The Shooting Starts Again In Nigeria

The good news is that the most recent spate of killing is not the work of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). The oil platform and service ship workers can rest easily for the moment. And, the oil speculators won't have to hit the keyboards and up the prices.

The Islamist jihadist monster is once more running amuck on the north of the never particularly stable and peaceful most populous country in Africa. The local Islamist jihadist group the name of which translates as "western education is sinful (or unlawful)" went after the police. The police shot back. Faster. Straighter.

Violence was experienced in three of the twelve provinces which voted a decade back to impose Shariah. The Islamists, who describe themselves as "Nigeria's Taliban," do not approve of the way in which the government interprets and applies Shariah. As a result they went on the offensive over the weekend.

Northeast Nigeria is the place where Islam drifting south from North African ran into the indigenous religions and later, Christianity. Today Nigeria is roughly split fifty-fifty between the two faiths. The record of violence over the past eight years indicates the Islamists within the Muslim community have started slightly over half of the violent encounters.

The Nigerian sectarian conflict takes place in the context of maldistributed wealth, an inefficient and corrupt distant government, and long standing tribal and sectional rivalries. Nigeria may have a lot of people, but it has no single Nigerian nation. The population is deeply fissured along numerous fault lines--tribal, class, sectional, religious.

The political process is not open. It is not transparent. It is not honest. It lacks both existential and functional legitimacy in the eyes of many of its citizens. The government is not trusted. It is not seen as honest. Or effective. Or representative of anyone or anything that does not reek of bought influence and paid for conduct.

As a result of its own tergiversations, its own corruption, its own systemic and personal inefficiencies and inadequacies, the central government has been faced by the ever-growing threat of MEND which has nibbled away the oil export base of both national prosperity and governmental malfeasance. While capable of killing MEND insurgents, the government and the Nigerian military have been completely unable to suppress the insurgency.

The measures taken by the government and army to defeat MEND have been so disasterously inept that they have grown more insurgents than they have killed or captured. Given the vulnerability of the oil industry, anything other than suppressing the insurgency through meeting its demands, which are neither excessive nor fantastic, is the best option open to the government.

This the government has refused to do--except rhetorically.

Now the central government is faced with the early stage of another insurgency. Lagos must have believed it had bought its peace with the referendum providing for Shariah in the twelve predominantly Muslim provinces. They reckoned without the Islamists for whom the new policy was one illustrative of government weakness.

Bolstered by the endemic poverty as well as the highly evident maldistribution of wealth in the region and the general disenchantment with the central government as well as the several provincial governments, the membership in and affiliations with the Islamist jihadist groups grew as the jihadists became increasingly active and ambitious in demands. Far from having bought its peace, the central government purchased many miles of increasingly bad road.

The election violence late last year gave fair warning of what was to come. Now the second warning shot(s) came over the weekend. The police won in terms of bodies counted and perps arrested. The Lagos regime will take pride in that.

The lesson which should be taken by the government is vastly different. Insurgencies and insurgents are like the Terminator--they will be back. Back stronger, better, wider spread, with more support, more skills, more weapons, more willingness to be (in this case) "martyrs."

Nigeria barely avoided energetically disassembling forty-two or so years ago. The Biafrian separatist movement was narrowly defeated. Nigeria almost died in a welter of tribal and sectional disputes.

Whatever may have been learned in those not-so-long-ago days by the Nigerian political and economic elite has been forgotten. MEND is proof of that. So also is the growing Islamist jihadist driven insurgency in the north and northeast of the country.

The bloody fighters of both MEND and "Western Education is Sinful" have written in letters too large and sanguine to be ignored that the government and its affiliated elites must work--fast--to both repair the economic inequities and the disparity in political power between elite and hoi polloi. The alternative is to fiddle while the country melts around them.

And, that will not be a pretty sight.

A Russian Fairy Tale Of A Future Yet To Come

Joe Biden's flap-tongue-without-brain-engaged effort at public diplomacy didn't perturb the Geek alone. Not by a long shot. The Russians were not delighted either. No surprise there. The only slight surprise comes from the dearth of criticism from the Right which seems ever poised to leap on the slightest administration mis-step--provided, apparently, that it is on the domestic front only.

Perhaps the Right is grinning secretly, given that the oft-proclaimed foreign policy expert Biden has come out in agreement with Bush/Cheney and the neocon ninnies. Russia is nowhere. It is a defeated has-been. A nullity that can be pushed around for fun and profit. The fallen giant of our Cold War horrors which can now be kicked safely and with great inner pleasure.

Yeah. Right. For sure.

Instead, for grins and to prompt thinking, let's take a dekko at an option which the current Obama administration's foreign policy deficit is opening to yawning proportions. It has to do with Israel, Iran, and Russia.

It starts with the community of interest which events of the recent past have created for Russia and Israel. The community has two chief features. Both see Iran as a potential threat albeit of differing proportions. Secondly, neither government has profound reasons to rely upon the Obama administration for cooperation in pursuing core national and strategic interests--even when doing such is objectively in keeping with American core interests.

Israel has already approached Russia for assistance in abating the Iranian nuisance. The Kremlin's response is not yet publicly known. For purposes of this thought experiment let us assume it is guardedly favorable.

This is how the pas a deux might well play out.

Russia indicates it "understands" Israel's anxieties. It suggests that as a first step in dealing with this, Israel might want to enter a joint venture in, say, air defense technology development. Israel agrees as this would be to both state's benefit even if the relation does not progress to more exalted levels.

Israeli technicians join with Russian in "up-grading" the SAM 300 system. Of course this would let the Israelis know just how to go about defeating the gadget so as to do in Iran what they did in Syria only faster and better.

Russia invites Israel to dispatch an air contingent to Russia for "joint training exercises." This would provide perfect cover for an Israeli attack against the Iranian nuclear R&D complex without overflying any Mideast country. The Kremlin knows that no matter what, Iran (and others) will blame the US even if the attack launch point is publicly alleged.

The Russians will say nothing. Neither will the Israelis in the style of the days after the Syrian attack. If Iran makes any nasty noises toward Moscow, the Kremlin can shrug it off being secure in the capacity of the Russian army, air force, and strategic rocket forces to deal expeditiously and effectively with anything Iran might be tempted to try. (Remember the Russians have great faith in unilateral action unlike the US.)

Should, as most expect, the attack results in a severe spike in world oil prices, Vladimir Putin and company will laugh all the way to the bank. From the perspective of the Russian economy the very best thing that could happen would be a long stoppage of oil flowing through the Persian Gulf coupled with a speculator frenzy driving oil above 200 clams per barrel.

In the wake of the Israeli strike, the Kremlin would quietly pass the word to the fearful states of the Gulf concerning its involvement in the attack. The Russian diplomats might suggest that the Russian "defense umbrella" was more reliable and robust than that of the Americans. Perhaps, these diplomats would purr, the time has come to revisit your military equipment needs.

The assorted oil sheikdoms would get the message quickly and clearly.

So would the mullahs of Tehran. This would be particularly true if the Kremlin allowed as how the attack was a one-off operation and would not be repeated if Iran fixed its nuclear power needs more closely with Russian suppliers. The mullahs would not be so otherworldly as to fail to see the shadow of an implied Russian "defense umbrella" being held over their heads in the event of another Israeli strike, particularly one which used missiles and nuclear warheads.

The US would be on the sidelines throughout the process. It would be busy however, issuing denials with one hand while catching blame with the other. In any event, the Obama administration would be too busy dealing with the necessary consequences of stratospheric oil prices on the recovery and the agenda alike.

Putin may be too civilized at this juncture to make any statements about the "withering" American economy and the loss of the American "empire." It is, he may believe, far more enjoyable to win than it is to crow about winning.

The moral of our fable, kids?

Simple. Don't declare yesterday's enemy dead and buried because he may come roaring out of the grave only to embarrass you.

Did you get it, Joe?

SecState Clinton Says, "We're Doing Great!"

One would have to have a resident alien visa in Fantasyland to think a politician would ever assess his/her own performance and that of the party they serve as anything other than "perfect and getting better by the minute." As the Geek has been condemned to stay in the gritty world of reality, the self-serving puffery of Ms Clinton on NBC is no big shokku.

In her view the Obama administration has succeeded in the last six months in achieving a condition in Iraq which allows the withdrawal of American forces. Apparently the "surge" which was opposed by then Senator Obama and many others of the Progressive Caucus had nothing to do with the improved security condition in Iraq. Of course not, that would give credit to the icky-poo Republican administration, and we all know how dastardly that bunch was.

Nor could she bring herself to acknowledge that the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which provided for the scheduled withdrawal was negotiated by a team which did not include either her or President Obama. Of course not, to do that would allow reality to intrude on the dream world of Ms Clinton and her associates in the administration.

She bragged at some length on just how well the Obama administration--and herself, of course, had created a mighty diplomatic coalition against Iran and its pursuit of the bomb. Leaving aside such unpleasant holes in the Mighty Diplomatic Coalition as China, Russia, and the assorted European members of the Billion Dollar Club, she is right.

Heck, she did not even bother to point out that the administration of which she is a prime member has not even pushed the Refined Petroleum Products Sanction bill recently introduced in the House. She must be aware that pressing hard on the lack of refined petroleum in Iran is the single greatest harm we can inflict in the short term. Still, not a word about the necessity of seeing this bill become law so we have a big stick to wave in the direction of Tehran.

Instead of addressing such centralities as just what real coercion might be exerted on the mullahs, the Secretary danced around the floor about negotiating with a government whose legitimacy is more presumed than real. Of course, Madam Secretary, diplomacy is all about dealing with those who are in power whether they are there via honest elections or pure force. Why belabor the obvious except to escape talking about the problems of talking without any credible set of inducements and constraints.

Among the constraints (and inducements) you did not bother to touch upon is the availability of a domestic opposition in Iran which we can support in a discrete manner. By not touching upon this open nerve in the mouths of the mullahs, you made the same mistake that the Bush/Cheney neocons did back in the period 2001-2003 when they did not bother to deal with the reformers while this group under Khatami was at its peak of success and the reactionary mullahs in a fever of fear.

True, the reformers are not in power right now, but they might be shortly. That is why the mullahs and their equally reactionary secular adherents are having serious attacks of anxiety.

Is there any wonder that the Israelis are having Xanax moments of their own? They are looking at an administration which seems bootless about the realities of what Secretary Clinton calls "intensive diplomacy" aimed at convincing the Iranians to mend their ways. They are hearing repeated calls to be "patient" and not go for the military option as the centrifuges spin and the Great Leader continues to demand that Israel cease to exist.

Is it surprising that Secretary Clinton was reluctant to wave her "defensive umbrella" in the faces of the NBC crew? When push comes to shove there is not a great desire in Washington at the present to enter into guarantees of territorial integrity and governmental sovereignty which would cover the entire Mideast against the Iranian threat.

Discussion on the potential ramifications and implications of the "defensive umbrella" would be a distraction and a diversion from the administration's "Agenda of Transformation." Right now, they and the Progressive Caucus cannot afford any side jaunts which might delay further the passage of the ambitious set of bills before them.

Ms Clinton had many, many kind words for China's cooperation on North Korea. The truth here does not matter. She and the Treasury Secretary will be meeting with senior mandarins next week. Considering the Chinese hold 800 million bucks of US treasury paper, it behooves the Secretary to genuflect (kow tow?) to the Boys From Beijing.

In any event it is easy and convenient for China and Russia to be cooperative about North Korea. As long as there is nothing at risk to either country, they will go through all the necessary motions. By doing so they pile up credits to cash later with the US over issues which do matter to them. Come on, Madam Secretary, you bloody well know that diplomacy involves trades and deals. Some deals are far more apparent than real.

The SecState skipped over much during her voyage of self-congratulation. For example, she was silent on Honduras where support for the ousted leftist Chavez clone Zelaya is slipping. It would have been embarrassing to admit that the Hondurans played by their own rules and we didn't like the outcome.

The reason we didn't smile at the result was that the administration is headed by a post-modern progressive who knows as much about foreign affairs as a gnat does of quantum mechanics but "feels" that democracy is somehow off the tracks if a fellow progressive is booted out for not playing by the rules. And, every good post-modern American believes that "feeling" is much more real and important than mere objective knowledge and understanding.

Nor was Secretary Clinton particularly effusive over the foreign policy successes so far enjoyed by the US in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yes, the Pakistanis have taken the field against Taliban in Swat and elsewhere with some slight degree of genuine success. However, the substance has been far eclipsed by the shadow.

With respect to Afghanistan the Geek would invite the Secretary to rebut the contentions and arguments in yesterday's post on our forthcoming (self-inflicted) defeat in that country. Certainly your appraisal today did nothing to change the Geek's mind on the subject.

The Secretary attempted to rehabilitate the administration's policy regarding Russia following Joe (The Ever Expansive Mouth) Biden's assault yesterday. Her convoluted explanation may play in Peoria where it is not relevant but will fall flat in the Kremlin.

Overall, Ms Clinton, had your interview on NBC been a web post it would merit one star or less. The Geek wonders if you were attempting to delude the American public or are you simply living in delusion yourself.

The Federal Justice System Can Do The Job

The job? Providing a fair, transparent, and secure trial for those accused of terrorism related offenses and taken into custody overseas. Any remaining rational doubts are squelched completely by a new study done under the aegis of Human Rights First. The study, In Pursuit of Justice should be read attentively by anyone concerned by the ongoing Bush/Cheney approach to the task of bringing alleged terrorists to justice in the US.

The Geek has been mystified and baffled by the continuing resistance to closing Gitmo, ending the Military Commissions, and getting on with the work of providing criminal trials to those accused of committing terrorism related offenses. The record of the US Department of Justice in achieving convictions, as detailed in the study, exceeds ninety percent. That is a good track record.

Further the authors of the study, who are former US prosecutors, show that the Federal system has the inherent flexibility to deal properly with the use of classified materials in a trial context and to deal with novel trial strategies on the part of both prosecution and defense. While not considered in this study or its 2008 predecessor, it might be mentioned that the Federal courts have come a long way from the tawdry days of the Rosenberg case where prosecutorial misconduct was matched by defense incompetence and bias on the bench which was palpable.

If that evolution were not so self-evident, the Geek would protest any transfer from Military Commission to Federal Court as a shift without any meaning beyond the cosmetic. Since the evolution is real and can be extrapolated by comparing the ill-behavior of Federal prosecutors and judges alike during the hysteria of the Red Decade with the case oriented study done by the Human Rights First authors, there is little if any risk that miscarriages of justice will be more rather than less likely by trying accused terrorists in the Federal criminal system.

There are overly zealous prosecutors willing to cut corners in search of a high profile conviction as the recent experience of former Senator Stevens shows. Importantly, this case was reviewed by the incoming Attorney General and found wanting for good reason, with the result the conviction was overturned at government motion.

Hopefully, the inherent transparency of a Federal trial would prevent a similar excess of zeal from polluting the trial of purported terrorists. Since no human system operated by humans with egos and fears can be foolproof, this must remain a hope to be guaranteed by the combination of judicial review and media afflicted with sufficient cynicism to be more than a mere government flack.

The concept of the "illegal enemy combatant" remains troublesome and is not addressed in either of the two cited studies. By any rational standard and the logical application of the relevant international conventions, a person in arms and wearing some sort of identifiable sign of badge of combatant standing is a prisoner of war regardless whether or not he is a member of a national force under the command and control of a state. He is an enemy combatant to be sure but there is nothing inherently "illegal" about opposing US forces in the field.

If, in addition to being under arms in opposition to US troops engaged in an interventionary operation, the captured combatant has violated one or another of the sundry laws governing the conduct of war or has engaged in an act of "terrorism" as defined by the US Criminal Code outside the immediate zone of combat operations, then his act may be "illegal" and is certainly a fit subject for judicial determination.

Parsing between the "enemy combatant" who should be held for the duration of hostilities as provided in the Geneva Convention and the "illegal" terrorist who is liable for criminal trial and conviction may be difficult, but it is not impossible. Failure to properly separate the chaff of the run-of-the-mill combatant and the criminal as has been the case at Gitmo and Bagram is a serious deficiency which will not be remedied quickly absent an invocation of the Federal criminal system.

For those who shake in fear at the idea that some hostile personnel taken prisoner will be read their rights as criminal suspects and thus denied to intelligence operatives as potential sources of critical, time sensitive information, the authors of the referenced study (and the Geek) say, "Pshaw!" Apparently Federal judges and others charged with operating the criminal justice system have been able to separate effectively the statements which can be used in court and those which are the sole province of the intelligence weenie.

In a similar fashion the authors say, "Phooey!" to those who worry and fret over the prospect of terrorists being confined before or after trial at institutions in the US. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has an excellent record of keeping hardcase terrorist heavies in the slam for twenty years now. All the way from arrest to execution (in the case of Tim McVeigh) terrorists consigned to the Bureau of Prisons have been kept without the slightest risk to surrounding communities let alone the entire US.

There is absolutely no reason to keep Gitmo open. No reason to continue the experiment of the revived Military Commissions. No novel system is needed. The Federal courts can and should do the job fairly and safely.

The Obama administration would be best advised to reverse their reversal on the closure of Gitmo and use of Military Commissions. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. We already have a perfectly good one. Use it.

Joe Biden: A Putz Does Diplomacy

The fact that the Obama administration and the current occupants of the Kremlin have a vastly different view of the world, of the nature of national interest, and the way in which the game of nations is played is not news. It is as commonplace today as it was back in the days of the Soviet Union.

Even if, in President Obama's estimate, the Russian version of international politics is "Nineteenth Century," this in no way obviates the reality that the US needs Russia's active cooperation on critical matters such as the Iranian nuclear program. Thus, it does American national and strategic interests no good whatsoever to copy the egregiously blundering approach to Russia that was a hallmark of the Bush/Cheney years.

During the long years of the neocon ninny ascendancy, the American tone toward Russia was alternately hectoring and condescending. The administration acted as if Russia was a defeated power, reduced to the status of second or even third rate. As a result Russia was not cooperative in areas of (supposedly) mutual concern and heaved up roadblocks whenever and wherever it could.

Now the Obama administration, or at least Vice President Biden seem hellbent on repeating the profoundly wrong approach of Bush/Cheney. While the WaPo clearly agrees with Biden's reaming out of the Putin/Medvedev understanding of relations with the US, the Geek does not.

Everything which Biden states in his interview with the WSJ about the Russian birth rate, economic failures, banking system on the verge of collapse, and so on may be absolutely true, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the impact of a high visibility figure saying so in blunt, utterly diplomacy-free words in a major American publication.

The NYT, like the Russian government, finds the Biden Diatribe "perplexing." The Geek would use the term "idiotic" to describe Joe (I-Can-Say-Whatever-Without-Thinking) Biden's assessment of what is necessary and proper for US-Russian relations.

As every student of Russian and Soviet history (including Robert Gates who holds a doctorate in Soviet Studies) well knows, Russia has a very long history of hyper-sensitivity based on an equally long standing feeling (and fear) of inferiority to the nations of the West. This sensitivity and fear has tinged every Russian regime from Peter the Great to Vladimir the Bare Chested. It is a key factor in understanding how and why Russian regimes act the way that they have and do.

By bashing the Russians in the mudhole of their own social, political, and economic failures (failures from Biden's point of view, that is), our Vice President has been, in the words of the renowned Sovietologist George Kennan, "primitive and unconstructive." Russian nationalism is easily irritated and aroused. Indeed, central to Putin's great successes since going from the bowels of KGB to the corridors of the Kremlin has been the stoking and stroking of Russian national pride.

By offending this national pride Joe Biden has made the task of gaining agreement from the Russians much more difficult than it needs to be. He has, in a very real sense, out-Bushed Bush, with results which will not make the accomplishment of assorted tasks ranging from the Iranian bomb to peace in the Mideast and ending the war in Afghanistan at all easier.

We may well oppose the Russian notion of having a special "sphere of interest" in the states of the former Soviet Union, but the bashing of Russian internal problems and the issuing of a virtual we-will-give-you-nothing decree will not grease the path of negotiation aimed at urging the Russians to lighten up on the subject. It may be, as the WaPo asserts, praiseworthy to confront the Russians squarely on its ambitions, but that does not mean it is useful.

And, lest anyone forget, the purpose of foreign policy, of diplomacy in all its myriad aspects, is to achieve useful goals. To protect and advance national and strategic interests. That's it. All else is mere cant.

Every utterance by a senior foreign policy or administrative personality--and Joe Biden is both--must be carefully calibrated to achieve national and strategic interests. Truth, emotional satisfaction, bad hair day are all either irrelevant or harmful to the task.

At one time, not that many months back, Joe Biden went to Russia to "push the reset button." That effort was followed recently by the Obama trip to Moscow. The Russians responded with a badly needed permission for US troops to be flown across Russian territory en route to Afghanistan. The Russians also speedily agreed to another round of strategic arms reduction in pursuit of a "finite deterrent" based force package.

Not bad after the Bush/Cheney years, which saw Russian bombers again probing our air space and overflying our task forces at sea. Not bad after the Bush/Cheney years, which saw the Russians bring back their favorite Cold War word nyet to the Security Council.

Now, all on his very lonesome, Joe Biden has threatened to put US-Russian relations back in the deepest of deep freezes. It is one thing to support Georgia and the Ukraine as Biden correctly did during his recent fast jaunt to the region. It is another matter all together to dismiss the Russians as a decaying society and economy stuck in the past days of lost empire who can serve their own interests best by subscribing to whatever American policy interest we present them.

It is even more gripless to suggest as Biden does that the "emerging nuclear threats" in Iran and North Korea will "force" Russia to comply with American requirements. Come on, Joe, get a grip. The Russians have shown an unsurpassed ability to act unilaterally and with overwhelming force when they are faced by a genuine threat. Given the continuing competence of the Russian armed forces which have not decayed as much as some might like to think, abating any potential Iranian or Korean menace is well within Russian capabilities. It is necessary to keep in mind that the Russians have no particular love or need for the fig leaf of collective action or UN sanction to protect national interests.

Got to hand it to Joe Biden. Secretary of State Clinton managed to outrage only Pakistan and Israel by her lack of diplomatic finesse. Biden has managed to hack off Russia which remains, no matter of what Biden may think, a Great Power. More, a Great Power whose support we must have to achieve many of our most critical foreign policy agenda items.

Way to go, Joe!

Now the matter is up to President Obama. He has to either back up the Veep or disown the remarks. Given that the Nice Young Man From Chicago is both naive regarding the game of nations and post-modern, it is hard to predict what he will do. Perhaps, given his own recent lesson in shooting off his mouth, the President will order underlings to issue clarifications by the truck load, drowning the matter in obfuscation.

Perhaps, Mr Obama will be inclined to call up Vladimir and Dimitri and invite them over for a beer along with Joe. The boys can sit on the Truman Balcony or out at Camp David and hoist a few, swap lies, and slap each other's knees over the inadvertent humor provided by Joe's ever expanding mouth.

Well, it is an idea.

Why We Will Lose In Afghanistan

No matter how successful the current American and British offensive operations might be in Helmand, at the end of the week it will not matter. It will not matter how effective the US and its co-belligerents are in the new approach of "clear and hold." Neither does the number of Taliban killed or forced to flee to Pakistan or points beyond change the reality that must now be faced.

The US and its allies are doomed to lose.

A brutal truth to accept. Still it is one which must be accepted.

And, so, why the gloom laden conclusion, Geeko?

There are several reasons, bucko. Here they are in a rough order of importance.

We went about the war all wrong from the very first moment, before the boots of the first American hit the dirt of Afghanistan. The Deep Thinkers of the Bush/Cheney administration failed to conceptualise the goal, definition of victory, and theory of victory correctly. The initial failure was potentiated by trying to gain the goal and some attendant simulacrum of victory on the cheap, by "shock and awe" rather than through manpower heavy operations. Then, to make a very bad situation even worse, the administration committed the US to an exercise in "nation building" with the end product being hypothesized as a Western style liberal, pluralistic republic with all the institutions of press, separation of faith and state, autonomous judiciary, and so on that have been so painfully developed here over the course of centuries.

As a result the Taliban and al-Qaeda were never really defeated. They were given time and sanctuary in which to rest, refit, rebuild, and exploit the failures of the Afghan government put in place under the guard of our (foreign) bayonets. The ever dragging inconclusive war tilted more and more in Taliban's favor in part because the lack of manpower required the extensive use of air power. The fast movers and helicopter gunships killed insurgents, but they also and quite inevitably killed civilians as well.

The "economy of force" operations in Afghanistan (to use the ever-so-sanitary language of the Pentagon) also meant the US had insufficient troops to wrest and keep the initiative through active combat operations, provide necessary point defense against suicide bombing attacks or small unit raids, train the Afghan National Forces, and provide support for civil affairs projects.

All of these factors worked together to assist Taliban's resurgence. Also contributing directly to the Taliban breakout in recent months was the attitude and actions of the Pakistani government and its Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Taliban had critical foreign sanctuary and support, a sanctuary and support which the US was loath to publicly denounce until very, very recently.

The Pakistani support and sanctuary are unlikely to abate in the near- or mid-term given the inability or unwillingness of the Pakistani military to acknowledge that India is not the "main enemy." ISI is dancing with the devil in its relation with Taliban, but that will not force any policy change.

Another reason for the coming US defeat is the nature, character, and agenda of the Karzai regime, the regime which took power and kept it under our protection and with our assistance. Karzai, to an extent that would make Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq blush, is an openly aggrandizing seeker after power.

His administration is corrupt. It is inefficient. It is riddled with Taliban sympathisers. Karzai is willing and ready to do anything, absolutely anything at all, to win the upcoming election. From the massively repressive "Family Law" which places Shia women (at the least) back to the days of Taliban but makes the reactionary Islamist clerics smile with satisfied delight to the repeated promises to "control" the foreign troops, Karzai does whatever he can to gain and hold support through the presidential election a month hence.

If re-elected as seems most probable at the moment, Karzai will deliver on some of these promises. Women will be put back in the garbage sack, (Opps! Bad Geek! You mean the burqua) and he will seek to interject himself and his regime into the military chain of command.

He will succeed in this to a significant degree as he can control the pace of development of the Afghan National Forces whose boots must join ours on the ground if "clear and hold" is to be more than one more catchy phrase. Karzai's goal in this is to facilitate "peace talks" with Taliban and the formation of a "government of inclusion."

The usual suspect, ISI, will back him covertly in this effort through its own contacts with Mullah Omar and Company. ISI will be joined in supporting Karzai's search for peace and inclusion by two unusual suspects: The British public and We the People, the American public.

The British are showing a significant war weariness in the face of mounting casualties in the Helmand offensive. This isn't surprising. There seem to be no significant British national interests at stake in the never-ending war. This is not the old British public of Kipling's day which was content to see the bones of its sons bleach on the far marches of empire for obscure reasons of state.

Not even the bracing remarks of Joe Biden regarding the bravery of British troops or his opinion that the "sacrifices are worth it," will alter the declining support for the war in Merrie Old England. The Taliban are not the Nazis. Afghanistan does not rest across a narrow channel from the storied white cliffs of Dover. The shocking realities of 9/11 and 7/7 are now almost as far in the past as the Maggie Thatcher's Great Campaign for the Sheep of Falklands.

The American public is not far behind the British in rejecting the war in Afghanistan as SecDef Gates noted last week. The effort in Afghanistan has lasted as long as the major US involvement in South Vietnam and only the very, very low body count has prevented a wholesale revulsion at the war. (And, the absence of the draft to be sure.)

Our first post-modern president, the Nice Young Man From Chicago, to whom every person's narrative is as valid as any other, has no real stomach for continuing the war in Afghanistan one minute longer than is necessary to proclaim for one reason or another that the US has accomplished its "goals" in the place. He has already taken the first step in that direction.

The forthcoming elections in Afghanistan provide the opportunity for a graceful US defeat. As American "super-diplomat" Richard Holbrooke acknowledges, the elections will not be perfect, anymore, he averred than was that in the US in 2000. Leaving aside this inapt and inept comparison, the Holbrooke position signals that as long as Karzai wins in a more-or-less transparent effort in democracy, the results are just jake with us.

This implies that Karzai will have a free hand to carry out his efforts at brokering a simulacrum of peace with Taliban leading to a government of national reconciliation. At that point Mr Holbrooke will link arms with Karzai and Omar to sing a chorus of "Give Peace A Chance." The Americans will then leave as will the troops of other nations. We will, of course, leave behind a vast pool of money and assorted civilian experts to continue the task of post-war reconstruction.

The US will, at this point, have been defeated. On the up side, as was the case in Vietnam, it is not the formal enemy which defeated us. No. We will have defeated ourselves.

Once again we will have the chance to learn that bad ideas about war bring defeat. But, we will pay no attention to that lesson.

R2P Or Not R2P

At one time the United Nations had a simple, straightforward major mission. Protect the international peace. That was the one issue focused upon by the architects of the UN during the bloody years of World War II as it had been on the part of Woodrow Wilson and other visionaries during an earlier hectatomb.

The prevention or, at worst, the punishment of aggressive war waged in the face of international disapproval was the centerpiece at the launching of the UN in San Francisco more than a half century ago. While there were other items on the UN's plate--including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--these were seen as clearly secondary. They were conceived of as means of limiting the excuses used by nations to go to war.

That simple, unitary focus became increasingly fuzzy in the waning days of the Cold War particularly after President Jimmy Carter elevated the concept of "human rights" to the top priority of American foreign policy. While there is no doubt that President Carter was both sincere and somewhat pragmatically minded in his dedication to human rights, the Law of Unintended Consequences stood by ready to invoke itself.

The UN pushed its camel's nose into an entirely new area a few years ago when the congeries of diplomats meeting on the banks of the Hudson determined that a potential threat to international peace and stability was posed automatically when a government's policies or weakness resulted in refugee streams crossing international borders. The existence of a flow of refugees became de facto proof that some sort of international intervention was required not only to meet "humanitarian" needs but also to stave off any potential breach of the international peace.

This diplomatic artifice constructed a very steep slope paved with glare ice. It allowed, no, encouraged, the Security Council to determine when and if an internal matter had reached such a pitch of refugee generation (and high visibility flowing of blood and gore) that international intervention was required. If the five Permanent Members could agree on the necessity or desirability of invoking the presumed UN mandate to protect the citizens of the target county, the Boys in Blue Helmets could be deployed.

If and when (as was far from atypical) the Security Council could not agree on intervention, the fall back position was the invocation of a similar "responsibility to protect" (called in diplomatic and journalistic shorthand, "R2P") on the part of the UN or regional organisations. The European Union, the Organisation of American States, the African Union, even NATO, could determine that they had a "responsibility to protect" within their geographic bailiwicks.

Stripped to its essentials the "responsibility to protect" means that some external entity, a state, a regional organisation, the UN, determines on some basis or another that a country has reached such a sorry state of internal depravity and wretchedness that intervention is the necessary course of action. Since the intervention is not sought nor welcomed by the target country or its government, this means the incoming forces are armed and ready to use force to impose their will on the target.

In short, the "responsibility to protect" means making war.

Ironically, the UN, an entity created to keep the international peace, can invoke the "responsibility to protect" in order to wage war. Normally the use of the "R2P" is either by or at the behest of a Great Power against some country which is not a client of another Great Power.

Back in 2005 the "international community" visited the subject of "R2P" at some length. At the end of the visit some 150 world leaders endorsed the concept. Now, four years later, the UN General Assembly is back in the trenches of "R2P."

The NYT suggests that getting the member nations to agree on how and when to intervene so as to stop genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing should not "be much of a stretch." The mere fact that the weight of historical experience underscores the difficulty with agreeing on anything beyond muttering platitudes, the gaining of widespread agreement on the necessity of invading a country due to its internal difficulties is nearly impossible.

Not surprisingly the panjandrums of the UN bureaucracy are overwhelmingly in favor of an "R2P" protocol with real bite. The High Commissioner For Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has called for a "credible capacity for rapid responses." Madam Pillay, like UN SecGen Ban Ki-moon, referenced the massacres in Rwanda during which the world stood by and watched horrified as at least 800,000 were slaughtered.

There is an old cliche in jurisprudence, "Hard cases make bad law." In international politics there is (or should be) a similar saying, "Extreme examples make bad precedent."

To put it simply, there is no firebreak in mere numbers. Nor is there a bright and shining line contained in the swiftness of the slaughter. Once the precedent is enshrined there can be no meaningful distinctions between the fast mass murder of a Rwanda and the slow killing fields of a Zimbabwe or a Somalia. There can be no proper, policy related distinctions drawn between massive and bloody efforts at ethnic cleansing as in former Yugoslavia and the slow-motion ejection of Christians from Iraq.

Regardless of speed, efficiency, or numbers each is an example of abuse of human rights on a large scale. Each occurred because of either government action or government inaction. Each generated refugees. Each outraged (or should have) global sensibilities. Each was (or is) a candidate for "R2P."

The same may be said (and has been) regarding Chinese actions in Tibet or, more recently, in Xianjiang. The same may be said (and has been) regarding Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

The same was said in (partial) justification of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein's regime did engage in internal actions which resulted in massive death, dislocation, and refugee generation. Silent at the time Saddam's men used toxic gas against civilian Kurds, the US waved the bloody shirt of human rights violations nearly two decades later. ("Well," the administration might have said, "better late than never.")

The question of when--if ever--external actors have a "right" or a "responsibility" to intervene at bayonet point to "protect" civilian populations from harm at the hands of their own government or from non-governmental bodies not inhibited by the government is neither easy to parse nor simple to judge. This is the point behind the recent objections to "R2P" raised by General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto and others including the renowned left-leaning American linguistic and general purpose critic, Noam Chomsky.

D'Escoto circulated a "Concept Note" in which he characterised the "R2P" idea as just one more form of neocolonialism. He has been joined in this position by Dr Chomsky who (correctly) pointed out that "R2P" has been used by Western advanced nations to impose their vision on countries in the non-Western world.

There is an uncomfortable degree of truth in these arguments, much as the Geek personally dislikes finding himself in agreement with d'Escoto, let alone Chomsky. The Great Powers have the influence, resources, and agendas necessary to support interventions under an appropriate color. The most appropriate cover in today's Era of Sensitivity is the protection of one or another of the numerous "lesser breeds without the law" (in Kipling's phrase.) "R2P" is in keeping with a long standing American tradition of couching armed interventions in lofty, humanitarian terms such as Wilson's famed idea of "teaching Mexicans to elect good men."

Another, less publicised danger of using "R2P" as a justification for military operations is the potential for frankly cynical abuse. Russia draped "R2P" over its tanks and jets during the incursion and occupation of disputed territory then under Georgian sovereignty. The Kremlin claimed with a straight face and in the most solemn terms that their army was simply protecting the human rights of the locals faced with genocide at the hands of the aggressive Georgian government.

The Chinese have made similar statements regarding their suppression of demonstrations in Tibet and Xianjiang. The army and police were simply protecting the human rights of the Han Chinese from abuse at the hands of ethnic minorities.

And, so it has gone. As it will continue to go. "Human rights" and the closely linked "R2P" will be exploited by governments to cover naked land grabs and regime maintenance actions.

At the same time governments will continue to be very, very cautious, reluctant really, to involve their forces in the vast majority of situations which might fall legitimately under the rubric, "R2P." That overarching reality is in high evidence today.

Somalia is and has been for years the very definition of human depravity and consequent misery. Ban Ki-moon has once more called upon the "international community" for "armed support" for the tottering artifact created by the same international community, the Transitional Federal Government. The African Union peace keeping force is so undermanned, so poorly equipped, and so lacking in motivation that its troops can barely protect their own base, let alone the TFG.

The members of the African Union show little stomach for further involvement in the Somali cesspit. There are very real reasons given for this. Lack of money. Deficient logistics. No transport. There are also other, equally valid and more compelling unstated reasons.

Chief among these silent justifications is this: What is in it for us? What national interest is served by seeing our troops killed in Somalia?

Abstracts are very poor reasons for getting killed. And, let's be honest about it. Human rights is an abstract. Each and every point referenced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is itself an abstract. They are the creations of a particular historical and philosophical tradition--Western Christianity and its precursors in Greece and Ancient Israel.

They are not real, organic, and emotive concepts in other traditions. They are not good reasons for a government, particularly one faced by its own problems at home to send off men to kill and die. Not even when the blood filled cesspit is right next door and the refugees are flooding your country.

Kenya is a major non-participant in Somalia. Similarly South Africa set back and watched Mugabe's thugs create a swamp of violence, death, poverty, and disease in Zimbabwe. The governments of these nations were not blind to what was happening. Nor were they morally indifferent.

There was simply no compelling national interest at stake. Lacking that, there was no justification for bearing the expenses in lives, treasure, and potential internal complications exercising some sort of abstract "R2P."

The weight of both history and practical realities is against "R2P." This may bother the high minded such as our UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, and the assorted capos of the UN. It may bother the editors of the NYT as the tone of their coverage makes clear.

But, it is a fact. A brute ground truth.

We the People may like to forget or overlook this truth. Just as we like to overlook the reality that when faced by a man with a gun we, each and every one of us, has the "human right" of life only if we can shoot faster and straighter than the other guy.