand on one side of the divide cannot begin, cannot hope, to fathom the ways and needs of those who stand on the other. Therein resides the failure of Richard Goldstone.