The US government--including whoever takes over the Oval next January--needs to get a firm grip on a testes crushing reality. North Korea.
Some very unpleasant facts about the Hermit Kingdom of the North, need to be acknowledged as a base for policy.
Unpleasant fact number 1: North Korea has at least thirty kilos of Pu239.
UF #2: It has demonstrated mastery of implosion technology
UF #3: The Hermit Kingdom of the North can withstand diplomatic pressures and economic sanctions as it has demonstrated repeatedly.
UF #4: Even while its population faced malnutrition at best and starvation at worst, the North's rulers spent their scarce foreign exchange on weapons, not food. (Roughly sixty-five million dollars over the past five years. That figure should be considered conservative.)
UF#5: While the more-or-less decommissioned and aging Yongbyon is above ground, the Pu239 storage and potential weapons fabrication facilities are deep underground.
UF#6: The super-hardening of the nuclear weapons related sites is in keeping with the more than half century effort in the North to dig deeper and further, to make the country a virtual sea to sea bunker system.
UF#7: The NKPA is technologically unsophisticated by Western standards, but it is large (1.2 million troops) well fed, adequately supplied and as indicated, backed by the most extensive bunkering system in the world. Beyond that North Korea is rugged enough to make Afghanistan look as smooth and easygoing as Iowa. (And as any now-elderly veteran of the Korean War can attest, possessed of the most horrid weather in the known universe.)
UF#8: The North is willing and able to export its knowledge of nuclear weapons technology to any cash customer. It is probably willing and able to export some of its Pu239 for enough money. And, for an additional fee, quite possibly fabricate a nice Nagasaki level implosion device.
There are some other equally unpleasant facts, but these give the flavor adequately.
"Hell, Geek! Just go and nuke the little creeps!"
Ah, bucko, what an emotionally gratifying idea. The Geek will enter only one set of interlocking objections while skipping some technical drivel about the attenuating effects of deep gorges and high mountains on nuclear blasts and the percentage of stored fissionable material which might lend its small increment of energy to the detonation.
Whether conventional explosives or nuclear charges are employed, plutonium--and uranium for that matter--has the annoying habit of obeying the principles of physics.
In short, you blow up a stash of the stuff, it doesn't vaporize into nothingness. It will still be around. Finely distributed. In the atmosphere. Even in the stratosphere.
And, don't forget, the jet stream blows west to east. Remember just what major landmass exists a couple of thousand miles east of North Korea.
Explosive demolition of the North's stockpile is simply not a prudent, effective option.
So, what does that leave us?
Not much, the Geek fears. The Hermit Kingdom of Kim jong il is the toughest of tough targets whether viewed diplomatically, economically or militarily. Making the situation worse is the simple fact that the men who rule in Pyongyang know this.
They know perfectly well that there is bloody little we can do to them even with the agreement and support of Russia, the Peoples Republic of China, Japan and South Korea. Unless both Russia and the PRC are willing to commit ground forces to the effort, war is simply not an option.
Even in the (highly) unlikely event that these two countries are willing to send in their troops, war is not an option from the perspective of South Korea and Japan. Seoul lies within range of the massed artillery and surface-to-surface missile batteries of the NKPA. A goodly chunk of the country's forty-eight million people live literally under the guns of the NKPA. So also does a large portion of the South's economic infrastructure.
This means that win, lose or draw in the war, the South will be devastated.
Japan is apprehensive about the demonstrated North Korean ability to launch medium range ballistic missiles with a nuclear capacity. It is doubtful that even with the US having furnished both a limited ABM capacity and having emplaced an X band radar in country that Tokyo's anxieties would be offset enough to gain cooperation in some sort of preventative war.
The alternative is bribing our way to success. We, along with PRC, Russia, South Korea and Japan are doing that right now. To date the approach has not worked. At all.
"Why?" You ask.
The answer, at least in part, can be seen in the record of the seemingly interminable peace talks which ended the shooting phase of the Korean War fifty-five years ago last summer. In short, no matter what was offered, the North found it to be not quite enough. For every obstacle bridged, another was erected. Negotiating with North Korea is like conversing with a glacier--slow, cold and ultimately futile.
So where does that leave us?
Keep talking and keep upping the ante. Hope we reach their price before the hardliners of the NKPA decide to seek some more cash on the black market.
Will it work?
The Geek has his doubts. Severe doubts. About the only thing he is sure of is that the problem of North Korean nukes is both far greater and far, far more threatening than nukes in the mitts of the Iranian mullahocracy.
The mullahs have something to lose and they know it.
The Northern Hermits don't see that they are at any risk. No matter what they do.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Shootin' 'Em Up South of the Border
The Geek lives (in)conveniently close to the Mexican border. In the old days the Geek liked to go south, down to Palomas and Juarez.
(That is he liked to before the Heimatsicherheitsamt acting in accord with a typical piece of Congressional fear driven legislation built the Great American Security Fence backed by the arrogant paranoids of the border crossings made the experience unpalatable in the extreme.)
Now, even if the badge and gun toters of DHS were to morph into gladhanding members of the Welcome Squad, the Geek would hesitate before seeking either bargains or cross-cultural enjoyment in Mexico.
Not since the glory days of Pancho Villa and the possibility of a grandstand seat in El Paso for the Revolution across the Big River has life in the borderland become such a risky business.
Of the roughly 3500 people killed to date in the virtual war between drug gangs and between the Mexican security forces and the druggies, approximately 1,000 of the corpses have been hecho en Juarez. Not long ago the police chief of Palomas nipped across the border to Columbus (that's Columbus, New Mexico in case you were thinking of the one in Ohio) seeking sanctuary from the narco-shooters.
Los Zetas, the highly trained, very well equipped para-military force has undertaken very successful and quite lethal operations deep in the border states of Arizona and Texas. A hit list containing targets in the Land of Enchantment (as New Mexico quaintly but not inaccurately calls itself) has been found in the pocket of a Zeta-ista.
(The Geek's name was not among the chosen probably because he never called anyone when the dope smuggling aircraft disturbed his sleep by flying too low over the wrong canyon.)
There is nothing humorous in the current bloodshed in Mexico. Since Mexican president Caldereon declared war on the narco-traffickers, the violence has increased geometrically. Fifty died in one week in Tijuana. The Zetas heaved hand grenades at an independence day ceremony. The noise level of the drug wars both between gangs and between government and criminals in no way obscured the growing levels of "normal" crime such as kidnappings for ransom and standard issue murders.
While the Mexican population initially supported the Caldereon crackdown overwhelmingly, recent polls show that only forty percent now do and an alarmingly low figure of twenty-five percent feel themselves to be safer now than when the anti-drug gang campaign started. More than a few Mexicans in the middle and upper classes feel that the wheels are coming off.
(An interesting sign of the times is the hottest new fashion boutique in Mexico City features bullet resistant clothing with prices running to $7,500.)
On this side of the Great Fence some are beginning to fear full-fledged civil war breaking out with an attendant flood of refugees and overflow of violence. The Geek is not among this alarmist group.
The Mexicans have shown a great capacity to persevere during times of extreme instability and violence. Their society survived the decades of internal war which ensued upon the ending of the Diaz dictatorship a century back. While the wars didn't come to a final end until the early Twenties, they did end. Since then the country and its people have outlasted regional separatist movements, most recently in Chiapas a little more than ten years ago.
Mexico has survived the collapse of the peso. It survived the mass shootings of dissident students (perhaps as many as 300) at the universities in Mexico City forty years ago this month. It has survived earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes. It even survived the graft, corruption, inefficiency, and arrogance of the Permanent Revolutionary Party during that crew's long, long decades in power.
And, lest we Norteamericanos forget, Mexico even survived losing a war with us, losing a great swath of territory and the profound feelings of humiliation which accompanied that defeat over a century and a half ago.
The heavy weight of history indicates that Mexico will both survive the current exsanguination and prevail over the drug thugs. It will be a long, hard fight and will require both understanding and assistance from the United States.
There is little doubt that both the violence and the friction between the US and Mexico will worsen as the effects of the current global credit collapse make themselves felt in the land to our south. The issue of illegal immigration (from our perspective) or "migration" from the Mexican point of view will once again charge forward in the American consciousness. The role of Americans as the largest consumers of the drugs produced or moved through Mexico will become a larger and more contentious issue between the two countries. Beyond that the question of de-nationalising the off shore oil resources of Mexico so as to allow necessary foreign investment will provide another point of diplomatic and political disagreement between Washington and Mexico City.
Get a grip on the bottom line reality: Mexico is a critical country in our national interest on multiple levels. We ignore it at peril. In a real sense we need them more than they need us.
(That is he liked to before the Heimatsicherheitsamt acting in accord with a typical piece of Congressional fear driven legislation built the Great American Security Fence backed by the arrogant paranoids of the border crossings made the experience unpalatable in the extreme.)
Now, even if the badge and gun toters of DHS were to morph into gladhanding members of the Welcome Squad, the Geek would hesitate before seeking either bargains or cross-cultural enjoyment in Mexico.
Not since the glory days of Pancho Villa and the possibility of a grandstand seat in El Paso for the Revolution across the Big River has life in the borderland become such a risky business.
Of the roughly 3500 people killed to date in the virtual war between drug gangs and between the Mexican security forces and the druggies, approximately 1,000 of the corpses have been hecho en Juarez. Not long ago the police chief of Palomas nipped across the border to Columbus (that's Columbus, New Mexico in case you were thinking of the one in Ohio) seeking sanctuary from the narco-shooters.
Los Zetas, the highly trained, very well equipped para-military force has undertaken very successful and quite lethal operations deep in the border states of Arizona and Texas. A hit list containing targets in the Land of Enchantment (as New Mexico quaintly but not inaccurately calls itself) has been found in the pocket of a Zeta-ista.
(The Geek's name was not among the chosen probably because he never called anyone when the dope smuggling aircraft disturbed his sleep by flying too low over the wrong canyon.)
There is nothing humorous in the current bloodshed in Mexico. Since Mexican president Caldereon declared war on the narco-traffickers, the violence has increased geometrically. Fifty died in one week in Tijuana. The Zetas heaved hand grenades at an independence day ceremony. The noise level of the drug wars both between gangs and between government and criminals in no way obscured the growing levels of "normal" crime such as kidnappings for ransom and standard issue murders.
While the Mexican population initially supported the Caldereon crackdown overwhelmingly, recent polls show that only forty percent now do and an alarmingly low figure of twenty-five percent feel themselves to be safer now than when the anti-drug gang campaign started. More than a few Mexicans in the middle and upper classes feel that the wheels are coming off.
(An interesting sign of the times is the hottest new fashion boutique in Mexico City features bullet resistant clothing with prices running to $7,500.)
On this side of the Great Fence some are beginning to fear full-fledged civil war breaking out with an attendant flood of refugees and overflow of violence. The Geek is not among this alarmist group.
The Mexicans have shown a great capacity to persevere during times of extreme instability and violence. Their society survived the decades of internal war which ensued upon the ending of the Diaz dictatorship a century back. While the wars didn't come to a final end until the early Twenties, they did end. Since then the country and its people have outlasted regional separatist movements, most recently in Chiapas a little more than ten years ago.
Mexico has survived the collapse of the peso. It survived the mass shootings of dissident students (perhaps as many as 300) at the universities in Mexico City forty years ago this month. It has survived earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes. It even survived the graft, corruption, inefficiency, and arrogance of the Permanent Revolutionary Party during that crew's long, long decades in power.
And, lest we Norteamericanos forget, Mexico even survived losing a war with us, losing a great swath of territory and the profound feelings of humiliation which accompanied that defeat over a century and a half ago.
The heavy weight of history indicates that Mexico will both survive the current exsanguination and prevail over the drug thugs. It will be a long, hard fight and will require both understanding and assistance from the United States.
There is little doubt that both the violence and the friction between the US and Mexico will worsen as the effects of the current global credit collapse make themselves felt in the land to our south. The issue of illegal immigration (from our perspective) or "migration" from the Mexican point of view will once again charge forward in the American consciousness. The role of Americans as the largest consumers of the drugs produced or moved through Mexico will become a larger and more contentious issue between the two countries. Beyond that the question of de-nationalising the off shore oil resources of Mexico so as to allow necessary foreign investment will provide another point of diplomatic and political disagreement between Washington and Mexico City.
Get a grip on the bottom line reality: Mexico is a critical country in our national interest on multiple levels. We ignore it at peril. In a real sense we need them more than they need us.
Is NATO's Future In The Past?
NATO's long delayed mid-life crisis can't be ignored any longer. The sixty year old residuum of the long dead Cold War is facing a genuine existential dilemma. It's not pushing the envelope unduly to say that NATO has to seriously question its continued existence.
The Geek can hear you muttering, "What about Afghanistan?"
To which question he has to reply, "So what about Afghanistan?"
The half-hearted commitment of NATO forces to that gawdforsaken place was the result of one, hopefully never-to-be-repeated circumstance: 9/11. The horror and shock of that day stimulated NATO to invoke The-Attack-On-One-Is-An-Attack-On-All clause for the first and only time in its history.
The true worth of the invocation has been amply demonstrated by the reluctance of most of NATO's members to do anything beyond the lightest of light lifting. The unwillingness of the majority of NATO to translate the verbal to the actual has increased as the war in Afghanistan has rolled along year after endless year with the vision of defeat looming ever larger.
With the notable exceptions of Canada, the UK and France, NATO forces have been restricted to no-risk, non-combat settings where death from violence has been more rare than cool days in hell. Now even the Canadian and British governments, responding to popular disapproval of what is seen as an American adventure, are grumbling over the seemingly open ended commitment.
The quick, easy and not inaccurate explanation for NATO's status as a major non-participant in the Afghan War as well as the disenchantment with the effort ever more evident in Canada and the UK is that the Americans have blown the mission. A strong case can and has been mounted by the Geek and many others to the effect that the current US administration has been wrong as a soup sandwich in how it defined the mission as well as how it went about accomplishing it.
A far more important question lies below the surface of NATO's on-going failure in Afghanistan. That question is simple. Does NATO have a reason to go on living?
The outgoing NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, spoke optimistically regarding the future of the organisation during his appearance at the London meeting of the group's Foreign Ministers. His optimism was not widely nor obviously shared around the room.
What was evident at the meeting was a genuine fondness for the past. Thanks to the utter stupidity of the Georgian pretty-much-one-man-government and the eagerness of the Putin regime in the Kremlin to do a bit of neighborhood impressing muscle flexing, the specter of the Great Glowering Bear on the other side of the Trace has reemerged.
The Geek has a sneaking fondness for the past, particularly the Cold War part of it. The Trace (or Iron Curtain for those who prefer the more melodramatic) not only divided the Good Guys of the Free World from the Baddies of Commie Land, it was the reassuring, physical sign of stability. Get a grip on this: The Cold War period might have had its breathless moments of high risk as in the Cuban Missile Crisis but generally it represented a half century of very high stability and predictability.
Overall, the face off between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was a contest in stasis. A fight without real risk. A time when certainty persisted year after year.
Sure, there were proxy conflicts in the periphery. Yes, there were the dirty, pointless wars of peace in Asia, Africa, Latin America. But, in the heartlands of both NATO and the WarPac, all was stable, safe and predictable.
Thus there nothing surprising or mysterious in more than a few NATO member countries seeing the reappearance of an aggressive Russia as a development more to be welcomed than feared. NATO can revert to its roots. Once more have the mission of deterring any Kremlin ambitions of regional hegemony.
Seeking the future in the past is one option for the aging alliance. It is not the only one. Several alternatives have been mooted recently both within NATO offices
The organisation could redefine itself as the protector, exemplar and exponent of the European and American values and norms which under girded NATO at its creation. In this model, states such as Georgia would not be considered for quick or certain membership in the alliance but would be both protected and mentored as they further developed the requisite norms and values.
Another option includes the first but adds to it responsibilities for stability maintenance operations on the fringe of Europe. This concept takes as its paradigm NATO actions in the dissolving Yugoslavia, which apparently are seen as having been highly successful.
A more expansive version of the stability oriented model adds limited out-of-theater responsibilities such as anti-piracy patrols. This version also contemplates a continued capacity for anti- and counter-terrorist actions in venues far removed from the NATO heartland.
For the truly ambitious there is yet another potential. NATO could serve as the political and military bridge between the European Union and North America. As such it would be the core group of what Senator John McCain called for as an alternative to the UN.
Following the path first marked by former French intelligence chief, Admiral Lacoste, this understanding of NATO would serve as the beginnings of an international league of genuinely democratic, pluralistic and liberal nations. (That they would also be the repository of much of the world's wealth can go unmentioned.)
It can be argued that the formation of this sort of NATO centered league of democracies would threaten both Russia and the Peoples Republic of China. It would. Be seen as a threat that is.
It's an easy perception to counter. Invite both nations to join. As soon as they can pass the test of being authentic democracies complete with a rule of law, independent judiciaries, multiple parties and elections somewhat more fair and transparent than those conducted in Chicago.
Of course both countries would refuse the invitation just as the Soviet Union rejected participation in the Marshall Plan. However, the door would be open and remain so. The choice to enter would always reside with those on the outside.
Perhaps this most expansive option is too idealistic for the present moment. Still, it has its appeals. A good offense is always preferable to a good defense. NATO has the potential for a real future. As long as its members recall that the future is never found in the past.
The Geek can hear you muttering, "What about Afghanistan?"
To which question he has to reply, "So what about Afghanistan?"
The half-hearted commitment of NATO forces to that gawdforsaken place was the result of one, hopefully never-to-be-repeated circumstance: 9/11. The horror and shock of that day stimulated NATO to invoke The-Attack-On-One-Is-An-Attack-On-All clause for the first and only time in its history.
The true worth of the invocation has been amply demonstrated by the reluctance of most of NATO's members to do anything beyond the lightest of light lifting. The unwillingness of the majority of NATO to translate the verbal to the actual has increased as the war in Afghanistan has rolled along year after endless year with the vision of defeat looming ever larger.
With the notable exceptions of Canada, the UK and France, NATO forces have been restricted to no-risk, non-combat settings where death from violence has been more rare than cool days in hell. Now even the Canadian and British governments, responding to popular disapproval of what is seen as an American adventure, are grumbling over the seemingly open ended commitment.
The quick, easy and not inaccurate explanation for NATO's status as a major non-participant in the Afghan War as well as the disenchantment with the effort ever more evident in Canada and the UK is that the Americans have blown the mission. A strong case can and has been mounted by the Geek and many others to the effect that the current US administration has been wrong as a soup sandwich in how it defined the mission as well as how it went about accomplishing it.
A far more important question lies below the surface of NATO's on-going failure in Afghanistan. That question is simple. Does NATO have a reason to go on living?
The outgoing NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, spoke optimistically regarding the future of the organisation during his appearance at the London meeting of the group's Foreign Ministers. His optimism was not widely nor obviously shared around the room.
What was evident at the meeting was a genuine fondness for the past. Thanks to the utter stupidity of the Georgian pretty-much-one-man-government and the eagerness of the Putin regime in the Kremlin to do a bit of neighborhood impressing muscle flexing, the specter of the Great Glowering Bear on the other side of the Trace has reemerged.
The Geek has a sneaking fondness for the past, particularly the Cold War part of it. The Trace (or Iron Curtain for those who prefer the more melodramatic) not only divided the Good Guys of the Free World from the Baddies of Commie Land, it was the reassuring, physical sign of stability. Get a grip on this: The Cold War period might have had its breathless moments of high risk as in the Cuban Missile Crisis but generally it represented a half century of very high stability and predictability.
Overall, the face off between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was a contest in stasis. A fight without real risk. A time when certainty persisted year after year.
Sure, there were proxy conflicts in the periphery. Yes, there were the dirty, pointless wars of peace in Asia, Africa, Latin America. But, in the heartlands of both NATO and the WarPac, all was stable, safe and predictable.
Thus there nothing surprising or mysterious in more than a few NATO member countries seeing the reappearance of an aggressive Russia as a development more to be welcomed than feared. NATO can revert to its roots. Once more have the mission of deterring any Kremlin ambitions of regional hegemony.
Seeking the future in the past is one option for the aging alliance. It is not the only one. Several alternatives have been mooted recently both within NATO offices
The organisation could redefine itself as the protector, exemplar and exponent of the European and American values and norms which under girded NATO at its creation. In this model, states such as Georgia would not be considered for quick or certain membership in the alliance but would be both protected and mentored as they further developed the requisite norms and values.
Another option includes the first but adds to it responsibilities for stability maintenance operations on the fringe of Europe. This concept takes as its paradigm NATO actions in the dissolving Yugoslavia, which apparently are seen as having been highly successful.
A more expansive version of the stability oriented model adds limited out-of-theater responsibilities such as anti-piracy patrols. This version also contemplates a continued capacity for anti- and counter-terrorist actions in venues far removed from the NATO heartland.
For the truly ambitious there is yet another potential. NATO could serve as the political and military bridge between the European Union and North America. As such it would be the core group of what Senator John McCain called for as an alternative to the UN.
Following the path first marked by former French intelligence chief, Admiral Lacoste, this understanding of NATO would serve as the beginnings of an international league of genuinely democratic, pluralistic and liberal nations. (That they would also be the repository of much of the world's wealth can go unmentioned.)
It can be argued that the formation of this sort of NATO centered league of democracies would threaten both Russia and the Peoples Republic of China. It would. Be seen as a threat that is.
It's an easy perception to counter. Invite both nations to join. As soon as they can pass the test of being authentic democracies complete with a rule of law, independent judiciaries, multiple parties and elections somewhat more fair and transparent than those conducted in Chicago.
Of course both countries would refuse the invitation just as the Soviet Union rejected participation in the Marshall Plan. However, the door would be open and remain so. The choice to enter would always reside with those on the outside.
Perhaps this most expansive option is too idealistic for the present moment. Still, it has its appeals. A good offense is always preferable to a good defense. NATO has the potential for a real future. As long as its members recall that the future is never found in the past.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
A Brit Tells It Like It Is
Brig Mark Carleton-Smith, the British force commander in Afghanistan shows a firm grip on reality. He spoke a hard, blunt truth when he took the position that there is no way a military victory can be achieved in Afghanistan.
He accompanied that voyage to Realityland with the equally accurate observation that a political solution must be achieved as it has been in all successful counterinsurgent efforts.
This position has not made the Brigadier popular either with his own government or the Current Administration in Washington.
Popularity doesn't matter. The truth does. The weight of history is on the Brigadier's side. The best that can be hoped for from military counterinsurgent operations is, in the Geek's term, "not-losing."
There are very few counterinsurgent campaigns that have resulted in a clear military victory. The American War Between the States stands almost alone in this category although a strong argument can be made for the proposition that finally the Southern political will collapsed not under the weight of Grant's offensive(s) in northern Virginia but with the slash of Sherman's March to the Sea and its sequel, the March Up Country.
The US and its allies had no chance in hell of achieving a purely military victory in Afghanistan from the very start. Had the invading force focused on the task of destroying through death or capture the two target groups, al-Qaeda and the Taliban government of the country, a purely military success would have been possible. At least in principle.
The shift in focus from punitive to nation building assured that the likelihood of military victory slipped down the pole from slim to none. In a nation building, counterinsurgency effort, particularly when the announced political goal is the construction of a liberal, pluralistic, secular democracy in human terrain where all these are either unknown or unacceptable, there is no chance the military effort can achieve more than "not-losing."
Even not-losing has become problematical in recent months and years. The black turbans have grown in numbers and confidence even though their primary tactics still include suicide bombings directed against soft civilian targets. The sanctuary of the FATA coupled with years of Pakistani ineptitude exacerbated by pro-Islamist sentiments within the Pakistani population and critical governmental components such as Inter-Services Intelligence have given the Taliban and its ilk a mega-dose of growth hormone.
While Taliban capo Omar has rejected categorically Karzai's invitation to talks and has engaged in the standard issue bluster regarding the decline of the US, this is inherently meaningless. Taliban is not a monolith. Afghans are increasingly sick and tired of the war. This includes members of Taliban's leadership echelon.
No matter how much one might be comfortable with martyrdom, no matter how much meaning one might seek by one's death, the notion of a Predator having its cross hairs on your back gets tedious. Constant anxiety is a great eroder of morale.
Military pressure--the great and terrible hammer--must continue to be applied to the black turbans on both sides of the porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Predators and Pakistani military operations, cross-border raids by US and NATO specialist forces and never ending combat patrols and ambushes must continue.
While applying the hammer(s) relentlessly and, when necessary, ruthlessly, the US and its allies must never forget the other absolutely essential tool of counterinsurgency--the wrench. Wrenches are great, they are used to turn things, like people's minds. The wrench kit includes, must include, power sharing. It must included negotiations. It must include the recognition and accommodation of people's needs. Even those which sit poorly with Americans such as Sharia.
This is what Brigadier Carleton-Smith was getting at. He has done what any knowledgeable and honest commander must do. He has recognised and admitted publicly that the most the military can do is prevent the other side from winning.
The military can assure that we do not lose.
The wrenches of politics, negotiation, compromise and other distasteful accommodations to the reality of the Afghan human terrain alone can assure victory. Even then it will be an Afghan victory. Not a NATO victory. And, most assuredly, not an American victory.
We the People as well as the current administration (and its successor) better take a firm grip on that. In Afghanistan as in Iraq any victory will be achieved only by the people who live there. The people who will have to keep on living there.
He accompanied that voyage to Realityland with the equally accurate observation that a political solution must be achieved as it has been in all successful counterinsurgent efforts.
This position has not made the Brigadier popular either with his own government or the Current Administration in Washington.
Popularity doesn't matter. The truth does. The weight of history is on the Brigadier's side. The best that can be hoped for from military counterinsurgent operations is, in the Geek's term, "not-losing."
There are very few counterinsurgent campaigns that have resulted in a clear military victory. The American War Between the States stands almost alone in this category although a strong argument can be made for the proposition that finally the Southern political will collapsed not under the weight of Grant's offensive(s) in northern Virginia but with the slash of Sherman's March to the Sea and its sequel, the March Up Country.
The US and its allies had no chance in hell of achieving a purely military victory in Afghanistan from the very start. Had the invading force focused on the task of destroying through death or capture the two target groups, al-Qaeda and the Taliban government of the country, a purely military success would have been possible. At least in principle.
The shift in focus from punitive to nation building assured that the likelihood of military victory slipped down the pole from slim to none. In a nation building, counterinsurgency effort, particularly when the announced political goal is the construction of a liberal, pluralistic, secular democracy in human terrain where all these are either unknown or unacceptable, there is no chance the military effort can achieve more than "not-losing."
Even not-losing has become problematical in recent months and years. The black turbans have grown in numbers and confidence even though their primary tactics still include suicide bombings directed against soft civilian targets. The sanctuary of the FATA coupled with years of Pakistani ineptitude exacerbated by pro-Islamist sentiments within the Pakistani population and critical governmental components such as Inter-Services Intelligence have given the Taliban and its ilk a mega-dose of growth hormone.
While Taliban capo Omar has rejected categorically Karzai's invitation to talks and has engaged in the standard issue bluster regarding the decline of the US, this is inherently meaningless. Taliban is not a monolith. Afghans are increasingly sick and tired of the war. This includes members of Taliban's leadership echelon.
No matter how much one might be comfortable with martyrdom, no matter how much meaning one might seek by one's death, the notion of a Predator having its cross hairs on your back gets tedious. Constant anxiety is a great eroder of morale.
Military pressure--the great and terrible hammer--must continue to be applied to the black turbans on both sides of the porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Predators and Pakistani military operations, cross-border raids by US and NATO specialist forces and never ending combat patrols and ambushes must continue.
While applying the hammer(s) relentlessly and, when necessary, ruthlessly, the US and its allies must never forget the other absolutely essential tool of counterinsurgency--the wrench. Wrenches are great, they are used to turn things, like people's minds. The wrench kit includes, must include, power sharing. It must included negotiations. It must include the recognition and accommodation of people's needs. Even those which sit poorly with Americans such as Sharia.
This is what Brigadier Carleton-Smith was getting at. He has done what any knowledgeable and honest commander must do. He has recognised and admitted publicly that the most the military can do is prevent the other side from winning.
The military can assure that we do not lose.
The wrenches of politics, negotiation, compromise and other distasteful accommodations to the reality of the Afghan human terrain alone can assure victory. Even then it will be an Afghan victory. Not a NATO victory. And, most assuredly, not an American victory.
We the People as well as the current administration (and its successor) better take a firm grip on that. In Afghanistan as in Iraq any victory will be achieved only by the people who live there. The people who will have to keep on living there.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Neck Deep In The Really, Really Big Muddy
For those of you who are not old enough to connect with the title of this post the reference is to a song done by Pete Seeger on the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour which metaphorically dealt with the war in Vietnam. The US was busily and obviously losing the war at the time.
The title of Seeger's song was "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy."
Now we are neck deep in the really, really big muddy.
Compared to Iraq or even South Vietnam the war we are fighting and quite evidently not winning in Afghanistan is one tough mother. Arguably it is the toughest war we have ever fought.
Several factors are conspiring to make the war even more difficult for us to win--or, as the minimal policy outcome, not lose. Some of these are self-evident.
There is the continuing slow-motion stability campaign in Iraq which is not being made any easier in its endgame phase by the attitudes and orientation of the current Iraqi Government.
The Shiite dominated government may well blow its chance to integrate the Sunni based Sons of Iraq and Awakening Councils into the political and governmental life of the nation. Baghdad may not be able to reconcile its differences with the Kurds over Kirkuk and the surrounding oil rich region. Neither of these purely domestic and long standing contretemps may be solved satisfactorily. Both carry the potential to result in the energetic disassembly of Iraq.
Iran looms over both Iraq and Afghanistan. A malign shadow. The shadow of Iran is far, far darker over its neighbors than it is over Israel. A mere atom bomb or two will not change that reality.
However, the way in which the US deals with Iran can either lighten the shadow or deepen it to the most evil shade of black. At the moment nothing the US is doing or apparently intends to do is moving matters to the grey side of black.
The final, self-evident complication for our efforts in Afghanistan is Pakistan. The Pakistanis have been energetic of late. Piling up bodies (or at least claiming to do so.)
Whether or not the beefy military operations in FATA have been killing or otherwise discommoding Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, one thing is sure. These operations have been generating refugees at an impressive rate of knots. By some estimates somewhere around a quarter of a million people have either ended up in the same type of standard issue squalid refugee camps which have been for so long a centerpiece of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As has been demonstrated not only in the Palestinian conflict but over a century ago in the American equivalent of these camps, the "Indian" Reservations, dumps of helpless, hopeless human wreckage make excellent breeding grounds of revanchism, revenge and people eager to kill.
It is not unfair to predict that the Pakistani government and military (to say nothing of others in the world, such as the Americans) may be buying many years of a very bad future unless the FATA operations as well as those in the borderland of Afghanistan can be brought to a quick and successful conclusion so that the refugees can be resettled in their own homes and land.
The Geek does not conclude that this desirable eventuality is likely.
Thus, both short-and long-term, the chronically instable conditions of life on the Pakistan-Afghanistan boarder is a profound complication for the American effort at counterinsurgency, stability enhancement and nation-building in Afghanistan.
Other impediments to the US achieving its minimum necessary policy goal of not-losing in Afghanistan are not so self-evident. One is the demonstrated capacity of al-Qaeda and other trans-national groups to engage in horizontal escalation.
Across Northwest Africa the Islamist insurgents have been whoopin' it up. While life in Morocco or Algeria or Tunisia has not become either as noisy or endangered as in Somalia and Sudan, the slope is both slippery and steep.
When looking at the Horn of Africa, one cannot ignore the sealanes. While the Jolly Pirates of Puntland may be seen as simply simple fisherfolk thrown out of their accustomed work by violence (and, some may actually fall in this category), the direct material linkage between the rewards of piracy and the money needs of Islamist groups cannot be ignored or belittled.
The seizure of the tank and weapons laden Ukrainian ro-ro has brought the situation in the Red Sea and adjacent waters into the global consciousness. The UN is finally and, as usual, belatedly considering a resolution against piracy. Several EU states with France in the lead have entered into discussions aimed at forming an anti-piracy patrol. Yemen has called upon the Red Sea littoral states to join with it in anti-piracy operations.
Of course, the US has six ships "surrounding" the hostage ship and its crew, "monitoring" instead of dealing effectively with the "situation."
And, the Russians are coming.
Perhaps the Russians, as has been their way in domestic hostage dramas, will shoot first and talk later regardless of the presumably negative effects upon the crew members. The Geek must confess a regard for the Russian predilection for muscular and decisive handling of terrorist (or pirate) activities.
The cost in the short-term may be high.
But, when dealing with pirates or their land based peers, the goal must be the long term reduction of rewards coupled with the long term increase of perceived risks. The short title for this is "deterrence."
Deterrence can work against asymmetrical threats provided the obvious costs are unacceptably high and the benefits microscopic at best.
The reality of deterrence in facing asymmetrical threats is some people must die. Some of those who die will be non-combatants such as the captive crew members.
This is another complication for American realization of the minimum acceptable goal in Afghanistan. US decision makers are often easily scared by a single question as they contemplate potential actions which may have the collateral result of civilian casualties.
The question?
"How will this look in the Washington Post?"
The US (and the EU) are at least knee deep in High Minded People. The League of the High Minded, laudable as their sentiments might be, quiver and quaver at the thought of a single unarmed dead body. They shake and shudder at contemplating the idea that a single civilian dwelling might be turned into rubble by American shot and shell.
The High Minded are unable to accept that a limited number of corpses today may very well prevent the potential of a large number of human beings being turned into a sanitation problem in the future. The High Minded are constitutionally unequipped to understand that it is far better to kill a few now to save many in the days and years to come.
While it is impossible to kill one's way to victory in counterinsurgency or any stability oriented military operation, it is nevertheless necessary to kill those black hats who need killing. And, it is an unfortunate truism that no matter how careful a force might be with the arms at its disposal, some blameless folks will be killed.
The Geek has been arguing for decades that constraining the lethality of operations is necessary. Not for moral reasons. Not for the reasons of proportionality adduced by contemporary Just War theoreticians.
No.
The Geek is an advocate for constrained lethality warfare for one simple reason. Pragmatism. At some point in every war for one or both sides, the dead dictate policy. The dead drive the war onward to ever greater death and destruction.
The thought, "We cannot allow those who have died to have died in vain," clouds the minds of many, or all, on one side or both.
In Afghanistan, the dead may very well be driving the efforts of Taliban and its ilk.
That, my friends, is the complication from hell.
The title of Seeger's song was "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy."
Now we are neck deep in the really, really big muddy.
Compared to Iraq or even South Vietnam the war we are fighting and quite evidently not winning in Afghanistan is one tough mother. Arguably it is the toughest war we have ever fought.
Several factors are conspiring to make the war even more difficult for us to win--or, as the minimal policy outcome, not lose. Some of these are self-evident.
There is the continuing slow-motion stability campaign in Iraq which is not being made any easier in its endgame phase by the attitudes and orientation of the current Iraqi Government.
The Shiite dominated government may well blow its chance to integrate the Sunni based Sons of Iraq and Awakening Councils into the political and governmental life of the nation. Baghdad may not be able to reconcile its differences with the Kurds over Kirkuk and the surrounding oil rich region. Neither of these purely domestic and long standing contretemps may be solved satisfactorily. Both carry the potential to result in the energetic disassembly of Iraq.
Iran looms over both Iraq and Afghanistan. A malign shadow. The shadow of Iran is far, far darker over its neighbors than it is over Israel. A mere atom bomb or two will not change that reality.
However, the way in which the US deals with Iran can either lighten the shadow or deepen it to the most evil shade of black. At the moment nothing the US is doing or apparently intends to do is moving matters to the grey side of black.
The final, self-evident complication for our efforts in Afghanistan is Pakistan. The Pakistanis have been energetic of late. Piling up bodies (or at least claiming to do so.)
Whether or not the beefy military operations in FATA have been killing or otherwise discommoding Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, one thing is sure. These operations have been generating refugees at an impressive rate of knots. By some estimates somewhere around a quarter of a million people have either ended up in the same type of standard issue squalid refugee camps which have been for so long a centerpiece of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As has been demonstrated not only in the Palestinian conflict but over a century ago in the American equivalent of these camps, the "Indian" Reservations, dumps of helpless, hopeless human wreckage make excellent breeding grounds of revanchism, revenge and people eager to kill.
It is not unfair to predict that the Pakistani government and military (to say nothing of others in the world, such as the Americans) may be buying many years of a very bad future unless the FATA operations as well as those in the borderland of Afghanistan can be brought to a quick and successful conclusion so that the refugees can be resettled in their own homes and land.
The Geek does not conclude that this desirable eventuality is likely.
Thus, both short-and long-term, the chronically instable conditions of life on the Pakistan-Afghanistan boarder is a profound complication for the American effort at counterinsurgency, stability enhancement and nation-building in Afghanistan.
Other impediments to the US achieving its minimum necessary policy goal of not-losing in Afghanistan are not so self-evident. One is the demonstrated capacity of al-Qaeda and other trans-national groups to engage in horizontal escalation.
Across Northwest Africa the Islamist insurgents have been whoopin' it up. While life in Morocco or Algeria or Tunisia has not become either as noisy or endangered as in Somalia and Sudan, the slope is both slippery and steep.
When looking at the Horn of Africa, one cannot ignore the sealanes. While the Jolly Pirates of Puntland may be seen as simply simple fisherfolk thrown out of their accustomed work by violence (and, some may actually fall in this category), the direct material linkage between the rewards of piracy and the money needs of Islamist groups cannot be ignored or belittled.
The seizure of the tank and weapons laden Ukrainian ro-ro has brought the situation in the Red Sea and adjacent waters into the global consciousness. The UN is finally and, as usual, belatedly considering a resolution against piracy. Several EU states with France in the lead have entered into discussions aimed at forming an anti-piracy patrol. Yemen has called upon the Red Sea littoral states to join with it in anti-piracy operations.
Of course, the US has six ships "surrounding" the hostage ship and its crew, "monitoring" instead of dealing effectively with the "situation."
And, the Russians are coming.
Perhaps the Russians, as has been their way in domestic hostage dramas, will shoot first and talk later regardless of the presumably negative effects upon the crew members. The Geek must confess a regard for the Russian predilection for muscular and decisive handling of terrorist (or pirate) activities.
The cost in the short-term may be high.
But, when dealing with pirates or their land based peers, the goal must be the long term reduction of rewards coupled with the long term increase of perceived risks. The short title for this is "deterrence."
Deterrence can work against asymmetrical threats provided the obvious costs are unacceptably high and the benefits microscopic at best.
The reality of deterrence in facing asymmetrical threats is some people must die. Some of those who die will be non-combatants such as the captive crew members.
This is another complication for American realization of the minimum acceptable goal in Afghanistan. US decision makers are often easily scared by a single question as they contemplate potential actions which may have the collateral result of civilian casualties.
The question?
"How will this look in the Washington Post?"
The US (and the EU) are at least knee deep in High Minded People. The League of the High Minded, laudable as their sentiments might be, quiver and quaver at the thought of a single unarmed dead body. They shake and shudder at contemplating the idea that a single civilian dwelling might be turned into rubble by American shot and shell.
The High Minded are unable to accept that a limited number of corpses today may very well prevent the potential of a large number of human beings being turned into a sanitation problem in the future. The High Minded are constitutionally unequipped to understand that it is far better to kill a few now to save many in the days and years to come.
While it is impossible to kill one's way to victory in counterinsurgency or any stability oriented military operation, it is nevertheless necessary to kill those black hats who need killing. And, it is an unfortunate truism that no matter how careful a force might be with the arms at its disposal, some blameless folks will be killed.
The Geek has been arguing for decades that constraining the lethality of operations is necessary. Not for moral reasons. Not for the reasons of proportionality adduced by contemporary Just War theoreticians.
No.
The Geek is an advocate for constrained lethality warfare for one simple reason. Pragmatism. At some point in every war for one or both sides, the dead dictate policy. The dead drive the war onward to ever greater death and destruction.
The thought, "We cannot allow those who have died to have died in vain," clouds the minds of many, or all, on one side or both.
In Afghanistan, the dead may very well be driving the efforts of Taliban and its ilk.
That, my friends, is the complication from hell.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Those Common Folk Are Just SO Annoying
In both the US and Western Europe a class war in the making. No. It's not the old Marxist thing lurching out of the tomb.
The Geek sees it as conflict between the social/economic/political elite and the hoi polloi, those of lesser income, lesser political potency, lesser social status, lesser inherent organization. A lot of lessers balanced by one "greater." Greater numbers.
A while back the hoi polloi in Ireland outraged the European elites by voting "no" on a proposed new constitution for the European Union. The chattering members of the European elite damned the Irish majority as unenlightened, xenophobic and not knowing what was in its own best interests.
The Euro-litists have gone exoatmospheric now because twenty-nine percent of the vote in this past weekend's Austrian election went to a pair of "far-right, anti-immigration, anti-foreigner" political parties. The Freedom Party took eighteen percent and the younger Movement for Austria's Future won eleven.
The Freedom Party's thirty-nine year old leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, has been deprecatingly characterised throughout the media as a "former dental technician." Presumably this occupational background as opposed to one of "lawyer" makes a person unfit to be taken seriously as a political figure.
Strache is on record as saying, "Vienna must not become Istanbul." The Geek must point out that a few hundred years ago Vienna withstood a prolonged siege and stopped the Ottoman Empire's thrust into Central Europe. The Ottoman Empire, it must be recalled, had its capitol in Istanbul.
The Freedom Party head is also notorious among the Euro-litists for favoring a Ministry of Deportation and a constitutional ban on minarets and for a fondness for wearing cammies whilst toting a firearm in the forests of the Land of Gemutlichkeit. Finally he has been described as a "neo-Nazi, a Holocaust Denier and the new poster boy for Europe's extreme Right."
The Austrian election results in some respects echo the experience in Italy where the Northern League has been successful with the common folk while being damned as xenophobic, Islamophobic and anti-foreigner.
One time rivals Austria and Italy are not alone in the apparent drift to the right among the European states. Much to the dismay of the Euro-litists from the UK to the shores of the Baltic, the hoi polloi are rejecting in ever increasing numbers the elite-approved, politically correct themes of unlimited tolerance and acceptance for immigrants, non-European cultural and social norms and alternative lifestyles.
Looking beyond the usual reasons adduced by the elites for the contrariness of the hoi polloi what might be motivating the new, strong wind from the Right?
There are several historical trajectories in play, aligning in the rejectionist focus.
The first is simply the Nanny State orientation of the Euro-litists. There is (and has been for some while now) a we-know-best attitude arising as an individualist obliterating cloud from both the national governments and the EU establishment in Brussels. As one Irish lady put it when explaining her "no" vote, "We have too much government now. Why should we want more?"
The Nanny State aims at restricting individual choices in the presumed interest of some sort of ill-defined greater good such as reducing health care costs. Or eliminating prejudice. Or assuring that the sensibilities of whatsoever nature of any more-or-less definable sub-culture within the larger society will not under any circumstances be abraded.
Not surprisingly the hoi polloi who are the unconsulted objects of these restrictions has begun to chafe (loudly) under the erosion of individual exercise of individual selected options by the individual.
A second trajectory is the rejection by the Euro-elitists of the notion of a specific national or even regional cultural identity and history worthy of both celebration and protection against erosion. This attitude was famously expressed recently by a Swedish Minister, "Tell me what is Swedish culture?"
People, or at least the hoi polloi, want a sense of belonging, a feeling of familiarity. They want to identify with and be members of a unique culture backed and produced by a specific national history. This reality has been openly cast aside by the elite in its embrace of something called "multi-culturalism" and the siren song of "globalism."
Obviously the people of the hoi polloi reject this contention. They do not see themselves as part of the multi-billion crew members of "spaceship Earth." No. They understand their individual identities as part of a specific linguistic/cultural/ethnic/religious community inhabiting a specific geographical entity bound together by a specific set of historically rooted myths.
There are other trajectories at work but those are the major actors.
The same forces are at work here in the United States. They are pushing and pushing hard to create the same elite-hoi polloi dichotomy here as is being seen in Europe. Perhaps they are pushing even harder here than there.
Why?
The US population has wrestled with a recurrent identity crisis throughout its history. This is the inevitable consequence of being a nation of folks from other places. It is the necessary result of being citizens of an artificial nation.
"Artificial!" You interrupt.
Yes. Artificial. The US and its citizens did not arise organically out of a native soil, melded in its identity over centuries. We are as is so often said, "A nation of immigrants." Our national identity revolves around an intellectual construct: The Constitution.
Being the People of an Artifact, it is not surprising that we have had and continue to have doubts about just who we are. An identity crisis.
Part of the current identity crisis revolves around the conflict between the mythology of the individual and the seemingly reality based requirements of the community, of the nation, of the State. The conflict between the rights and risks of the individual and the costs which exercising those rights and taking those risks might impose upon the rest of society.
"Hey, Geek! Aren't you getting way off your foreign policy and national security message?"
No. Until and unless we here in the US can settle, abort if you will, the growing split between our elites and our hoi polloi, there is no way that we can effectively address the foreign policy and national security challenges that are looming in our immediate future. From the need for energy independence to the costs of global capital movement, from the threat of rogue states and terrorism to the question of "stealth jihad," We the People must decide and know if we speak as one people or two.
One American voice or two competing voices, that of the elite and that of everybody else.
The Geek sees it as conflict between the social/economic/political elite and the hoi polloi, those of lesser income, lesser political potency, lesser social status, lesser inherent organization. A lot of lessers balanced by one "greater." Greater numbers.
A while back the hoi polloi in Ireland outraged the European elites by voting "no" on a proposed new constitution for the European Union. The chattering members of the European elite damned the Irish majority as unenlightened, xenophobic and not knowing what was in its own best interests.
The Euro-litists have gone exoatmospheric now because twenty-nine percent of the vote in this past weekend's Austrian election went to a pair of "far-right, anti-immigration, anti-foreigner" political parties. The Freedom Party took eighteen percent and the younger Movement for Austria's Future won eleven.
The Freedom Party's thirty-nine year old leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, has been deprecatingly characterised throughout the media as a "former dental technician." Presumably this occupational background as opposed to one of "lawyer" makes a person unfit to be taken seriously as a political figure.
Strache is on record as saying, "Vienna must not become Istanbul." The Geek must point out that a few hundred years ago Vienna withstood a prolonged siege and stopped the Ottoman Empire's thrust into Central Europe. The Ottoman Empire, it must be recalled, had its capitol in Istanbul.
The Freedom Party head is also notorious among the Euro-litists for favoring a Ministry of Deportation and a constitutional ban on minarets and for a fondness for wearing cammies whilst toting a firearm in the forests of the Land of Gemutlichkeit. Finally he has been described as a "neo-Nazi, a Holocaust Denier and the new poster boy for Europe's extreme Right."
The Austrian election results in some respects echo the experience in Italy where the Northern League has been successful with the common folk while being damned as xenophobic, Islamophobic and anti-foreigner.
One time rivals Austria and Italy are not alone in the apparent drift to the right among the European states. Much to the dismay of the Euro-litists from the UK to the shores of the Baltic, the hoi polloi are rejecting in ever increasing numbers the elite-approved, politically correct themes of unlimited tolerance and acceptance for immigrants, non-European cultural and social norms and alternative lifestyles.
Looking beyond the usual reasons adduced by the elites for the contrariness of the hoi polloi what might be motivating the new, strong wind from the Right?
There are several historical trajectories in play, aligning in the rejectionist focus.
The first is simply the Nanny State orientation of the Euro-litists. There is (and has been for some while now) a we-know-best attitude arising as an individualist obliterating cloud from both the national governments and the EU establishment in Brussels. As one Irish lady put it when explaining her "no" vote, "We have too much government now. Why should we want more?"
The Nanny State aims at restricting individual choices in the presumed interest of some sort of ill-defined greater good such as reducing health care costs. Or eliminating prejudice. Or assuring that the sensibilities of whatsoever nature of any more-or-less definable sub-culture within the larger society will not under any circumstances be abraded.
Not surprisingly the hoi polloi who are the unconsulted objects of these restrictions has begun to chafe (loudly) under the erosion of individual exercise of individual selected options by the individual.
A second trajectory is the rejection by the Euro-elitists of the notion of a specific national or even regional cultural identity and history worthy of both celebration and protection against erosion. This attitude was famously expressed recently by a Swedish Minister, "Tell me what is Swedish culture?"
People, or at least the hoi polloi, want a sense of belonging, a feeling of familiarity. They want to identify with and be members of a unique culture backed and produced by a specific national history. This reality has been openly cast aside by the elite in its embrace of something called "multi-culturalism" and the siren song of "globalism."
Obviously the people of the hoi polloi reject this contention. They do not see themselves as part of the multi-billion crew members of "spaceship Earth." No. They understand their individual identities as part of a specific linguistic/cultural/ethnic/religious community inhabiting a specific geographical entity bound together by a specific set of historically rooted myths.
There are other trajectories at work but those are the major actors.
The same forces are at work here in the United States. They are pushing and pushing hard to create the same elite-hoi polloi dichotomy here as is being seen in Europe. Perhaps they are pushing even harder here than there.
Why?
The US population has wrestled with a recurrent identity crisis throughout its history. This is the inevitable consequence of being a nation of folks from other places. It is the necessary result of being citizens of an artificial nation.
"Artificial!" You interrupt.
Yes. Artificial. The US and its citizens did not arise organically out of a native soil, melded in its identity over centuries. We are as is so often said, "A nation of immigrants." Our national identity revolves around an intellectual construct: The Constitution.
Being the People of an Artifact, it is not surprising that we have had and continue to have doubts about just who we are. An identity crisis.
Part of the current identity crisis revolves around the conflict between the mythology of the individual and the seemingly reality based requirements of the community, of the nation, of the State. The conflict between the rights and risks of the individual and the costs which exercising those rights and taking those risks might impose upon the rest of society.
"Hey, Geek! Aren't you getting way off your foreign policy and national security message?"
No. Until and unless we here in the US can settle, abort if you will, the growing split between our elites and our hoi polloi, there is no way that we can effectively address the foreign policy and national security challenges that are looming in our immediate future. From the need for energy independence to the costs of global capital movement, from the threat of rogue states and terrorism to the question of "stealth jihad," We the People must decide and know if we speak as one people or two.
One American voice or two competing voices, that of the elite and that of everybody else.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Fantasyland By The Hudson Gets More Fantastic
Once upon a time Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann was a Roman Catholic priest. He was smitten by a very seductive idea--liberation theology. So, the priest became a Left Socialist. Well, actually he became a Castro-leaning Communist. Fr (perhaps Sr would be more appropriate) Brockmann joined the Sandinistas of Nicaragua.
Along with the Ortega brothers Sr Brockmann was a noted adversary of the US during the years of the Reagan presidency. From the perspective of Washington the priest turned Sandinista was a bete noir of the darkest sort. We wanted him dead.
The Reagan Administration did not get its wish. Sr Brockman survived the years of the Contras. He weathered the period of political isolation which followed the end of the nasty little Contra War and the election of an anti-Sandinista government
Proving once again that the Lord works in mysterious ways, the Sandinistas came to power finally in an election that met the usual criteria of seeming to be open, fair and free. Sr Brockmann became Foreign Minister. As such he pursued policies which were not closely aligned with those of the US.
Be that as it may, US administrations had changed. The Soviet Union was of interest only to historians. Communism (and history, but not historians for which the Geek is thankful) was declared dead by American academics and others of the chattering class. Sr Brockmann was neither hated nor desired dead by the denizens living inside the Beltway. Even the neocons had bigger fish to catch and fry in the Mideast.
Now the whims and winds of democratic process have made Sr Brockmann the new President of the UN General Assembly. The priest turned Foreign Minister offered his maiden speech the other day. He proved two things.
You can take the man out of the cassock, but you can't remove the priestly from the man.
Communism may be officially dead, but lambasting capitalist Western pigs (and Israel) is alive, well and a crowd pleaser. Lest you think the Geek gets it wrong, the transcript is available at the UN site. (http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/statements/160908opening63.shtml)
Sr Brockmann makes his sentiments clear and unmistakable. Compared to the new GA President, Senator Obama frankly hates the poor and wretched of the earth.
When Fr/Sr Brockmann gets on a roll he rolls ever faster. Here is one specific case. Food.
Not convinced that the new GA president mouths the same slogans of long dead Kremlin Commissars? Try this. Brockmann's view of two critical internatinal institutions.
Brockman lets go with one barrage of Marxist or quasi-Marxist rhetoric after another. Climate change. Fresh water. Making the UN more "democratic." Assure that the will of "We the Peoples" cannot be ignored by sovereign states. Ya da. Ya da. Ya da.
Then the one time guerrilla fighter cuts to the chase. Terrorism. He has a take on the subject that would have warmed the heart of the Soviets and Castro back in the good ole days.
Just in case the assembled Assembly didn't get his point, the priestly ex-guerrilla spelled it out.
Brockmann decompresses with some of the usual dabba-dabba-do about disarmament and the horrors of the nuclear arsenals now in existence. He neglects to say a word concerning the nuclear weapons being sought but as yet still unmade. Such as the Mahdi Bomb.
After genuflecting before the totems of gender equality and saving the children of the world, Miguel ends on a note that must seem reassuringly familiar to at least some Americans: "Change — real, credible change — is the watchword of the day."
No session of the UN General Assembly has been pleasant for Americans unless they are remarkably masochistic in their high mindedness for a mort of years. This one promises to be not only more of the same but a further descent into the recycled muck of the Cold War, the America-as-Evil-Empire rhetoric of the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties.
Come to think of it, those were Sr Brockmann's years of glory and ambition.
A further thought just struck the Geek. The sentiment of a realpoliker from the Italian Renaissance who wrote, "leave behind no wounded enemy."
It seems like the Reagan Administration did.
Along with the Ortega brothers Sr Brockmann was a noted adversary of the US during the years of the Reagan presidency. From the perspective of Washington the priest turned Sandinista was a bete noir of the darkest sort. We wanted him dead.
The Reagan Administration did not get its wish. Sr Brockman survived the years of the Contras. He weathered the period of political isolation which followed the end of the nasty little Contra War and the election of an anti-Sandinista government
Proving once again that the Lord works in mysterious ways, the Sandinistas came to power finally in an election that met the usual criteria of seeming to be open, fair and free. Sr Brockmann became Foreign Minister. As such he pursued policies which were not closely aligned with those of the US.
Be that as it may, US administrations had changed. The Soviet Union was of interest only to historians. Communism (and history, but not historians for which the Geek is thankful) was declared dead by American academics and others of the chattering class. Sr Brockmann was neither hated nor desired dead by the denizens living inside the Beltway. Even the neocons had bigger fish to catch and fry in the Mideast.
Now the whims and winds of democratic process have made Sr Brockmann the new President of the UN General Assembly. The priest turned Foreign Minister offered his maiden speech the other day. He proved two things.
You can take the man out of the cassock, but you can't remove the priestly from the man.
Communism may be officially dead, but lambasting capitalist Western pigs (and Israel) is alive, well and a crowd pleaser. Lest you think the Geek gets it wrong, the transcript is available at the UN site. (http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/statements/160908opening63.shtml)
Sr Brockmann makes his sentiments clear and unmistakable. Compared to the new GA President, Senator Obama frankly hates the poor and wretched of the earth.
I am aware of the great expectations which the vast majority of the dispossessed inhabitants of our threatened planet have placed in the United Nations to bring them peace, security and to defend their right to life and to full development. We must not fail them. It was most of all for the dispossessed of the world that I took up the challenge of presiding over this sixty-third session of the General Assembly. It is to them — to all our sisters and brothers on this Earth — that I dedicate my presidency. We must unite our efforts, with all the seriousness that the task requires, to meet their expectations. I trust that I can count on all of you to give me your most generous cooperation. On behalf of Nicaragua and the entire Latin American and Caribbean region, my extended homeland, I thank you for your confidence.When you hear words like this the time has come to hang on to your wallet--with both hands.
When Fr/Sr Brockmann gets on a roll he rolls ever faster. Here is one specific case. Food.
At the root of the problem of world hunger is the unequal distribution of purchasing power within and between countries. Rather than concentrate on increasing food production as the single solution, the central focus of our efforts should be on the reduction of the inequalities in our world’s food production system.Apparently Brockmann has a an old-school Marxist conspiracy theory view of global economics or at least the farming part of it.
Not convinced that the new GA president mouths the same slogans of long dead Kremlin Commissars? Try this. Brockmann's view of two critical internatinal institutions.
Both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are basically controlled by the United States and Europe. Both institutions have been and continue to be used as instruments of domination. The world resents this and this situation must change. The necessary democratization of these international financial institutions requires a change in the share system and the system for electing the respective Boards of Directors.You bet. Let's see now. Hmm. (Snap fingers.) Why not let the recipient nations control the Boards. That way those greedy donor nations won't be able to be so damn controlling.
Brockman lets go with one barrage of Marxist or quasi-Marxist rhetoric after another. Climate change. Fresh water. Making the UN more "democratic." Assure that the will of "We the Peoples" cannot be ignored by sovereign states. Ya da. Ya da. Ya da.
Then the one time guerrilla fighter cuts to the chase. Terrorism. He has a take on the subject that would have warmed the heart of the Soviets and Castro back in the good ole days.
Terrorism and human rights. Any act of terrorism, whether or not it is committed by a Government, engenders more terrorism. Initiatives to stop this vicious cycle must begin at the level of State terrorism. Otherwise, the official struggle against terrorism perpetrated by individuals or organizations will lack moral authority and will never succeed in curbing what some see as nothing more than a defensive, albeit equally reprehensible, form of terrorism on the part of civil society. The question is how to overcome this vicious cycle of violence; towards that end, terrorism by powerful States against relatively weak States must stop.There it is. The US, the West, Israel are the true terrorists. Unless and until these evil actors stop whatever it is they do that the Brockmanns of the world disapprove of there can be no effective "official struggle" against non-state actors.
Just in case the assembled Assembly didn't get his point, the priestly ex-guerrilla spelled it out.
No State should appropriate the right to decide on its own which States are terrorists, or sponsors of terrorism, and which are not. Less still should States that are guilty of wars of aggression, the worst form of terrorism imaginable, presume to arrogate that right unto themselves, and further, to unilaterally take action against those it has stigmatized.All together now: Spell U-S-A.
Brockmann decompresses with some of the usual dabba-dabba-do about disarmament and the horrors of the nuclear arsenals now in existence. He neglects to say a word concerning the nuclear weapons being sought but as yet still unmade. Such as the Mahdi Bomb.
After genuflecting before the totems of gender equality and saving the children of the world, Miguel ends on a note that must seem reassuringly familiar to at least some Americans: "Change — real, credible change — is the watchword of the day."
No session of the UN General Assembly has been pleasant for Americans unless they are remarkably masochistic in their high mindedness for a mort of years. This one promises to be not only more of the same but a further descent into the recycled muck of the Cold War, the America-as-Evil-Empire rhetoric of the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties.
Come to think of it, those were Sr Brockmann's years of glory and ambition.
A further thought just struck the Geek. The sentiment of a realpoliker from the Italian Renaissance who wrote, "leave behind no wounded enemy."
It seems like the Reagan Administration did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)