Way To Go, Vladimir!

Yesterday the Geek contended that Russian PM Vladimir Putin had little if any real choice in dealing with the Jolly Pirates of Puntland after they hit the big time by boarding and seizing the Russian government owned, Russian crewed tanker, MV Moscow University. A number of factors both foreign and domestic dictated that the only viable Russian response would be a military one.

Nonetheless it was heartwarming to read of the Russian marines having retaken the ship at the cost of no friendly lives. Unfortunately, only one of the pirates was killed after they opened fire on the approaching marine force.

Putin's decision was made easier by the fact that the ship's crew had taken refuge in the ship's "security room" after having shut down the main engines. This meant the target would be stationary and the only humanoid forms visible would be those of the maritime muggers.

Still, things could have gone wrong. For example, by some concatenation of misfortune the 86,000 tons of oil might have been released, or caught fire. Either would have raised a storm of environmentalist protest. Or, a pirate might have gotten lucky, shot down a troop laden helicopter. Or, unbeknownst to crew or rescuers alike the pirates might have placed a large, lethal explosive charge next to the bulkhead protecting the secure room.

Even for a man who is well known for his decisiveness and relative indifference to body counts, the decision would not have come lightly to Vladimir. To his credit, he made the right choice--quickly. Also to the credit of the Russians, their small surface combatant on station was properly equipped with special operations personnel as well as the necessary support and delivery systems. The senior command had been forward looking in their planning and had anticipated the necessity of putting men on board a pirate-seized ship.

The most important facet of Putin's choice is its existence as a model for and challenge to other governmental leaders. The Russians have joined the French in putting troops on a pirate held vessel in order to effect a rescue. The Russians have surpassed the French in that their operation was conducted on the high seas and resulted in saving ship and cargo as well as crew.

(No, the Geek has not forgotten the US Navy rescue of the captain of the Maersk Alabama as he was held by four thugs-with-guns on a lifeboat. But, that operation was qualitatively different from as well as less risky than that undertaken by the Russians.)

The Russian action does require one to wonder why other governments, particularly those such as the UK, Germany, and China which possess special operations capacities have not used them for the benefit of their nationals, their ships. Perhaps the answer is to be found in the combination of circumstances which forced Putin's hand this time.

There have been previous incidents where Russian nationals have constituted all or part of a crew taken hostage by the Raiders of the Somali Coast. In none of those cases did the Russian navy intervene. This implies that the Kremlin is not moved simply by the sight of Russians in piratical durance vile.

Nor have the Lads in the Kremlin been deterred by merely the thought that "innocent" people might die in the course of a rescue operation. One need remember only the use by Russian special duty troops of a BZ type agent in the conduct of the assault on the terrorist held Moscow theater a few years ago. (Note BZ type agents are only "non-lethal" in theory; in practice this class of "incapacitating agents" will result in at least ten percent fatalities.)

While Western governments as well as Western publics may shy from robust measures fearing loss of non-combatant or hostage lives, this is not the case with Russia. So, what made the difference in this most recent case?

The answer is simple. It was laid out in detail yesterday in the Geek's blog. Putin had no realistic alternative assuming he wanted both to keep his hands on the levers of power and retain the respect of Beijing.

The next Russian crew which runs afoul the Ak-waving, skiff-riding bunch of Somali "unemployed fishermen" may not be so lucky. Militating against this melancholy conclusion is the simple fact that Vladimir The Bold has acted as he did this time. This raises a key question: Can Putin now let go of the tiger whose tail he has so firmly grabbed?

This is a poser for the "Good Czar." The only thing worse than the appearance of weakness is a policy of vacillation. Having taken the tough line, Vladimir The Decisive cannot now shift to one which is--or seems--less firm.

Unless, of course, he wants to change his name from Vladimir to Barak.

Hey, Vladimir, You Going To Wimp Out This Time?

The Jolly Swashbucklers of Somalia have hit the big time with the seizure of the MV Moscow University. The ship is registered under the Liberian flag but is owned by a Russian company and is crewed by honest-to-gosh Russians. It is carrying a fifty megabuck cargo of oil to China.

The ship was taken by the usual skiffs filled with "unemployed fishermen" equipped with the ever present Russian designed AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades (probably also of an initial Russian provenance.) The crew apparently played hide-and-seek with the pirates for some minutes or even hours while sending out distress calls. Finally the crew locked themselves in the ship's "secure room."

To some extent the Russian ship's crew (or at least the captain) has responsibility for the current predicament. The ship was not registered with the Maritime Security Center, which is the clearinghouse for maritime traffic and is supposed to assure a greater level of immunity to pirate attacks.

According to a spokesman for the European Union's pirate fighting detachment in the region, the MV Moscow University contacted a Russian warship on duty in the Gulf of Aden reporting the tanker and its eighty-six thousand tons of oil were being boarded. The Russian anti-submarine warfare vessel Marshal Shaposposhnikov headed to the Moscow University's reported position at flank speed.

As Vladimir Putin is wont to say, the situation is in need of clarification. While it may be presumed the Merry Buccaneers are in control of the ship, this is not certain. If the crew is hunkered down behind the locked, reinforced steel doors of their secure room an interesting question comes to mind: Just how are the Dauntless Ex-Fisherfolk of the Somali Coast going to drive their new acquisition given that it is a tad larger than the outboard powered skiffs they are used to?

Unless the teenage thugs are the greatest sailors since Barnacle Bill, the likelihood of getting the Moscow University to safe(?) harbor in Somalia some five hundred miles away are slim to none. This means they will have to elicit the cooperation of at least some of the Russians. If, as is typically the case, the Brigands of the Briney Deep have RPGs it will be possible for them to blast a good sized hole in the bulkheads or hatches of the "secure room."

Such a robust action brings with it the high chance of one or more Russians ending up dead or, if truly (un)lucky, badly wounded. In the past the Somali Swagmen have been reasonably careful not to kill crew members of the ships they hijack, but accidents can happen.

Right now, even in the absence of Russian corpses Vladimir Putin has a challenge. A very real challenge which if not handled properly will have an impact on his major league problem in the North Caucasus.

Unlike the last time the pirates captured a vessel with a Russian connection--remember?--the ship filled with tanks and other weapons, the MV Moscow University is laden not only with oil but with political symbolism. Consider the name. Now add to it the fact that the ship is owned by Novoship a subsidiary of Sovcomflot. As the name implies, Sovcomflot is owned by the government. Finally, think about the cargo--oil--and the destination--China.

Then there is the crew. Unlike the last time, the time of the tank carrying freighter, the crew is Russian. Not Ukrainian. Not a mixture of swab jockeys from former Soviet components or Warsaw Pact subordinates. Russians.

Think for a moment about the impoverished unemployed fishermen of Somalia. Think particularly of their religion. That's right, bucko, the pirates are Muslims.

Now the Geek is perfectly well aware that it is completely against the good manners of today to link icky-poo things such as armed robbery on the high seas or ineptly constructed but malignly intended vehicle borne improvised explosive devices left in Times Square with a religion. The Geek also acknowledges that Islam qua Islam in all probability is not high on the list of motivations for most Somalian gun-toting skiff-riders.

The connection between piracy for ransom and Islam is not a matter for clerical debate; rather it is a matter of both political and financial importance for the jihadists of Somalia. And, (drum roll, please) the North Caucasus. In Somalia there is a direct link between the pirates and the Islamist jihadist groups currently contending for ultimate ascendancy in Somalia. It has been well documented that the pirate syndicates provide financial comfort to the Islamists. The transactions may fall under the term, "extortion" or "protection," but it is equally likely that the pirates are purchasing information, support, and other services from Islamist jihadist entities. It does not stretch credulity to posit that the pirates are giving money to the Islamists as a free will offering, a material sign of shared religion, mutual values, and common goals.

The insurgents of Chechnya and the rest of the North Caucasus region are Islamic. The leadership and many of the lower ranking sorts are not only Islamic but Islamist. The impact of political Islam, Islamism, upon the people of the North Caucasus has grown geometrically over the past few years. It is not exaggerating to see the insurgents of the North Caucasus as part of the multi-party wave of Islamist jihadism which includes but is most certainly not limited to the two Talibans and al-Qaeda.

The very blunt and quite unpleasant ground truth facing Vladimir of the Bare Chest is this: If the seizure of the MV Moscow University is allowed to run the normal course of prolonged captivity followed by payment of a large ransom, the jihadists of the North Caucasus will be handed a great propaganda victory. The Mighty Men of the Kremlin will have been humbled by the Will of Allah expressed by a handful of teenagers with automatic weapons.

Worse for Vladimir, Dimitry, and Company the propaganda will have the great advantage of being true. Anything other than a clear, quick ending to the hijacking without the payment of ransom will constitute a defeat of Moscow by the forces of Islam in the eyes (and on the lips) of the Muslim insurgents of the North Caucasus.

In the view of the proud, highly nationalistic Russian people generally any finale to the current contretemps off the Somali coast which does not involve a military dimension--and victory--will be a defeat of Vladimir the Good Czar. At this juncture in Russian history the people of Russia, particularly their hoi polloi, are not inclined to see a defeat of Russian will and arms with equanimity. Being bested by a bunch of dark hued, Muslim kids with speedboats, guns, and chutzpah would be totally unacceptable to Ivan in the street.

Nor would China be impressed by a surplus of "restraint" on the part of the Kremlin. The Mandarins of the Forbidden City tend to base their calculus of power on another country's will and ability to exercise force effectively when faced with a direct challenge. Should Vladimir and the Boys of the Kremlin balk at the jump, the Chinese senior leadership would find it necessary to engage in (to use John Foster Dulles' fine term,) "an agonizing reappraisal" of Sino-Russian relations.

Taken together all these factors and implications add up to an amount of freight far outweighing the cargo of the MV Moscow University. And, that, bucko, must add up to a sleepless night or two for Vladimir Putin. It couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.

Obama And "Point 31"

Hidden under the plethora of ink and electrons generated by Ahmedinejad at the UN and (fortunately) inept Pakistani makers of VBIEDs, there are some real foreign policy and national security matters. This is not to deprecate the potential for major bloodletting had Faisal Shahzad been less incompetent. Nor is to minimize the dangers lurking behind the hyperbolic rhetoric and warped history purveyed by Iran's Orator-in-Chief at the UN.

Both represent clear and present harm to American national security and interests.

Still, there are times when the largest of future harms resides in cool text buried away in tedious documents read by few and acted upon by still fewer. Such is the case with a draft document currently being circulated by this year's capo of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Egypt, for the guidance of the one hundred or so countries holding membership in NAM. Deep in the bowels of this paper is Point 31.

Point 31 calls for all signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to refrain from transferring or allowing the transfer of any and all materials, equipment, and knowledge related to nuclear research and engineering to Israel unless and until that country joins the NPT. Point 31 also calls upon all signatories to the NPT (which, of course, includes the US) to disclose all information in their possession regarding the Israeli nuclear program including but not limited to a full release of all information relevant to previous transfers of equipment, technology, materials, and knowledge to the Jewish state. The Egyptian position paper is unclear if this requirement would be rendered null in the event Israel signs the NPT.

Egypt is, as it has been for many years now, plumping for the nuclear disarmament of Israel under the beguiling guise of creating a nuclear weapons free Mideast. The Egyptians are not motivated in this so far bootless quest by high minded desires to see the Mideast as an idyllic place in which heavy atoms eager to fission or light atoms equally happy to fuse are conspicuous by their absence.

The government and military command of Egypt like their counterparts throughout the Arab majority region recognize perfectly that Israel's nuclear capacity is the ultimate guarantor of Israel's existence, of Israel's capacity to defeat any hypothetical combination of adversaries, even one equipped with overwhelming superiority in the most technologically advanced warlike stores and munitions. This realization has a universal deterrent effect upon even the most zealous advocate of wiping the Zionist entity off the map.

Mark this well. It is the Israeli possession of nuclear weapons which assures Israel's survival and not any promises on the part of any and every American administration. History has proven to the satisfaction of the Israelis (at least) that the promises of an outside Great Power are not sufficient to deter a resolute and motivated enemy. They, in apparent contrast to President Obama and others in his administration, learned the single greatest lesson of World War II. That lesson is contained in the failure of the Anglo-French guarantees to Poland.

Sure, the agreement was signed. It was publicly declared to be the guiding light of national policy in both London and Paris. Yet, Hitler unleashed the panzers anyway. He was unimpressed by either the political will or material capacity of the French and British to intervene effectively on Poland's behalf.

Hitler was proven wrong. It took nearly six years and millions of dead. And, what good did Poland receive in the process? Ask the corpses of Katyn forest.

The government and people of Israel mean no disrespect to the US when they aver or imply that a country must look to its own resources to protect its own interests, chief among which is national survival. It is not so much that the Israelis do not believe the good intentions of the many American presidents (including Mr Obama) when they announce the linkage between Israel and the US, but rather, they know that reality may prove different when push comes to shove.

In this the government of Israel is no different from that of France under Charles de Gaulle. The Great Charles irked the US no end when he went his independent way with the creation of an all-French nuclear force. Small to be sure, but existing solely to protect French interests.

France was easily accepted as a nuclear power, a member of the NPT committed in theory to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. In that status France is equal to the earlier developers of nuclear arms, the US, the UK, the USSR, and China. All of these members of the "Official" Nuclear Club are equally committed to the goal of a "nuclear free"world.

Whether the same can be said of the members of the "Unofficial" Nuclear Club, those countries which have nuclear weapons but are not subscribers to the NPT is arguable. India, Pakistan, and (in an intentionally ambiguous way) Israel constitute the "Unofficial" bunch. On a purely realpolitik basis it is quite unlikely that any are in favor of proliferation. But, none are legally committed to this which puts them at inherent odds with the five big guys of the "Official" club.

It is of more than simply passing interest that the Egyptian Point 31 mentions only Israel by name. Arguably there is not even an implication that the same strictures should apply to NPT signatories with respect to the other two members of the "Unofficial" group. Perhaps this is due to an Egyptian capacity to sleep soundly given that (a) Pakistan is a fellow Islamic country and (b) India is too preoccupied with either or both Pakistan and China to spare any bombs for Egypt.

More probably the Egyptian care in labeling is based on practical politics. Cairo has no desire to annoy fellow NAM heavyweight India or its colleague in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC,) Pakistan. Assuring the full compliance of the juggernaut of the NAM or the slightly smaller bloc of the OIC means not ruffling any of the easily displaced diplomatic feathers of the highly nationalistic governments of India and Pakistan.

Point 31 does represent a diplomatic tarbaby for the Obama bunch. By so eagerly and publicly embracing the chimera of a "nuclear free" globe as well as a similar status for the Mideast, the Nice Young Man From Chicago has created a very pretty problem for himself.

Linking the threat presented by Iran with a reduction in nuclear weapons has boxed Obama quite well. It will be far, far more difficult to isolate Iran sufficiently at the current NPT review conference without giving some measure of support to the Egyptian position. At the same time, any support for Cairo's cleverly worded Point 31 will result in further intransigence on the part of Israel.

Obama has overlooked or willfully ignored the ground truth here. Without its ambiguous nuclear policy, Israel is a small, stationary target for all attackers from the suicide bomber to the combined conventional forces of the Arab "frontline states."

Obama has overlooked or willfully ignored the necessary corollary. No state can rely upon the promises of another when existential matters are involved. As Le grande Charles put it, "Is it believable that the US will put New York or even Chicago at risk to protect Paris or Lyon?"

Even if much lower stakes are involved, can any responsible government hand over the guarantee of existence to an outside power? Particularly one whose support for Israel seems to be evanescent to a degree previously unthought?

So far Iran has done a commendable job in enlisting the support of members of NAM as well as other "small" non-nuclear states with the contention that the West generally and the US in particular constitute an oppressive minority practicing the most hypocritical of policies with respect to nuclear energy. The addition of Egypt's Point 31 goes a long, long way to firm this pro-Iranian tilt at the UN.

Much of President Obama's approach deserves (cautious) commendation. But, his stance on a nuclear free world generally and a Mideast similarly lacking in nuclear weapons is misguided and counterproductive. If nothing else, Mr Obama, Ms Clinton, and others need to get a grip on the reality that pressuring Israel to join the NPT and relinquish its nuclear guarantee of national survival is as wrong as a cat barking.

Mr Obama, Ms Clinton, and the other high minded idealists of the administration also need to take a very firm grip on another reality. The opponent right now in the Mideast/Persian Gulf region is not Israel. It is Iran. And, on the diplomatic front as well as the practical one of developing a breakout capacity, Iran is winning.

This means, we--and the rest of the civilized world--are losing. Thank you, President Obama. Will you ever learn that vaporous words and invoking the shade of Saul Alinsky won't hack it in international politics? Before it is too late?

Chavez Continues To Prove The Obvious

Some people just don't ever learn. High on the list of those who are learning impaired are socialists. Topping that heap is Hugo (The Mouth of the South) Chavez whose Bolivarian Revolution--"Socialism for the Twenty-First Century" is coming an every bigger cropper with each passing day.

While Hugo's weekly hours of rant on Venezuelan radio/television remind one of Castro's original brand albeit with a sense of humor, the paratrooper-turned-strongman is not simply a clown with delusions of adequacy. He is a potential danger to the stability and peace of at least a portion of South America as his recurrent threats and bloviations against neighboring Columbia make clear.

He is also a potential menace to the security of the US. Some of the potential menace is indirect, the consequence of Venezuela becoming a major drug shipment center. But, the real potential for danger arises from the ever closer relations between Chavez' government and that of Iran, and, even more important in the emerging threat category, the use of Venezuela by Hezbollah and Hamas personnel.

The combination of drug smuggling; the presence of dedicated, well-trained specialists in terror and asymmetrical warfare; Iranian money and other resources; Chavez' personal, visceral hatred, fear, and loathing of the US; and the collapsing Venezuelan economy does not bode well for American national interest or security. The apparent instability of Chavez' psyche coupled with the evident erosion of the Venezuelan social compact under economic stress does nothing to reassure one that the Hero Of The Bolivarian Revolution might not continence, even foster a clandestine strike against US territory even before launching an adventure into Columbia with his new Russian supplied weaponry.

The implosion of the economy in Venezuela, the fifth largest source of US oil, has reached levels which must be alarming to the Vaca of Caracas. Inflation is reported at thirty-five percent--and rising as if Hugo is bent on imitating his mentors in Iran. Rolling blackouts caused by the decaying nature of the country's hydroelectric system and complicated by the decay of its oil fired power plants hit all the country's larger cities for several hours (or more) per day.

The darkened streets of Caracas must be a boon to the criminals of the city. Caracas has a homicide rate which surpasses even that of Cuidad Juarez where the murders are so commonplace that they are now lumped together in the "other news" section of the daily papers. Given the loss of employment in Caracas, the growth of crime and murder is not surprising.

Somewhat more surprising is the fact that Venezuela's downhill slide started a couple of years ago during the period of record high oil prices. This counter-intuitive condition can be attributed simply and solely to the sheer incompetence and total ineptitude of the socialists who have taken over so much of the country's extraction and manufacturing base and a fair chunk of its agricultural products distribution system.

While South America is generally on a fast road to recovery from the Great Recession with Peru, Chile and Brazil pegged to have growth rates this year at or above four percent, Venezuela is projected to have a contraction of at least two percent and perhaps as much five. This decline comes on top of last years negative growth of 3.3 percent.

All the decline can be attributed to the moribund nature of the private sector coupled with the exceptional inefficiency of the nationalized industries and businesses. In short, Chavez has been proving once again the sad stories of Cuba and other adopters of the socialist brand of command economies: Socialism does not work.

Chavez loudly and almost without letup pins the rap for the failure of his Bolivarian brand on the sinister manipulations of the US. To make sure his message is the only one heard, the Mouth has closed all opposition outlets, jailed dissidents, and, most recently, launched a risible counterattack on Twitter. But no matter how creative and insistent Chavez might be, the combination of oppression and propaganda can neither conceal nor reverse the structural realities at home.

Money blown on weapons cannot be spent on urgently necessary repairs to and improvements of the country's degenerate infrastructure. Efforts directed toward militarizing the nation's youth, suppressing dissent, excoriating neighbors, pouring vitriol on the US and other evil capitalists cannot go toward identifying and rectifying such basic, enervating difficulties as the flight of the middle class, the technically competent, the educated, the people whose energies and talents are so vital to the collective success of the nation and the state.

Looking ahead, it is necessary to ask, "Sr Chavez, when the verbal mongering of war proves insufficient, when the blame game fails, when the bottom continues to fall out of your revolution, what then?"

The underlying anxiety must be that Chavez will resort finally to the reality of war in a desperate attempt to rally a disenchanted population around the national flag--and his leadership. A "splendid little war" perhaps. One with Columbia might do. Or a border dispute with Brazil, or even a tiny naval contretemps with the US. All these are notional at the moment, but none are impossible, particularly should Chavez' party come out on the short end of the vote in the parliamentary elections next September.

The popularity of the volatile Chavez is currently lower than that of President Obama in the US. Hugo is aware of this unpleasant and most inconvenient of truths; so also are his satraps, lackeys, and goons whose phony-baloney jobs are at stake. Balancing this is Hugo's experience based awareness that elections can be jiggered even with Jimmy Carter looking on.

But jiggering and the inevitable post-jiggering criticism from without and dissent from within can take the fun out of being Strongman-For-Life. It is at trying times like this that a re-elected dictator needs some help from his friends. Something to take away the pain of all those accusations, all that finger-pointing and name-calling. A little balm for the embattled soul of a man dedicated to his people.

Sure, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua will leap to the call. They all are, after all, the most fraternal of states, all possessed of a weak, socialist economy; a politics of victimization; and united in a common distaste for the US. But, their sympathy might not be enough to offset the difficulties in which Hugo stands.

He may need heavier guns in his corner. A more potent--and successful source of succor.

Ah, yes, there is a friendly country which meets that description--Iran. Tehran has a fine record of staring down the US and the rest of the Security Council. It sure would be comforting to get a bit of understanding and support from that quarter.

In answering, Iran may call for a bit of the old quid pro quo.

For the quid of diplomatic, military, and economic support, Hugo might be asked, politely of course, by someone from Tehran, "Say, Sr Chavez, how about giving our guys from Hezbollah a little fraternal assistance on a trip to the Land Up North?"

That one could hurt--us.

A Frenchman Sends A Warning--To Us

A noted French novelist (a status which amounts in that country to one of public intellectual)by the name of Pascal Bruckner has delivered himself of a piece of non-fiction which is not only a severe indictment of contemporary Europe but a stern warning for the US--particularly our Europhilic hoi oligoi. Titled Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism the book has been brought out by Princeton University Press. It is a must read for anyone interested in the current state of play in international politics--or the self-imposed "graceful decline" of the US.

M. Bruckner argues that Europeans or, more accurately, members of the Western European elite have come to the morbid conclusion that their region, their countries are the fountainhead of all that is evil in the world. A collateral, necessary conclusion is that the underdeveloped areas of the world, not only the former colonial possessions of European states but all the other pseudo-states regardless of how feudal, corrupt, religiously hag ridden they might be are the sole repositories of virtue.

The vast congeries of (to be ever-so-delicate about it) lesser developed countries are referred to collectively by Bruckner as the "South." His usage parallels the common view which has developed without regard to facts either economic or geographic holding the world is somehow divided at the Equator with the "rich" and "developed" places in the north and all the others, the "exploited," the "oppressed," being down south.

An unspoken companion sub-text is that the north is the home of those exploiters, those oppressors, those inventors of capitalism, of fascism, of all other sorts of crimes against humanity--the white guys. The south is, of course, the provenance of "people of color." The sub-text, no less than the open one, is predicated upon a rejection of geographic, demographic, and other realities.

The (as Bruckner sees it) guilt ridden Europeans have been engaging in a never ending exercise in self-flagellation over their presumed historical culpability for such unpleasant manifestations of economic, political, and social trajectories as imperialism, fascism, wars of conquest to say nothing of the machines of killing developed in their own (primarily) internecine conflicts culminating in the butchery and devastation of World War II. At the same time the blinders of guilt have prevented the Europeans from seeing any, let alone all the discoveries, inventions, intellectual revolutions which have provided so much of the good extant in the world today--and provided the motivation and capacity of the Europeans to engage in the self-criticism which has typified recent decades.

The tipping point, it may be inferred from M. Bruckner's assessment, which shoved the European elite over the edge came in the past decade with the challenge to Europe presented by the Islamist jihadists and their apologists. There is much in contemporary history to support that analysis.

High on the list is the sea change in view regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict(s). Not much more than ten years ago Israel was still the preferred party; now it is the most goatish of goats. Or, consider the reaction of the Spanish, not simply the hoi oligoi but the folks in the street to the Madrid subway bombings. The flying finger of guilt was pointed not at the jihadist bombers but at the government. Even those who died in the blasted and twisted metal were seen as having been at least somewhat responsible for their own murders.

More recently European elite opinion has been outraged by expressions of national and cultural identity and pride on the part of the hoi polloi. Accurate, fact-predicated opposition to creeping "Islamization," or what is perceived as cringing submission to the dictates and demands of Muslims have been shrilly denounced by the European elite.

And, as M. Bruckner notes, while anti-Americanism has always been a favored activity on the part of Western Europeans, particularly the French, this old standby has been elevated far beyond mere cult status in the wake of the American response to 9/11. This trajectory strongly supports Bruckner's contention that increasingly Europeans have been seeking to displace their own sense of guilt onto the US as the ultimate inheritor of everything European.

So far, so good. Applause and kudos to M. Bruckner all around. But, the man finally goes astray. Perhaps desperately astray.

M. Bruckner congratulates the US for its self-confidence, courage, resolve, and lack of guilt. As a historian specializing in the US, the Geek can only conclude that this is a exercise in creative non-fiction on the part of M. Bruckner. Or, in a kinder alternative, M. Bruckner is not well acquainted with the "blame America first crowd which has long littered the campuses of our universities and which has extended its long reach well into the media and political structures of this country.

Being French it is possible that M. Bruckner has not noticed that the US political landscape now includes a president who has denied the existence of any sort of genuine "American exceptionalism." That, indeed, President Obama publicly trivialized the notion by equating this long-standing belief with the natural patriotic feelings which afflict the citizens of all countries.

Similarly, M. Bruckner appears in his praise of the US to have missed the rise, one is tempted to write, "the triumph" of cultural relativism within the American elites. He has not seen just how unwilling if not unable so many members of the self-appointed intellectual, political, and opinion molding upper strata are to make value judgments on matters originating in countries outside the US.

He has not seen the decaying political confidence and social cohesiveness which has resulted in an extreme reluctance on the part of the US to assert itself in international affairs, preferring instead to engage in bootless efforts at "outreach," or apologies for alleged wrongs of the past. Apparently, he has not seen the companion degeneration contained in the nation's inability and unwillingness to even secure its own borders.

He has not observed the hand-wringing apologetics offered by the American elites for words and symbols which might be found by someone, somewhere, somehow to be violative of alleged "sensitivities." Nor has the rise of the politics of victimization and the scar it has left on both the American domestic political landscape and its conduct of foreign policy appeared on his radar scope.

In short, M. Bruckner has not shown himself to be aware of a very bitter reality rampant in the rarefied air at the peaks of American intellectual, journalistic, and political life. It is, most tragically, the same air as that breathed in Western Europe. And, it has the same brain damaging effects.

Undeserved feelings of national, collective guilt are abroad in the American hoi oligoi. Like their European counterparts these Americans are willing and ready to declare that their country is one of the foci of global illnesses of all kinds while the South is a source of all that is pure and right in human life.

There are almost as many Americans as Europeans eager to don sackcloth and ashes (or perhaps a burqa) and proclaim our guilt before the sinless of the South. We may not have gone as far down this ill-favored path as the Europeans, but we are headed (at least at the top) in the same direction.

The direction and the consequences are what make M. Bruckner's effort well worth the time of reading. It is a powerful red flag.

Which Is Worse--Harassment Or Getting Killed?

Reading the Mexican press gives one the impression that the State of Arizona has not simply declared war on Mexico but intends to wage genocide on Hispanics generally. Even making due allowance for the hyperbola so common in the exercise of the favorite Mexican occupation of Bash-the-Yanqui, the rhetorical overkill is exceptional. (Reuters brings a very mild English language example of the outburst of outrage, here.)

Articles in Spanish intended for domestic consumption are far more extreme as are the frothings of politicos at all levels from village mayors to El Presidente. There is no doubt but many of these worthies, both journalistic and political, have convinced themselves--or at least desire to give the impression of having been convinced--that Arizona has declared a free-fire zone on any and all people who might have a tan skin and/or speak with an accent.

The Mexican rants have been seconded strongly by assorted politicians and public figures--including the ever camera-ready Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Additionally all segments of the blogosphere to the right of Attilathehun.us (The Geek hopes no such site exists) are serving up the view that the Arizona law regarding illegal immigrants will be followed instantly by posses of Tea Party types equipped with fully automatic weapons gunning down any and all who cannot prove beyond the shadow of a 'birther" doubt their right to breath good old 'Merican air. (Note: there are too many examples available to merit links.)

It is time to get a grip, bucko.

Actually, there are two realities upon which a firm grip must be taken. The first, and most obvious, is the motives behind the Arizona enactment which is, in the Geek's estimate, perhaps, but only perhaps, a tad over the edge. The second, the more important is the base hypocrisy hiding under the clouds of Mexican outrage.

Arizona, like the Geek's home state of New Mexico, is heavily Hispanic. It is quite possible that the state to our west exceeds the Land of Enchantment as an entrepot for illegal immigrants from throughout Central and South America. It is equally probable that Arizona has seen more spillover violence from the drug war currently in progress in Mexico than has New Mexico.

Certainly, more directly drug related murder has occurred during the past two years in the great cities of Arizona than in New Mexico. These homicides have been well planned, well executed, and have exhibited sophisticated tactics and weapons. Most, if not all, remain unsolved.

Given this concatenation it is not surprising that many residents (seventy percent in one recent poll) are afraid enough to support even the relatively drastic action represented by the Arizona law. It would appear that even Hispanic descent citizens in Arizona are more worried about the illegal immigrants and drug violence than they are of the police and the potential for such admittedly real hazards as profiling and harassment.

Being hassled by the cops is no fun. The Geek knows that well from numerous unpleasant such experiences at the hands of federal border agents and assorted local cops alike due to his (very) long hair, tan complexion, and Indian features. His own anti-authoritarian personality has done nothing to make these encounters any less unenjoyable (hopefully for the minion of the state as well).

Nonetheless, it is utterly certain that there are many things far worse than being rousted by a man with a badge and an attitude. These range from losing employment in favor of a less costly and far more amenable to exploitation illegal immigrant to being caught in the crossfire between businessmen seeking to settle trade disputes with rock and roll capable weapons.

Given the inability of the federal government to craft a solution to the problem of illegal immigration which can achieve an acceptable measure of consensual support among We the People it is inevitable that some state would make the first move. State governments no less than the one located in Washington, D.C. have the responsibility of securing the domestic order. When a problem such as that presented by illegal immigrants perturbs the tranquility and good order of a state's population, it must act or lose political legitimacy.

Arguably, the Arizona law has headed off more informal and far more intimidating, not to say violent, means employed by vigilance committees of one sort or another. That alternative is not all that remote given the fear created by homicides committed by illegal aliens--typified in an exaggerated and fortunately rare form in the recent killing of an Arizona rancher near the border by a man whose footprints went straight back to the border.

(In this context it might be recalled that Autoarms marketed its version of the famed Tommygun to ranchers along the Rio Grande with ads featuring the lone cowman confronting a group of armed Mexicans. The Thompson .45 submachinegun gave the lone ranger all the advantage needed to keep his humble house and herd safe from depredation. The ad campaign back in the Twenties kept the struggling company alive and the "tommy chopper" available for others including Al Capone and his violin case toting boys.)

Being no more of a constitutional scholar than is the current president, the Geek will not hazard a detailed assessment as to the probability that the Arizona law will survive court challenge. But, it probably will not given that even the federal courts are political bodies and sway wildly to the controlling gusts of political winds whipped up by the hoi oligoi.

It can only be hoped that the controversy stirred by the Arizona legislature and governor will kick Congress hard enough to produce the necessary federal immigration reform legislation. Accomplishing this task will not be easy given the polarizing effects of the reform efforts in the past. Squaring the circle of providing the "path to citizenship" while assuring border security as well as giving no hint of rewarding past violations of immigration law. (Hint: The time may be upon us to end the birthright citizenship which automatically accrues to any who take a first breath on some part of American soil. This might go a long way to gaining support for "amnesty.")

And now, the big enchilada--the grotesque hypocrisy of Mexican media and politicians alike. There is a basic problem with their crocodile tears over the fascist Arizonians. That problem is quite simply the vile things which happen to Central Americans during their passage through Mexico en route to the Land of the Big PX.

Folks from Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and other desperately impoverished and increasingly drug violence ridden Central American states are victimized by both criminals and officials on their long and very dangerous trek north. These illegal birds of passage are robbed, beaten, raped, kidnapped for ransom, and murdered in truly wholesale lots.

It has been reported that Amnesty International using data from the National Human Rights Commission believes that no fewer than ten thousand migrants were kidnapped in Mexico during a single six month period last year. Not only have criminal gangs including those normally associated with drug trafficking such as Los Zetas been perpetrators of the kidnappings, the robberies, the beatings, the rapes, and the murders, so also have members of assorted Mexican law enforcement agencies.

To the illegal traveler on the rails and roads of southern and central Mexico there is no way to tell the cops from the crooks other than the fact the first has the badge and the second the better weapons. Then, in northern Mexico, on the final approach march to the border, the cops and crooks are joined by the coyotes, the occupational traffickers in human beings whose expropriations and inhumanity make the behavior of the cops and crooks pale into virtual insignificance.

Those are the realities on the Great Road North.

Do Mexicans vituperate against these sins in their midst? Do Mexican media and political figures denounce those who rape, beat, rob, kidnap, and kill men and women from the countries to their south?

Of course not. Don't be silly. There is no profit in it. No votes. No better circulation or ratings. Anyway, who wants to sully the pure nation of Mexico, the nationalism of the Mexicans? That would only give comfort to the Yankees.

Then what about the Yankees? Does President Obama find the beatings, robberies, kidnappings, rapes, murders of Central Americans by Mexicans to be as despicable, as abhorent as he finds the Arizona law? Who knows, the record is silent.

What about the reverends Sharpton and Jackson? Silence again. Perhaps these two men of God are of the view that violence directed by brown against brown is just fine. Only harassment by the white guy with a badge of a brown person merits condemnation from pulpit or street demonstration.

And, where are the cries of alarm, the tocsin of opposition from the Left, from the Huffington Post, Alternet, the Daily Kos? Silence once more. Perhaps the beating, raping, robbing, kidnapping, and killing of the unarmed, impoverished by the armed impoverished is OK providing both parties are of the same color and language. As long as victim and victimizer are identical in color, language, and (presumably) socio-economic class no harm worthy of mention is done.

Only actions by the powerful, by Whites in a legislature, or wearing a badge or simply supporting the acts merit opposition, earn opprobrium, deserve the epithets. Thus the word, "hypocrisy" is spelled in both Spanish and English.

Get a grip, people. There is a real problem with illegal immigration. The Arizona law shows that unmistakably. Hurling words from behind the barricades of sanctimonious rectitude--and hypocrisy--will do nothing to advance a solution. Unless and until these people on both sides of the border can develop a solution which will be acceptable to the majority of We the People, the greatest service they can provide those of us born here, those of us who are here legally, and those of us who are illegal immigrants is to sit down and shut up.

Too Good For Our Own Good

Over the past century or so the primary characteristic of American foreign policy has been the tension between realism and ideology. While there has been some seesawing back and forth between the extremes of realpolitik and idealism run rampant, the overall trend has been toward the ideological pole.

Ideals have a very real place in the making and executing of foreign policy. Even ideology in and of itself is not necessarily bad. When, however, the dictates of ideology--any ideology--suppress a careful calculation of the realities resident in a situation, the consequences are most likely going to be poor, even disastrous.

In this context it is utterly essential to remember that governments are not moral beings like individual humans. Governments are impersonal constructs which function as agents on behalf of the nation, the society, or, more properly, that component of society which functions as the polity. It is the polity which sets the pace. The polity determines the nature of national interest. The government functions as the agency which seeks to advance or protect the national interest.

Government is to polity as a lawyer is to the client. That analogy is not precise but it is close enough to the reality of global life to serve as a quick guide.

National interest is composed of concerns or values widely shared within the polity. Some of these are long-lived, virtually permanent features on the national landscape. Others are evanescent, driven into existence by a high profile event, acted upon and then flicker out as new events, new concerns flash across the horizon of the polity's awareness. Still others, arguably the most filled with potential disaster, are the result of a specific ideology.

Stepping back in time a bit, for the first century and more of its existence, the US had little in the way of foreign relations. The men who founded this country were practical politicians and realists. Their view was simply that the US had only one true, compelling national interest--survival. They realized that this new nation was a very small fish in a large ocean populated by sharks with long, sharp teeth.

Despite some horrid miscalculations early in the Nineteenth century, which included almost getting into simultaneous wars with both England and France, the US played a cautious, highly conservative, and ideologically flat role in the world through and beyond the War Between the States. Even our advance into the colonial adventure at the bitter end of the Mauve Decade was justified as conservative--a defensive action needed to assure that our long standing national interest of open, free maritime commerce and access to foreign markets remained intact in the Pacific and Asia.

The first real excursion into an ideologically driven policy came at the bitter end of the Nineteenth century when John Hay announced the famed "Open Door" policy with respect to China. This policy was of the declaratory sort which meant it had neither legal standing nor an inbuilt capacity for enforcement. It is doubtful that any country among the collection of raptors who regarded China with appraising eyes saw any need to heed the new US policy--including the US itself.

On occasion, declaratory policy is harmless, a kind of feel-good move in keeping with the prevalent opinion within an influential segment of the polity. The Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact is one example. No one took this measure seriously beyond a few really sincere peace advocates. Others such as the Open Door policy or the Monroe Doctrine come to be enshrined as national interests worthy of implementing unilaterally if necessary--by force of arms if that is required.

We got away with the Monroe Doctrine in largest measure because the British saw no profit in challenging it. We did not escape unscathed from the Open Door because the Japanese saw great profit in challenging it. So embedded had the Open Door become that the US had no wiggle room for negotiation when the Japanese started to close the door--firmly and permanently. The result was in all the media a few years back. It was called World War II in the Pacific.

Ideology went front and center in both the definition of national interest and the conduct of foreign relations during the years of Woodrow Wilson. President Wilson was a Christian man, a very Christian one, who had strong views on international morality. He saw nations as being bound by the same moral codes as operated on individual people. And, just as a person who violates the moral code may be subject to either punishment or some other form of correction, so should a state which he saw as a bad actor.

Acting on a moral base and totally overlooking the reality that governments are agents not principles, Wilson sought to "teach the Mexicans to elect good men," using Marines and, later, the Army as instructors. Horrified at the submarine's necessary sneakiness and apparently believing that the presence of an American civilian on a British ship (even one which was legally a warship) rendered that boat immune from attack, Wilson worked with vigor and effect to guide the US into war only months after he had been re-elected on a "he kept us out of war" platform.

It is always important to keep in mind that the US had no national interest, nothing which directly, substantially, and materially affected its status in the world, its prosperity, its security in issue on the battlefields of the war. Further, at the time Wilson was spinning his moral distaste with the submarine and the Kaiser for whom they sailed into a full-bore crusade to "make the world safe for democracy," and to wage a "war to end wars," the belligerents on both sides of No Mans Land were on the ropes, approaching collapse economically and psychologically.

A peace of exhaustion was in the offing. This peace would have come even allowing for the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent offensive on the Western Front. The German offensive ran out of human steam well short of a meaningful end. It was not a war-winner let alone an attack defeated by the efforts and losses of the recently arriving American "doughboys."

Had the US stayed on the sidelines, the war would have ended in mutual exhaustion. Arguably the peace would have proven both more equitable and much longer lasting than did the one hammered out (to the accompaniment of the disillusionment of Wilsonian ideals) at Versailles.

Wilson's ideals--including the League of Nations--were ideologically driven pure and simple. While they were momentarily popular with the common folk of Europe, they foundered not only on the cynicism of European leaders, but more importantly, on the bedrock of nationalism throughout the continent--and in the US. The outcome of the ideologically predicated, completely unnecessary American involvement in WW I and the peace process was highly negative to all parties. Its effects linger on even today to the continued vexation of US interests in the Mideast.

In a rational world, the lessons of the Wilson misadventure would have resounded loudly down through the years. This world being marked by an absence of rationality, they did not.

The aftermath of WW II which was called into existence by the unintended by well neigh onto certain merging of the effects of the Open Door and the Versailles Treaty was marked by another burst of idealism and ideology.

The UN was FDR's genuflection before the alter of Wilson. The systemic flaw--that the architects of the UN deemed any and all "nations" to be fully functional "nation-states" in which the large and the small, the mature and the juvenile, the democracies and the autocracies were all seen as equal--constituted a fatal flaw. This flaw was joined by a second. The misplaced belief that the US and the USSR possessed a broad spectrum of coinciding national interests regardless of the vast gulf of history, values, and sense of security which existed between them.

Then there was the Cold War and the concomitant militarization of the doctrine of containment. The Soviet Union represented a massive political threat to Western Europe, particularly France and Italy in the closing years of the Forties, but it was no military threat. Nor would it become one for many, many years--if ever. The US in particular mis-read the blustering rhetoric of the Stalin regime and constructed a bogeyman of gargantuan proportions.

The false image of Soviet military expansion linked with the rise of domestic anti-Communism to create an atmosphere in which the ideology of opposing Communism, assumed to be a global conspiracy of super-human brilliance and persistence became the defining American foreign policy force. This, in turn, produced NSC-68 and the resulting arms race which was, unsurprisingly, mirror imaged in the Soviet Union.

There is not sufficient space here to trace the several historical trajectories and political agendas which resulted in this ideological dynamic. But, you can trust the Geek; he is a doctor. Suffice it to say, the Soviet Union was a hostile entity; it held no brief for the US; it would seek political advantage anywhere in the world where it could do so without running any real risk of a direct, military confrontation with the US which it (correctly) saw as technologically, economically, and culturally superior to itself.

But, rather than playing the Game of Nations as it was, rather than defining our national interests realistically and narrowly, we chose to play the game as our defining ideology feared it might be. This meant that we had to involve ourselves directly and substantially in the affairs of countries in which we had no genuine national interest in play. It also meant we fought a long, and, finally, lost war which was neither necessary nor in our interests.

While the game which we played during the Cold War had some good outcomes such as the success of Apollo in 1969, overall the consequences were far from beneficial to our longer term interests. One of those fields which suffered during the Cold War with results which still detain us at length is found in the incorporation of ideologically derived features into the overall definition of national interest.

Consider democracy. Consider the infinitely amorphous area termed, "human rights." Both have become permanent, central features whenever US policy and national interests are discussed. Such was not the case in past years, way back in the distant decade of the Seventies, remember them? Disco, gas shortages, stagflation, Jimmy Carter? Yeah that was the Decade From Hell.

It is also the decade when the US discovered support of democracy, and focusing on human rights to be central to our national interests. Before the epiphany of that time the US had mouthed much on democracy and done little. We had been content to cozy up with any dictator even the most unseemly if that regime gave the appearance of short-term order (which we cheerfully and quite improperly interpreted to be the equivalent of long-term stability) so as to keep the commies out.

Similarly we were remarkably indifferent to human rights (whatever the term might mean in any given context.) This unengaged attitude applied not only to the actions of "our" dictators but operated with respect to Moscow or Beijing as well. We were silent to all but the most egregious Soviet acts unless there was immediate propaganda hay to be made as in the case of the Berlin Wall, the crushing of the Hungarians in 1956, or the Prague "Spring" eleven years later.

All this changed when the tsunami comprised by Watergate, the debacle in Vietnam, the revelations of the Church and Pike committees, and the revulsion over the Pinochet coup in Chile rolled over the domestic political landscape. Politicians as dissimilar as Scoop Jackson (the senator from Boeing) and Jimmy Carter waved the banner of "human rights" as the Europeans held a mighty convention which gave forth a document on human rights signed by all, including the Soviets, which promised a new day for humanity not unlike the Soviet Constitution of 1937--and was equally a dead letter before the ink was dry.

The Reagan administration raised high the battle flag of democracy--at least rhetorically and joined in the human rights hymn. So well was the imagery of democracy and human rights portrayed that almost no one questioned the relevance of either to the requirements of American national interest. After all, who could be against either?

Both are good in principle, in the abstract. But, neither necessarily protects or advances our national interests such as global stability, open commerce, an absence of war, or economic success. And, each brought with it the potential for ideologically driven interference in venues both remote and tangential to national interests. Further, both carry with them automatically the potential for expansiveness of application which violates the constraints of realism.

The fact that democracy in and of itself brings no guarantee of either stability or peace is seen in the blunt fact that Hitler came to power via an election which met the tests of transparency, fairness, and inclusiveness used even today by Jimmy Carter and others of the election-fairness community. The reality that democracy does not bring leaders agreeable to American national interests is seen right now in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. The reality that democracy does not lead to the sort of stability best for the US is dramatically apparent in Iraq.

Basing any aspect of foreign policy on human rights is to base it on the most slippery of slopes. There may be a Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by all the member countries of the UN, but there is no one universally accepted protocol for defining, let alone enforcing this international version of declaratory policy. There is no practical mechanism for holding each and every country to a single standard in any area of human rights. That is self-evident in the differing fashions in which women are treated in Muslim as compared with non-Muslim countries or the vast gulf in the free exchange of ideas between China on the one hand and the US on the other or the exploitation of children in both industry and warfare.

Human rights and democracy are matters of aesthetics or sensibilities; they are not national interests. The same may be said regarding "humanitarian crises."

Consider Somalia in December 1992. Starvation was real, widespread in that geographical expression. International food aid through either the UN or the plethora of non-governmental organizations concerned with such matters was impeded or stolen by assorted gangs of thugs, various gunslinging bands of diverse warlords. It was not getting to the starving people clustered in camps.

This was disturbing to say the least. It made for images of compelling anguish on the TV screens of the developed world. It was a macabre spectacle of the best sort. But, was it a matter of such compelling US national interest that it merited the deployment of American troops?

George H.W. Bush thought so. For whatsoever constellation of reasons the recently defeated president sent the Marines ashore. He assured We the People the mission would be short, successful and, above all, the right-thing-to-do. Of course, it was longer, bloody, unsuccessful and set the stage for both the emboldenment of al-Qaeda and the concomitant hesitant policy of the Clinton administration in meeting the jihadist challenge.

Overall, the Somalia deployment was a bad thing for American national interests. But, it was neither the last nor the worst conflation of the ideological or the idealistic with the realistic requirements of American national interest.

That point came with George W. Bush. Flagrant idealism caused the mission leap in Afghanistan from a punitive expedition clearly in American national interest to the goal of "nation-building"--a clear impossibility given the history, demographics, and culture of that place. Worse, pure, unadulterated ideology aiming at the chimera of planting democracy in the Arab Mideast caused the invasion of Iraq. This action above all others taken by the US in the past quarter century if not more was the most harmful to US national interests both in the region and around the world which can be seen in the historical record. It was as if Dick Cheney took his famed shotgun and blasted the face clean off Uncle Sam.

Now, as has been noted in many, many posts, the post-modern, multi-cultural, community organizing on a grand scale ideology of President Obama is with us. So far the results have been as can be expected from history--a failure harmful to the real world interests of the US. Once again events are proving that when realpolitik is kicked aside in the interests of ideology, only disaster can be expected.

The question is this. Will the disaster be on the scale of Bush in Somalia or Woodrow Wilson in and after World War I? Well, bucko, only time will tell.