There are weeks when the Geek has regretted his lifelong interest in matters of war, diplomacy, and the shadow lands of covert/clandestine affairs. The past month of so has been one of those periods. It is not that the world has suddenly been infected by a fulminating virus of peace and love. Quite the contrary. Rather the intellectual languor has been promoted by the combination of events having unfolded in a drearily predictable factor and the lack of imagination exhibited by the Deep Thinkers and Bold Actors on all sides of all the many conflicts, armed and otherwise.
A useful example of both predictability and the lack of imagination is presented by the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. The energetic dismantlement of the New Mexican borne cleric is both welcome and long overdue. The fact that he was accompanied on his trip to paradise by the one time resident of North Carolina, Samir Khan, rendered the event all the more pleasurable.
Anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of the UAV campaign in the FATA and the building of a base convenient to Yemen from which Agency operated Predators might make their lethal flights well understood that Awlaki's days were numbered, and that the number was small. The violent death of the genius of Internet (and personal) radicalization became as certain as sunrise when he was placed on the "kill or capture" list last year. Despite the inevitable wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth by the ACLU and other advocates of human rights above the dictates of real life, and regardless of the equally certain condemnations of "extrajudicial execution" already resounding around the world, the Obama administration by it's listing of the imam let it be known that the governing considerations were those of war--a war in which Awlaki had voluntarily enlisted and waged with ever growing success.
With the failure a few months ago to capture Awlaki by a force of Yemeni personnel backed by USSOCOM assets, the only option was killing, and the only practical tool was provided by a Predator launched Hellfire. The only time limits were imposed by the requirements for constructing an operational base and gaining from both Yemeni and national technical means sufficient actionable intelligence. When fractured open source reports out of Yemen a couple of weeks ago indicated a diminishing of drone traffic over the area of Yemen in which Awlaki's tribe holds sway with a ramping up over territory to the country's north, it became evident that the endgame for the preacher was underway.
The removal of Awlaki and Khan from the board is good. But, it is drearily predictable that it is not much more than that. The strike in no way lessens the nature or effectiveness of the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP). Had the reported inclusion of AQAP's chief bombmaker in the body count not been later retracted, the Hellfire would have well and truly hurt the group. As it is, the most that can be said is the killing has had a marginal beneficial impact by reducing AQAP's capacity to use Internet radicalization with the same effect in the future that it has in the past.
Neither the killings nor the knee trembling on the part of human and civil rights lawyers and groups will change the nature of the ongoing war between advocates of violent political Islam and the civilized states and people of the world. The bad guys will keep on being bad actors. The administration and any future one as well will use whatever means are necessary within the broad limits of proportionality to defend the country and its allies against attacks of whatsoever nature.
If there is any alteration in the future, it will be in the direction of placing increased reliance upon UAVs and other means of long range, low signature, low cost of commitment war fighting. The use of special forces teams and UAVs has been both tested and proven in the harsh laboratory of the FATA as well as the one next door in Pakistan. Both capabilities can be of great assistance in countering the potential threats resident in AQAP, al-Shabaab and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM.) Both may be required urgently against the latter threat if AQIM demonstrates greater capability as the result of having tapped into the arms stream flowing from the looted arsenals of Libya.
A greater use of UAVs will provoke an enormous consternation on the part of the usual suspects--the NGOs involved with human and legal rights as well as the apologists for countries which wish ill to the US but cannot match the American technological capacities. There will be more and more political strange bedfellows both domestic and international as the US leans more heavily upon the impersonal, remotely controlled deliverers of death from above. There will be demands beyond count for new conventions to bar such devices as Predator. There will be calls for a moratorium on the use of these infernal machines until the law can catch up with the new technologies.
The only reply to those who believe the Predator and its tribe are inhuman and inhumane is,"Phooey!" It is far better for a single Awlaki to die downrange than to see real war with its effects, unpredictable in detail but certain to include hundreds if not thousands of dead--most of whom will be civilians.
The Predators will continue to fly over Libya even long after NATO's warplanes have packed up and gone home. They will be overhead to observe not only the intended targets of weapons being smuggled or saboteurs preparing but also the probable agony of protracted internal war as the joy of liberation turns into the pain of political disagreements of a very fundamental nature.
Libya (and its neighbors, Tunisia and Egypt) is also drearily predictable. Much of the reason for this observation is found in a remark made by a Salifist Tunisian, 23 years old and holder of a degree in engineering who, when interviewed, opined, "We Salifists are the majority. Democracy is rule of the majority. Why should we allow the minority (secular oriented Tunisians as well as their non-Salifist fellow countrymen) dictate how we should live?"
By this question as well as similar content expressions by legions of Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, and their supporters in the West, the young man demonstrated just why the "Arab Spring" will turn into a Winter, a most harsh and bitter Winter. The promoters of democracy show they well understand democracy in and of itself but fail to see the necessary corollary: Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
Unless properly constrained within the firm dikes of a representational republic and held in check by dams formed by both division of powers and an independent judicial system, democracy is tyranny pure and simple in which the rights of the minorities are either non-existent or tenuous at best. In the rush to embrace democracy without the time necessary to build the essential dikes and dams, no citizen is secure, no rights and liberties are permanent, nothing is safe from the fads and fantasies of public opinion and the winds generated by demagogues.
Libya, unlike Egypt or Tunisia, but quite like Yemen and Afghanistan or other Islamic states, has the additional burden of tribalism. This is not to say tribalism is bad. It isn't. Tribal identity is predominant in several states to the point that they are not real, integrated nation-states but rather collections of tribes sharing a flag.
The attempt to force tribal based societies and polities to pretend they are Western nation-states is doomed to fail. Don't believe? Take a look at Somalia. It is not a failed state because it never was a real state. Rather it was an artifact created by Western diplomats who used the only model making sense to them--the nation-state. The same is true of Afghanistan. Much of the inherent instability there results from ignoring the tribal nature of the human terrain in order to pretend we can make it into a Western style state.
When looking at Libya or Yemen or, to a lesser extent, Syria, the same dynamic is present--tribes forced to act as if their members owed a higher loyalty to the state. The example of Iraq is instructive here. As long as we outsiders insist on democracy and the nation-state as the touchstone of legitimacy, we are helping to doom the targets to a long, harsh Winter.
Even if tribalism of the usual sort is absent as it is in Egypt and Tunisia, there is a functional equivalent at work. That is the existence of differing interpretations of Islam and thus the relation of the faith to the state. The ground truth is Islam carries the seeds of its own failure as a foundation of state. This actuality has been shown in both Iraq and Afghanistan. People may think they want to live in a Shariah based system until they are actually in one. The proponents of austere Islam have and will find that their vision of life is totally unattractive to most people. Then, they must (as do the austere Islamists of Iran) rely upon naked force to oppress their way to continued power.
Put together, the two forms of tribalism, traditional and religious, along with unchecked democracy point to a long, bitter Winter of pronounced discontents. This, in turn, implies a high possibility of protracted or episodic internal war in all its manifold and evil forms. Such is the result of ill-advised exercises in "nation-building" or regime change or support of the "peoples' will.
Coming full circle, the several downsides of either intervention or unthinking support are circumvented completely by using Predators or even special forces units. These approaches to defending against hostile intents and acts minimize the probability of unintended consequences. Predators do not engage in "nation-building," neither do they change regimes. They kill people in serious need of being killed.
To this end, the killing of Awlaki is one important small straw in the very stiff winds of the coming Arab Winter.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Empire Wants To Strike Back
This time around the "empire" is not the US, pace Comrades Hugo and Fidel. The empire in question does not yet exist in its desired, reincarnated form. But, given the ambitions of Turkish prime minister Erdogan and the almost done deal between his country and the mullahs next door in Iran, it is not unfair.
The jefe grande of the Ottoman Empire 2.0 is, like his predecessors, terribly upset by the Kurds. Again in imitation of his non-Islamist forebearers, Erdogan is dreadfully keen on wiping the several groups fighting for Kurdish independence out of existence for once and all. The Supreme Guardian of the Revolution, just like the Shah during the days of the ancien regime, shares the sentiment heart and soul.
The US as well as the (presumably) US backed regime in Iraq are caught somewhere in the middle. Baghdad has a much larger dog in the fight to be sure. Iraqi Kurdistan, which is legally semi-autonomous, is the most stable and prosperous place in the partially rebuilt country. It is not simply Kurdistan's wealth and security that has raised hackles not only in Baghdad but through much of Iraq. No. Rather the deep distaste for Kurds and their region is about the only thing upon which the minority Sunnis and majority Shia can and do agree.
Way back in the mists of history (that is before World War I resulted in a massive exercise in creative cartography), Kurdistan was a territorial whole. It had so existed for a mort of centuries both before and after the Ottoman Turks came to supremacy in Stamboli (or Istanbul, if that is your preference.) The carving up of the old Empire was accomplished courtesy of the machinations of mid-level bureaucrats serving their masters in France and Great Britain. In what was one of the greatest sins committed against the self-determination of nations principle dear to the heart of Woodrow Wilson, the Kurds found their tight little nascent state divided between French run Syria and English operated Iraq with small amounts allocated to the Turkey of Ataturk and the Shah of Persia.
Had this violation of American policy not been allowed to take place, Kurdistan would have long ago been recognized as the independent sovereign state its people wanted (and want) it to be. But, as was so often the case, Wilson believed that the League of Nations (his centerpiece ideologically) would solve the injustice--an injustice he himself acknowledged.
For many decades, the issue rested silently in the mountains which constitute most of "Kurdistan." But that came to an end when the respective "occupying" governments came to realize what resources resided in them thar hills. Oil and hydroelectric resources to be precise. Iraq battened fat off the oil while Turkey saw the rivers as the source of both agricultural and industrial riches. The Iranians and Syrians saw potential in the fast running waters if not the oil and vowed to get their share.
With every passing year, the resources of "Kurdistan" have become more and more critical to Turkey and Iraq. While the other two states have not profited so much, both Tehran and Damascus see the danger resident in a successful separatist movement. The Syrian government both before and after the Baathist came to power sought to suppress the language, culture, and political identity of the Kurdish population. The same has been the case in Iran under both secularist shah and Islamist grand ayatollahs.
Right down to the present day, the central government of Iraq has used all methods fair and foul alike to limit the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan. The only thing keeping Baghdad from emulating the muscular methods of Saddam Hussein in the region has been the military capacity of the Kurdish peshmerga, which could fight the national army to a bloody standstill.
Over the past quarter century, the Kurds have been waging a low level defensive insurgency against both Iran and Turkey. The PKK (shooting Turks) and PJAK (doing the same with Iranians down range) have been a thorn in the side of their target states. Because Turkey is a NATO "partner," the US determined that the PKK is a terrorist organization. Since Iran is a hostile state, the US has not yet made the same determination regarding the other group, the PJAK (aka "good terrorists.)
Comes now Recip Erdogan to announce an impending agreement with Iran to mount a joint effort presumably involving ground as well as air forces against those pesky Kurds and the heavily fortified base camps high in the mountains. The reason to presume a ground effort is the abject failure of air assaults conducted by the Turkish air force to do more than move a few rocks around as well as kill a small number of civilians who did not find shelter in time but who in their deaths provided excellent propaganda material for the Kurds.
So far there has been no reported word from the Iraqi government regarding this proposed violation of sovereignty. Perhaps the Iraqis are more easy going about such matters then are, say, the Pakistanis. Or, the central government might be hoping for a good excuse to move large forces into Iraqi Kurdistan, forces which once there will not be quick to leave.
Nor has the Obama administration made comment on the proposed joint action--except implicitly. For some while the US has been providing intelligence information to Ankara concerning the PKK. This shared catch includes imagery and ELINT obtained by Predators. Now, the word has leaked out that the Obama crew is contemplating basing Predators in Turkey.
Not one to be asleep at the switch, Erdogan has responded by offering to purchase or lease a few Predators so as to cut out the middleman. Considering that the Paks have wanted to do this for a long while now, it would be quite a diplomatic and political coup for Erdogan to achieve the goal.
Not to put too fine a point on the Kurdish Question, there is ample evidence to the effect that the Kurds and their proposed state meet the tests provided in the UN Charter as well as subsidiary conventions. With Iraqi Kurdistan as the linchpin, there is no doubt but the hypothetical Kurdistan would meet the requirements of the Montevideo Convention. Considering this inconvenient context, US policy regarding the Kurds is flatly wrong.
The finding that PKK is a terrorist entity was based simply on the role Turkey theoretically plays in NATO while the similar act by the European Union dates back to the days when Turkey was knocking on the EU door. In short, these actions had little if anything to do with "terrorism" per se and much to do with extraneous political considerations.
Silence in the Oval regarding the odd couple military plans must fall in the same category. Arguably, the decision to share catch with Ankara and the basing of Predators in Turkey constitute another bribe to Erdogan for allowing the installation of the US X-band radar. The decision to allow this anti-Iran move has resulted in severe blowback from Tehran, so the Turkish prime minister probably wants additional compensation.
There is only one open question. No, that question is not will the US switch its policy regarding the Kurds and their right to and desire for a state of their own. Nor does this question involve the notion of granting the government of Iraqi Kurdistan its request of redeploying US forces within its borders. The present administration lacks both the depth of regional understanding and the political will to do either--even if each would be in American national interest.
The only remaining question is whether or not Obama and his "team" will cave and sell-lease a few spare Predators to Erdogan, and through him, the Iranians.
Wanna make a bet?
The jefe grande of the Ottoman Empire 2.0 is, like his predecessors, terribly upset by the Kurds. Again in imitation of his non-Islamist forebearers, Erdogan is dreadfully keen on wiping the several groups fighting for Kurdish independence out of existence for once and all. The Supreme Guardian of the Revolution, just like the Shah during the days of the ancien regime, shares the sentiment heart and soul.
The US as well as the (presumably) US backed regime in Iraq are caught somewhere in the middle. Baghdad has a much larger dog in the fight to be sure. Iraqi Kurdistan, which is legally semi-autonomous, is the most stable and prosperous place in the partially rebuilt country. It is not simply Kurdistan's wealth and security that has raised hackles not only in Baghdad but through much of Iraq. No. Rather the deep distaste for Kurds and their region is about the only thing upon which the minority Sunnis and majority Shia can and do agree.
Way back in the mists of history (that is before World War I resulted in a massive exercise in creative cartography), Kurdistan was a territorial whole. It had so existed for a mort of centuries both before and after the Ottoman Turks came to supremacy in Stamboli (or Istanbul, if that is your preference.) The carving up of the old Empire was accomplished courtesy of the machinations of mid-level bureaucrats serving their masters in France and Great Britain. In what was one of the greatest sins committed against the self-determination of nations principle dear to the heart of Woodrow Wilson, the Kurds found their tight little nascent state divided between French run Syria and English operated Iraq with small amounts allocated to the Turkey of Ataturk and the Shah of Persia.
Had this violation of American policy not been allowed to take place, Kurdistan would have long ago been recognized as the independent sovereign state its people wanted (and want) it to be. But, as was so often the case, Wilson believed that the League of Nations (his centerpiece ideologically) would solve the injustice--an injustice he himself acknowledged.
For many decades, the issue rested silently in the mountains which constitute most of "Kurdistan." But that came to an end when the respective "occupying" governments came to realize what resources resided in them thar hills. Oil and hydroelectric resources to be precise. Iraq battened fat off the oil while Turkey saw the rivers as the source of both agricultural and industrial riches. The Iranians and Syrians saw potential in the fast running waters if not the oil and vowed to get their share.
With every passing year, the resources of "Kurdistan" have become more and more critical to Turkey and Iraq. While the other two states have not profited so much, both Tehran and Damascus see the danger resident in a successful separatist movement. The Syrian government both before and after the Baathist came to power sought to suppress the language, culture, and political identity of the Kurdish population. The same has been the case in Iran under both secularist shah and Islamist grand ayatollahs.
Right down to the present day, the central government of Iraq has used all methods fair and foul alike to limit the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan. The only thing keeping Baghdad from emulating the muscular methods of Saddam Hussein in the region has been the military capacity of the Kurdish peshmerga, which could fight the national army to a bloody standstill.
Over the past quarter century, the Kurds have been waging a low level defensive insurgency against both Iran and Turkey. The PKK (shooting Turks) and PJAK (doing the same with Iranians down range) have been a thorn in the side of their target states. Because Turkey is a NATO "partner," the US determined that the PKK is a terrorist organization. Since Iran is a hostile state, the US has not yet made the same determination regarding the other group, the PJAK (aka "good terrorists.)
Comes now Recip Erdogan to announce an impending agreement with Iran to mount a joint effort presumably involving ground as well as air forces against those pesky Kurds and the heavily fortified base camps high in the mountains. The reason to presume a ground effort is the abject failure of air assaults conducted by the Turkish air force to do more than move a few rocks around as well as kill a small number of civilians who did not find shelter in time but who in their deaths provided excellent propaganda material for the Kurds.
So far there has been no reported word from the Iraqi government regarding this proposed violation of sovereignty. Perhaps the Iraqis are more easy going about such matters then are, say, the Pakistanis. Or, the central government might be hoping for a good excuse to move large forces into Iraqi Kurdistan, forces which once there will not be quick to leave.
Nor has the Obama administration made comment on the proposed joint action--except implicitly. For some while the US has been providing intelligence information to Ankara concerning the PKK. This shared catch includes imagery and ELINT obtained by Predators. Now, the word has leaked out that the Obama crew is contemplating basing Predators in Turkey.
Not one to be asleep at the switch, Erdogan has responded by offering to purchase or lease a few Predators so as to cut out the middleman. Considering that the Paks have wanted to do this for a long while now, it would be quite a diplomatic and political coup for Erdogan to achieve the goal.
Not to put too fine a point on the Kurdish Question, there is ample evidence to the effect that the Kurds and their proposed state meet the tests provided in the UN Charter as well as subsidiary conventions. With Iraqi Kurdistan as the linchpin, there is no doubt but the hypothetical Kurdistan would meet the requirements of the Montevideo Convention. Considering this inconvenient context, US policy regarding the Kurds is flatly wrong.
The finding that PKK is a terrorist entity was based simply on the role Turkey theoretically plays in NATO while the similar act by the European Union dates back to the days when Turkey was knocking on the EU door. In short, these actions had little if anything to do with "terrorism" per se and much to do with extraneous political considerations.
Silence in the Oval regarding the odd couple military plans must fall in the same category. Arguably, the decision to share catch with Ankara and the basing of Predators in Turkey constitute another bribe to Erdogan for allowing the installation of the US X-band radar. The decision to allow this anti-Iran move has resulted in severe blowback from Tehran, so the Turkish prime minister probably wants additional compensation.
There is only one open question. No, that question is not will the US switch its policy regarding the Kurds and their right to and desire for a state of their own. Nor does this question involve the notion of granting the government of Iraqi Kurdistan its request of redeploying US forces within its borders. The present administration lacks both the depth of regional understanding and the political will to do either--even if each would be in American national interest.
The only remaining question is whether or not Obama and his "team" will cave and sell-lease a few spare Predators to Erdogan, and through him, the Iranians.
Wanna make a bet?
Saturday, September 24, 2011
A Bad Day For (American) Politicians On TV
Two politicians, one Democratic--President Obama--and the other a Republican presidential wannabe--Rick Santorum--embarrassed themselves and, in so doing, tossed a pie in the faces of many Americans. Of course, it is a bit unfair to equate the two as one is a member in good standing of a large but still fringe group of We the People and the other is the chief executive of a country which is still a Great Power even in its self-inflicted decline.
Santorum, in his bid for commemoration in the Hall of Exceptional Bad Taste In Politics was assisted by members of the audience present for the Fox/Google Debate in Florida. A large portion of the audience was comprised of the same sort of self-destructive Republicans as had made noteworthy performances in two previous debates. These people constitute the slavering red meat eaters of the intellectually challenged segment of the Party of Elephants whose most evident characteristics are a lack of good taste, a deficiency in empathy, and, most importantly a strong unconscious desire to lose elections.
The former senator from Pennsylvania and champion of the farther Right shores of the badly misnamed "social conservative" wing of the GOP was goaded into a profound demonstration of deep ignorance regarding the realities of military life particularly during wartime by a question posed by a gay soldier currently stationed in Iraq. The question had to do with the deletion of "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) so that homosexuals can serve openly in the US armed forces.
Needless to detail at length, Mr Santorum is against the current policy. He would seek to turn the calender back to the years of DADT with the accompanying demand that non-heterosexuals engage in a combination of deceit and denial. Leaving aside the political impossibility (and ignoring the boos issuing from the oral cavities of the denizens of the Very Very Right) suffice it to note that Santorum's stated desire to emulate Dr Who or Mr Peabody constituted the lesser part of his exceptional ignorance of military life.
The peak of Santorum's idiocy and lack of knowledge came when he stated, "any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military."
That observation is a show stopper for sure. As any and everyone who has spent time in any of the armed forces knows, sex is a constant and highly favored activity often bordering on obsession. So it has been since Achilles was a private. So it will be as long as young people are found in a military service. Even years hence when combat is delegated to machines, it is highly probable that the people monitoring the killbots will have a hard time keeping their utilities buttoned tightly.
Not since the anti-sex campaigns of World Wars I and II when the American morality police pretended that our troops were so pure of heart and mind that they must be protected from the evils of prostitutes both amateur and professional has anyone betrayed the degree of out-to-lunchness exhibited by Mr Santorum. If, indeed, he really does believe what he said, then he has disqualified himself from serious consideration for any office of trust and confidence under the Constitution by virtue of pure, unadulterated ignorance and irremediable stupidity (or ideological blindness.)
A far more important bit of televised damage was inflicted on the US by President Obama's speech to the UN General Assembly. It was more than enough to make a person squirm in raw and unrelieved embarrassment as the POTUS delivered a set of remarks which could have been written by the execrable foreign minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman. The kindest explanation for the presidential exhibition of seriously pathetic policy arises from the overarching Obama need to be reelected--and the crucial relation between that goal and the Israel Lobby.
As the recent by-election in New York demonstrated, there is a strong current of unhappiness with Obama's stance on Israel within the American Jewish community. Shoring up support in this portion of the eroding Democratic base is an urgent matter. Not surprisingly, more than a few political analysts both here and abroad have identified this as the prime mover behind the Obama position, which constituted a nearly complete reversal of policy (such as it was) a year ago.
The problem with this explanation even if it is as accurate as appears, is that international politics is a more unforgiving arena than the domestic sort. Very real lives are at stake. Very real countries with equally real interests are in play. The issue of an Israel-Palestinian settlement is inherently existential in nature and does not allow for the flexibility or retakes common in domestic affairs.
The president threw away the good offices stature once enjoyed by the US. The strident tones and relatively extreme nature of his position taken in the context of past stances undercut any possibility of Washington being seen as an honest broker seeking a fair and equitable solution to the several seemingly intractable problems besetting the Israelis and their Palestinian interlocutors.
This leaves the task to such as the European Union or the Quartet with the US playing a marginal role at best. Mr Obama's "approved by AIPAC" speech also eroded to the point of nonexistence any influence Washington might have had with the Palestinian Authority or its Mideast state supporters. Worse, the president appeared to put the US squarely in opposition to the majority of the "Arab Spring" movers and shakers.
This last consideration is arguably the most critical of all. While the US would see its influence reduced in any event as the groups espousing austere, politically oriented Islam will be the power either in or behind the throne in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and elsewhere, there was and remains no need to reduce influence all the more. The status of the Palestinians ranks high as a motivator on much of the "Arab street." While it is more than a bit hypocritical that this was not the case in the ancient days when Jordan "occupied" the West Bank and Egyptian troops held the supreme hand in the Gaza Strip, it is a reality today which must be recognized and addressed by American policymakers.
Obama's Mideast policy (to use the term generically only) has been and remains an area deserving of the attentions and ministrations of FEMA. He and his "team" have done the seemingly impossible--gotten each and every aspect wrong for more than two and a half years. Far more than even George W. Bush, the Nice Young Man From Chicago has managed to alienate every stakeholder in each and every Arab state as well as non-Arab countries such as Turkey. The UNGA address was the final nail in the coffin of American presence in the Mideast.
Santorum (with the able aid of the boo happy bunch) humiliated the Republican Party in the eyes of all but the most avid of elephants. Mr Obama did much more. The president managed--without assistance--to put the US firmly behind the eight ball throughout the rapidly changing Mideast.
No American president has done that before. No American president in search of reelection has ever degraded the influence of his country in pursuit of votes. Finally, Mr Obama has something real to apologize for.
Santorum, in his bid for commemoration in the Hall of Exceptional Bad Taste In Politics was assisted by members of the audience present for the Fox/Google Debate in Florida. A large portion of the audience was comprised of the same sort of self-destructive Republicans as had made noteworthy performances in two previous debates. These people constitute the slavering red meat eaters of the intellectually challenged segment of the Party of Elephants whose most evident characteristics are a lack of good taste, a deficiency in empathy, and, most importantly a strong unconscious desire to lose elections.
The former senator from Pennsylvania and champion of the farther Right shores of the badly misnamed "social conservative" wing of the GOP was goaded into a profound demonstration of deep ignorance regarding the realities of military life particularly during wartime by a question posed by a gay soldier currently stationed in Iraq. The question had to do with the deletion of "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) so that homosexuals can serve openly in the US armed forces.
Needless to detail at length, Mr Santorum is against the current policy. He would seek to turn the calender back to the years of DADT with the accompanying demand that non-heterosexuals engage in a combination of deceit and denial. Leaving aside the political impossibility (and ignoring the boos issuing from the oral cavities of the denizens of the Very Very Right) suffice it to note that Santorum's stated desire to emulate Dr Who or Mr Peabody constituted the lesser part of his exceptional ignorance of military life.
The peak of Santorum's idiocy and lack of knowledge came when he stated, "any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military."
That observation is a show stopper for sure. As any and everyone who has spent time in any of the armed forces knows, sex is a constant and highly favored activity often bordering on obsession. So it has been since Achilles was a private. So it will be as long as young people are found in a military service. Even years hence when combat is delegated to machines, it is highly probable that the people monitoring the killbots will have a hard time keeping their utilities buttoned tightly.
Not since the anti-sex campaigns of World Wars I and II when the American morality police pretended that our troops were so pure of heart and mind that they must be protected from the evils of prostitutes both amateur and professional has anyone betrayed the degree of out-to-lunchness exhibited by Mr Santorum. If, indeed, he really does believe what he said, then he has disqualified himself from serious consideration for any office of trust and confidence under the Constitution by virtue of pure, unadulterated ignorance and irremediable stupidity (or ideological blindness.)
A far more important bit of televised damage was inflicted on the US by President Obama's speech to the UN General Assembly. It was more than enough to make a person squirm in raw and unrelieved embarrassment as the POTUS delivered a set of remarks which could have been written by the execrable foreign minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman. The kindest explanation for the presidential exhibition of seriously pathetic policy arises from the overarching Obama need to be reelected--and the crucial relation between that goal and the Israel Lobby.
As the recent by-election in New York demonstrated, there is a strong current of unhappiness with Obama's stance on Israel within the American Jewish community. Shoring up support in this portion of the eroding Democratic base is an urgent matter. Not surprisingly, more than a few political analysts both here and abroad have identified this as the prime mover behind the Obama position, which constituted a nearly complete reversal of policy (such as it was) a year ago.
The problem with this explanation even if it is as accurate as appears, is that international politics is a more unforgiving arena than the domestic sort. Very real lives are at stake. Very real countries with equally real interests are in play. The issue of an Israel-Palestinian settlement is inherently existential in nature and does not allow for the flexibility or retakes common in domestic affairs.
The president threw away the good offices stature once enjoyed by the US. The strident tones and relatively extreme nature of his position taken in the context of past stances undercut any possibility of Washington being seen as an honest broker seeking a fair and equitable solution to the several seemingly intractable problems besetting the Israelis and their Palestinian interlocutors.
This leaves the task to such as the European Union or the Quartet with the US playing a marginal role at best. Mr Obama's "approved by AIPAC" speech also eroded to the point of nonexistence any influence Washington might have had with the Palestinian Authority or its Mideast state supporters. Worse, the president appeared to put the US squarely in opposition to the majority of the "Arab Spring" movers and shakers.
This last consideration is arguably the most critical of all. While the US would see its influence reduced in any event as the groups espousing austere, politically oriented Islam will be the power either in or behind the throne in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and elsewhere, there was and remains no need to reduce influence all the more. The status of the Palestinians ranks high as a motivator on much of the "Arab street." While it is more than a bit hypocritical that this was not the case in the ancient days when Jordan "occupied" the West Bank and Egyptian troops held the supreme hand in the Gaza Strip, it is a reality today which must be recognized and addressed by American policymakers.
Obama's Mideast policy (to use the term generically only) has been and remains an area deserving of the attentions and ministrations of FEMA. He and his "team" have done the seemingly impossible--gotten each and every aspect wrong for more than two and a half years. Far more than even George W. Bush, the Nice Young Man From Chicago has managed to alienate every stakeholder in each and every Arab state as well as non-Arab countries such as Turkey. The UNGA address was the final nail in the coffin of American presence in the Mideast.
Santorum (with the able aid of the boo happy bunch) humiliated the Republican Party in the eyes of all but the most avid of elephants. Mr Obama did much more. The president managed--without assistance--to put the US firmly behind the eight ball throughout the rapidly changing Mideast.
No American president has done that before. No American president in search of reelection has ever degraded the influence of his country in pursuit of votes. Finally, Mr Obama has something real to apologize for.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Hey! Israel--Before Cheering, Look At Taiwan
Much ink both real and virtual has been spilled in Israel as well as pro-Israeli outlets in the US praising President Obama for his forthright stance regarding US support of the embattled and increasingly isolated Jewish state. Even a man who has to be a bete noir around the Oval, Benjamin Netanyahu, almost broke his arm patting Obama on the back.
Given the context of the impending UN action on the request for recognition requested by the Palestinian Authority, the outpouring of hosannas is not surprising. However, the Israelis and their American supporters would be well served by taking a close look at the Obama administration's handling of the request by the government of Taiwan for a significant upgrading of their aerial self-defense capacities.
By way of background, it must be recalled that the US is committed to assure that the island nation has sufficient means to defend itself against attack by the Peoples Republic of China. This commitment is contained in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979. This piece of legislation was a key part of the complex mechanism by which the US finished the job of facing the reality that the PRC was a real state with a real government deserving of both American diplomatic recognition and the status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The TRA was designed by members of the Congress to assure that Taiwan would not be taken over by the mainland by either the reality or threat of military attack. It was passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of the Democrat controlled Congress and quickly signed by Jimmy Carter.
Until recently, the act served to assure that the US sold or provided military means adequate to the task of deterring Beijing's ambitions to reclaim the "rebellious" province. Things changed in the past decade as the Chinese military underwent a transformation. The vast modernization program has resulted over the past few years in the PRC developing a massive preponderance of force.
During the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, the Taiwanese government forwarded a set of requirements for an expansion and modernization program including new F-16 fighters and submarines. A portion of the request was filled before the days of Bush/Cheney came to an end. A second part was filled (along with supplemental items) by the Obama administration. Along the way, the submarines were deleted by the US side. The desired F-16s of the C/D model remained in limbo.
In limbo they stay today. The administration did not deny the request but offered in its stead an upgrade package for the 160 or so F-16 A/B variants in the Taiwanese inventory. The upgrade package for these now aging aircraft (dating back to 1992) do not include new engines capable of higher speeds and greater combat endurance. As a consequence, the improvements in sensor, guidance, and weapons suites do not give the Taiwanese air force the additional capacities needed to survive in the air against the several hundred more modern, more competent, mainland fighters.
In a slight but pardonable exaggeration, the average Taiwanese pilot flying an "upgraded" F-16 might survive long enough to shout, "Mayday" before being shot down. This is not the end the congress had in mind when it passed the TRA.
Whether or not the Nice Young Man From Chicago simply capitulated to Beijing's opposition to this (or any) arms deal with Taiwan is, as they say, "a subject fit for adjudication." The fact remains that the Obama "team" effectively eviscerated the TRA.
Given the continued force draft development of the PRC's air, naval, ground, and missile forces as well as the probable running down of American air and naval power in the Pacific, all that Beijing needs to do is be patient for a couple more years and then take back the "lost" province with a short, sharp, and decisive little war. The US will be able to do nothing other than ask the Security Council for a resolution. That, of course, will be vetoed by the Chinese.
The Obama administration's interpretation of American responsibilities under the TRA gives a strong hint as to the reliability of his steadfastness under pressure. No political leader in Israel should see the president's words at the General Assembly as other than empty rhetoric. Even the prospect of an American veto of the PA's request shows no depth of commitment, no willingness to run real risk.
Should some larger consideration enter the American field of view, the seemingly resolute support of Israel radiated yesterday will evaporate with blinding rapidity. All that need be kept in mind is that before the PRC embarked on its massive rearmament program, Washington went ahead with arming Taiwan, showing total indifference to the whims of Beijing. Now, affairs are a bit different.
Should the OPEC bully boys decide on another oil embargo, the US would be sorely tested in its relation with Israel. Should such a hypothetical occur during the run up to a presidential election, it is doubtful that the smart money would be placed on the Israeli connection trumping.
Fifty years ago, the hard hearted, cold eyed Charles de Gaulle acted on a belief that many Europeans shared when he ordered the creation of an independent French nuclear force. He was of the view that the US would never place Chicago at risk to defend Paris. We will never know if the general was right, but his apprehension was well placed and well rooted in history. The US has not always been noted for consistency over administrations, particularly if new and unpleasant realities develop as they have in China.
The takeaway for Israel is both simple and disheartening. As Taiwan has found out over the past four years, an American promise--even one enshrined in law--is not bankable. How much less is a piece of oratory given by a president up for reelection in a tough environment?
Given the context of the impending UN action on the request for recognition requested by the Palestinian Authority, the outpouring of hosannas is not surprising. However, the Israelis and their American supporters would be well served by taking a close look at the Obama administration's handling of the request by the government of Taiwan for a significant upgrading of their aerial self-defense capacities.
By way of background, it must be recalled that the US is committed to assure that the island nation has sufficient means to defend itself against attack by the Peoples Republic of China. This commitment is contained in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979. This piece of legislation was a key part of the complex mechanism by which the US finished the job of facing the reality that the PRC was a real state with a real government deserving of both American diplomatic recognition and the status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The TRA was designed by members of the Congress to assure that Taiwan would not be taken over by the mainland by either the reality or threat of military attack. It was passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of the Democrat controlled Congress and quickly signed by Jimmy Carter.
Until recently, the act served to assure that the US sold or provided military means adequate to the task of deterring Beijing's ambitions to reclaim the "rebellious" province. Things changed in the past decade as the Chinese military underwent a transformation. The vast modernization program has resulted over the past few years in the PRC developing a massive preponderance of force.
During the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, the Taiwanese government forwarded a set of requirements for an expansion and modernization program including new F-16 fighters and submarines. A portion of the request was filled before the days of Bush/Cheney came to an end. A second part was filled (along with supplemental items) by the Obama administration. Along the way, the submarines were deleted by the US side. The desired F-16s of the C/D model remained in limbo.
In limbo they stay today. The administration did not deny the request but offered in its stead an upgrade package for the 160 or so F-16 A/B variants in the Taiwanese inventory. The upgrade package for these now aging aircraft (dating back to 1992) do not include new engines capable of higher speeds and greater combat endurance. As a consequence, the improvements in sensor, guidance, and weapons suites do not give the Taiwanese air force the additional capacities needed to survive in the air against the several hundred more modern, more competent, mainland fighters.
In a slight but pardonable exaggeration, the average Taiwanese pilot flying an "upgraded" F-16 might survive long enough to shout, "Mayday" before being shot down. This is not the end the congress had in mind when it passed the TRA.
Whether or not the Nice Young Man From Chicago simply capitulated to Beijing's opposition to this (or any) arms deal with Taiwan is, as they say, "a subject fit for adjudication." The fact remains that the Obama "team" effectively eviscerated the TRA.
Given the continued force draft development of the PRC's air, naval, ground, and missile forces as well as the probable running down of American air and naval power in the Pacific, all that Beijing needs to do is be patient for a couple more years and then take back the "lost" province with a short, sharp, and decisive little war. The US will be able to do nothing other than ask the Security Council for a resolution. That, of course, will be vetoed by the Chinese.
The Obama administration's interpretation of American responsibilities under the TRA gives a strong hint as to the reliability of his steadfastness under pressure. No political leader in Israel should see the president's words at the General Assembly as other than empty rhetoric. Even the prospect of an American veto of the PA's request shows no depth of commitment, no willingness to run real risk.
Should some larger consideration enter the American field of view, the seemingly resolute support of Israel radiated yesterday will evaporate with blinding rapidity. All that need be kept in mind is that before the PRC embarked on its massive rearmament program, Washington went ahead with arming Taiwan, showing total indifference to the whims of Beijing. Now, affairs are a bit different.
Should the OPEC bully boys decide on another oil embargo, the US would be sorely tested in its relation with Israel. Should such a hypothetical occur during the run up to a presidential election, it is doubtful that the smart money would be placed on the Israeli connection trumping.
Fifty years ago, the hard hearted, cold eyed Charles de Gaulle acted on a belief that many Europeans shared when he ordered the creation of an independent French nuclear force. He was of the view that the US would never place Chicago at risk to defend Paris. We will never know if the general was right, but his apprehension was well placed and well rooted in history. The US has not always been noted for consistency over administrations, particularly if new and unpleasant realities develop as they have in China.
The takeaway for Israel is both simple and disheartening. As Taiwan has found out over the past four years, an American promise--even one enshrined in law--is not bankable. How much less is a piece of oratory given by a president up for reelection in a tough environment?
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Elite Ideals Meet Democratic Realities
The Eurozone is in trouble. Deep, deep trouble. It has been for more than a year now. Tons of money and words beyond count have been expended in the effort to keep the Euro afloat despite the great gashes torn by the sovereign debt loads of Spain, Italy, and, the mother of them all, Greece.
Bankers have wept and wailed. Politicians have viewed with alarm while making promises that all will be well in the sweet bye and bye. Emergency meetings have been held, recently on an almost daily basis. Special funds have been established. Experts from the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund have developed plans, made demands, issued words both threatening and reassuring.
Still the "crisis" rolls along, a tsunami. And, like all tsunamis, the wave was not self-created but rather is the result of tectonic forces.
In the case of the Euro-debt tidal wave, the underlying tectonic forces are found in the nature of national politics. National political dynamics whether in Germany, Greece, France, or Finland are the cause of the seemingly economic disaster.
The economics of the current Eurozone are easy to understand. Greece and the other so-called PIGS borrowed money, a lot of money. More money than could be repaid without causing pain and misery within each state's population. For some years, the payments could and were made--sometimes with more borrowed money. With the onset of the Great Recession four years ago, the assorted PIGS led by Greece had more and more difficulty meeting extant obligations. As a result, the cost of borrowing more money on the international market ramped up. Ramped up a lot.
The economic slowdown around the world assured that the PIGS, again led by Greece, would have to make tough choices between meeting sovereign debt obligations or meeting domestic obligations ranging from salaries to pensions, from housing subsidies to underwriting the costs of medical treatment. The money to do both simply did not exist.
Absent the Eurozone, Greece would have done something many states have done in the past. Athens would have defaulted on its sovereign debt. Walked away from it. Given the bankers and other holders in due course a haircut. For a period of time, Greece would have had difficulty borrowing on the international market, but that would have passed.
Argentina took the default route a few years back. Today it is in better economic shape than it has been in more than three quarters of a century. Default like currency devaluation imposes only short term costs while usually providing the basis for long term benefits. Greece would have been able to do the same had the Euro not existed.
The common currency, the Euro, like the countries which use it, the Eurozone, exists as a tribute to a concept which owes much to idealism. The Euro, the Eurozone, the European Union are all tributes to High Minded and Lofty Thinking. The notion which propelled all was that of creating a federated Europe, thus preventing future conflict both violent and economic. The visionaries who created the European Union, the Euro, and its zone were convinced that a new, supra-national Europe would put the final nail in the coffin of nationalism and all it spawned for once and all.
Insofar as the EU is concerned, the visions have not yet been so challenged by real world forces as to discredit the dream, at least not entirely. The same cannot be said for the Euro.
The Eurozone was created as a monetary union but not a fiscal one. This has meant that the countries of the zone cannot have a common tax, or a common limit on public expenditures, or a common policy on wages and pensions. More importantly, the zone cannot provide for the orderly and automatic transfer of wealth from richer countries to poorer ones as is the case in another federal union, the one called the USA.
As a result, the Eurozone as an entity could not head off profligates like Greece before the crisis occurred. Nor could the Eurozone as an entity assure the automatic coverage of Greece's "overdrafts" from a common treasury.
Back in the Nineties, when the Euro and its zone were under construction, the assorted Deep Thinkers did debate whether or not the zone would be restricted to a monetary union. The downsides of this limited approach were understood. The overarching concern of the politicians involved in creating the zone had to be sure their respective national legislatures as well as the public which elected each would accept and support the new currency and the mechanism behind it.
In short, an accurate understanding of the limits of democratic acceptance put a necessary constraint on the ambitions of those creating the Euro. It was believed by these people as well as the national elites who welcomed the new expression of European integration that the Euro and its zone were but an intermediate step on the road to full federalism.
Even in its limited form, the monetary union was not greeted with universal hosannas and paeans. There were hard fights in the countries which opted to join the zone. Some states, most notably the UK, decided to stay out in the cold.
The force at work in the UK and within the opponents of the zone was democratically expressed nationalism. "Not to worry," murmured the Eurocrats, "federalism will come. Good times along with the European Union and its parliament will work wonders on the reactionary nationalists."
Wrong!
The Eurofanatics might have deprecated those who opposed the Euro along with those who were against the expansion of the European Union's sway in terms similar to those employed by President Obama and others of his ilk regarding people living in "fly over country," but in doing so they forgot that the hoi polloi had the franchise--and were willing to use it. The Great Recession exacerbated the already growing sense of frustration infecting many in Europe.
The frustration was the product of being, as one Irish woman put it during the vote on the Lisbon Treaty expanding the authority of the EU, "over governed." The climate of frustration over the attitudes and behavior of the political, media, and academic "elite" of Europe was enhanced by the ever growing and ever more evident presence of non-Europeans on the local soil.
The tone deafness if not blatant ideologically predicated stubbornness of the elites with a constant message of multiculturalism and end-of-nationalism stimulated the rapid growth of nationalist political parties across Europe. From Norway to Italy, from France to Austria, people in growing numbers saw and felt themselves to be strangers in a strange land, powerless pawns subject to dictates from Brussels and under siege by hordes of newcomers.
The push back was and will continue to be strong. Election after election with few hesitations have shown the increasing strength of nationalism and the parties which traffic in this commodity. The message has not been lost on the current occupants of elected office.
The American Treasury Secretary and his British colleague have warned the politicians of Europe to take immediate and decisive steps to end the market turmoil caused by the Greek sovereign debt. Both men made this abundantly clear when they sat in with the European finance ministers this past week. Both have good reason to be worried, very worried. A melt down in the European financial sector will have adverse consequences for both the UK and US. Great adverse consequences for two national economies not yet recovered from the Great Recession.
The European politicians did not need the Anglo-American warning. They are perfectly well aware of what is going on. It is just that they and their bosses in Berlin, in Athens, in Paris cannot do anything given the mood of the respective electorates.
The average German and counterparts in the Netherlands, Finland, and even France are not thrilled by the prospect of never ending bailouts of the "improvident" PIGS. The average Greek or Italian or Spaniard is equally disenchanted with having the quality of life beat down by remote bureaucrats from Brussels or the IMF. Undoubtedly, all hands would be quite willing and able to express their disapprobation come the next election.
The elites both in and out of government overlooked the basic truth here. The elites in their ideological fervor have far outrun the limits of general public approval. At the same time, they had forgotten the "unenlightened" members of the hoi polloi have a leash and collar on each and every elected proponent of European togtherness and multiculturalism called elections.
The Greek default crisis served to remind national politicians that the public was willing and able to administer a mid-course correction to policies of which it disapproved. The reminder has taken the form of apparent indecisiveness in the highest circles of European leadership--starting with Chancellor Merkel. Ms Merkel and the others are not indecisive; they are afraid of the costs of making a decision.
Ideals are wonderful. No one should neglect to have them. However, in the world of politics, particularly the politics of the world, it is critical that ideals not be decoupled from the realistic appraisal of what will be both accepted and supported by the majority of the politically articulate within society.
The creators of the Euro and its zone ignored this precept. As long as the world generally and Europe in particular enjoyed prosperity without precedent, all went well regardless. But, as was inevitable, the good times stopped, the dues collector came around. Unfortunately, in the case of the Euro, it looks as if the dues will be collected not only in Greece or in Germany but everywhere, even in the US.
The takeaway?
Simple. National publics are like armies as General George Patton once observed. "They are like pieces of cooked spaghetti. You can't push them. You can only pull them along, slowly."
Bankers have wept and wailed. Politicians have viewed with alarm while making promises that all will be well in the sweet bye and bye. Emergency meetings have been held, recently on an almost daily basis. Special funds have been established. Experts from the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund have developed plans, made demands, issued words both threatening and reassuring.
Still the "crisis" rolls along, a tsunami. And, like all tsunamis, the wave was not self-created but rather is the result of tectonic forces.
In the case of the Euro-debt tidal wave, the underlying tectonic forces are found in the nature of national politics. National political dynamics whether in Germany, Greece, France, or Finland are the cause of the seemingly economic disaster.
The economics of the current Eurozone are easy to understand. Greece and the other so-called PIGS borrowed money, a lot of money. More money than could be repaid without causing pain and misery within each state's population. For some years, the payments could and were made--sometimes with more borrowed money. With the onset of the Great Recession four years ago, the assorted PIGS led by Greece had more and more difficulty meeting extant obligations. As a result, the cost of borrowing more money on the international market ramped up. Ramped up a lot.
The economic slowdown around the world assured that the PIGS, again led by Greece, would have to make tough choices between meeting sovereign debt obligations or meeting domestic obligations ranging from salaries to pensions, from housing subsidies to underwriting the costs of medical treatment. The money to do both simply did not exist.
Absent the Eurozone, Greece would have done something many states have done in the past. Athens would have defaulted on its sovereign debt. Walked away from it. Given the bankers and other holders in due course a haircut. For a period of time, Greece would have had difficulty borrowing on the international market, but that would have passed.
Argentina took the default route a few years back. Today it is in better economic shape than it has been in more than three quarters of a century. Default like currency devaluation imposes only short term costs while usually providing the basis for long term benefits. Greece would have been able to do the same had the Euro not existed.
The common currency, the Euro, like the countries which use it, the Eurozone, exists as a tribute to a concept which owes much to idealism. The Euro, the Eurozone, the European Union are all tributes to High Minded and Lofty Thinking. The notion which propelled all was that of creating a federated Europe, thus preventing future conflict both violent and economic. The visionaries who created the European Union, the Euro, and its zone were convinced that a new, supra-national Europe would put the final nail in the coffin of nationalism and all it spawned for once and all.
Insofar as the EU is concerned, the visions have not yet been so challenged by real world forces as to discredit the dream, at least not entirely. The same cannot be said for the Euro.
The Eurozone was created as a monetary union but not a fiscal one. This has meant that the countries of the zone cannot have a common tax, or a common limit on public expenditures, or a common policy on wages and pensions. More importantly, the zone cannot provide for the orderly and automatic transfer of wealth from richer countries to poorer ones as is the case in another federal union, the one called the USA.
As a result, the Eurozone as an entity could not head off profligates like Greece before the crisis occurred. Nor could the Eurozone as an entity assure the automatic coverage of Greece's "overdrafts" from a common treasury.
Back in the Nineties, when the Euro and its zone were under construction, the assorted Deep Thinkers did debate whether or not the zone would be restricted to a monetary union. The downsides of this limited approach were understood. The overarching concern of the politicians involved in creating the zone had to be sure their respective national legislatures as well as the public which elected each would accept and support the new currency and the mechanism behind it.
In short, an accurate understanding of the limits of democratic acceptance put a necessary constraint on the ambitions of those creating the Euro. It was believed by these people as well as the national elites who welcomed the new expression of European integration that the Euro and its zone were but an intermediate step on the road to full federalism.
Even in its limited form, the monetary union was not greeted with universal hosannas and paeans. There were hard fights in the countries which opted to join the zone. Some states, most notably the UK, decided to stay out in the cold.
The force at work in the UK and within the opponents of the zone was democratically expressed nationalism. "Not to worry," murmured the Eurocrats, "federalism will come. Good times along with the European Union and its parliament will work wonders on the reactionary nationalists."
Wrong!
The Eurofanatics might have deprecated those who opposed the Euro along with those who were against the expansion of the European Union's sway in terms similar to those employed by President Obama and others of his ilk regarding people living in "fly over country," but in doing so they forgot that the hoi polloi had the franchise--and were willing to use it. The Great Recession exacerbated the already growing sense of frustration infecting many in Europe.
The frustration was the product of being, as one Irish woman put it during the vote on the Lisbon Treaty expanding the authority of the EU, "over governed." The climate of frustration over the attitudes and behavior of the political, media, and academic "elite" of Europe was enhanced by the ever growing and ever more evident presence of non-Europeans on the local soil.
The tone deafness if not blatant ideologically predicated stubbornness of the elites with a constant message of multiculturalism and end-of-nationalism stimulated the rapid growth of nationalist political parties across Europe. From Norway to Italy, from France to Austria, people in growing numbers saw and felt themselves to be strangers in a strange land, powerless pawns subject to dictates from Brussels and under siege by hordes of newcomers.
The push back was and will continue to be strong. Election after election with few hesitations have shown the increasing strength of nationalism and the parties which traffic in this commodity. The message has not been lost on the current occupants of elected office.
The American Treasury Secretary and his British colleague have warned the politicians of Europe to take immediate and decisive steps to end the market turmoil caused by the Greek sovereign debt. Both men made this abundantly clear when they sat in with the European finance ministers this past week. Both have good reason to be worried, very worried. A melt down in the European financial sector will have adverse consequences for both the UK and US. Great adverse consequences for two national economies not yet recovered from the Great Recession.
The European politicians did not need the Anglo-American warning. They are perfectly well aware of what is going on. It is just that they and their bosses in Berlin, in Athens, in Paris cannot do anything given the mood of the respective electorates.
The average German and counterparts in the Netherlands, Finland, and even France are not thrilled by the prospect of never ending bailouts of the "improvident" PIGS. The average Greek or Italian or Spaniard is equally disenchanted with having the quality of life beat down by remote bureaucrats from Brussels or the IMF. Undoubtedly, all hands would be quite willing and able to express their disapprobation come the next election.
The elites both in and out of government overlooked the basic truth here. The elites in their ideological fervor have far outrun the limits of general public approval. At the same time, they had forgotten the "unenlightened" members of the hoi polloi have a leash and collar on each and every elected proponent of European togtherness and multiculturalism called elections.
The Greek default crisis served to remind national politicians that the public was willing and able to administer a mid-course correction to policies of which it disapproved. The reminder has taken the form of apparent indecisiveness in the highest circles of European leadership--starting with Chancellor Merkel. Ms Merkel and the others are not indecisive; they are afraid of the costs of making a decision.
Ideals are wonderful. No one should neglect to have them. However, in the world of politics, particularly the politics of the world, it is critical that ideals not be decoupled from the realistic appraisal of what will be both accepted and supported by the majority of the politically articulate within society.
The creators of the Euro and its zone ignored this precept. As long as the world generally and Europe in particular enjoyed prosperity without precedent, all went well regardless. But, as was inevitable, the good times stopped, the dues collector came around. Unfortunately, in the case of the Euro, it looks as if the dues will be collected not only in Greece or in Germany but everywhere, even in the US.
The takeaway?
Simple. National publics are like armies as General George Patton once observed. "They are like pieces of cooked spaghetti. You can't push them. You can only pull them along, slowly."
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Ethno-Religious Democracy And The Next Mideast War
Turkey has declared rhetorical war on Israel. To err on the side of accuracy, the Islamist leaning government in Ankara has been escalating words to almost the this-means-war level over the past few days. Behind this development resides not only an ambition of regional power status but the explosive growth of a new Turkish nationalism based on the merging of ethnic and religious identities, which has substantially replaced the strongly secularist predicated sense of national self inaugurated by Kemal Attaturk.
The target of Turkey's ever more intemperate attacks has likewise reinvented its sense of national identity on the merging of religion and nationalism. When founded, Israel was both a Jewish state and an outpost of European socialist thought which centered upon secularism.
The seismic shift in Turkey's national identity came only in the past decade when the long ignored peasant population of the Anatolian highlands moved to the urban centers of Ankara and Istanbul in large enough numbers to form an effective political base for the AKP, a party whose roots ran deeply into the rich soil of political Islam. When the internal migrants, searchers for a better life, joined with the equally ignored Muslim clerical establishment, it became possible to organize the discontented and marginalized new arrivals into a potent political base. This, in turn, brought the AKP to power--a power it has developed further by defanging the military and the secular elites of the cities.
The shift of Israeli politics from the secular left to the ethno-religious right started back in 1977 when Likud tapped the pool of resentment felt within significant segments of the Israeli population. By melding a new coalition of expansive hyper-nationalists, new immigrants, and the more religiously minded, Likud was able to gain power. As the years went by, the nationalist and religiously observant right was strengthened in numbers by arrivals from the Soviet Union, and, after the collapse of that state, its ruins.
The movement to the right was accelerated by the First Intifada and the consequent bloodletting imposed by the Palestinian terrorists. This reaction on the part of the Israeli public was to be expected. Terror is normally counterproductive. With every suicide bomber, every rocket, every new outrage, the median of Israeli politics moved more and more into the right hand lane.
The external pressure joined with the Second Intifada to push Israelis even more into the harsh and uncompromising position of national identity based on the juncture of Jewishness and Israeli-ness. This dynamic was fully predictable as pressure consolidates political will long, long before it fractures it. In this context, it is easy to see why the ill-advised efforts by the Obama administration to put the screws to Israel generally and the Netanyahu government in particular were counterproductive failures.
The result is the current loggerheads relation between mirror image politicians--Erdogan and Netanyahu--along with the daggers drawn nature of Turkish-Israeli relations. A larger consequence of national identities based on the merger of ethnic and religious definitions is looming as the "Arab Spring" rolls into Fall, a Fall which will be marked with a very early freeze.
Democracy is dangerous. The power of this truth informed the thinking of the authors of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Democracy is nothing more or less than the popular expression of whatever fad, fancy, or fantasy can be employed effectively to move voters to mark one person's name preferentially.
Among the many fads, fancies, and fantasies which can be employed to this end, none are more powerful than nationalism and religion. The advocates of political Islam in Egypt, in Libya, in Tunisia, and elsewhere in the Arab Muslim states know this perfectly. Knowledge need only to be put into action.
In the classic treatment of revolution, Anatomy of Revolution, the author makes a key point. Although only ancient offensive insurgencies were considered in this book, the power of this one observation has been enhanced by each and every revolution which has succeeded in the post-World War II years.
The point?
Revolutions move to the extreme. That is to say, the group with the most radical agenda for change following the overthrow of the old regime will win. The reasons for this inevitable move to the extreme are few and simple. The more extreme the group, the more sweeping will be the changes contained in its agenda. In addition, the more extreme groups are tightly organized, their action plan is simple, easy to understand, and addresses fundamental fears and aspirations held by the majority of the public.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the Salifists, and others advocating political Islam are all tightly organized. All have agendas which are virtually interchangeable, making group merger thinkable. And, most importantly, all have action plans which are predicated on the strictures and requirements of Islam as well as the notions of dignity and pride resident in nationalism.
In all the countries involved in the dramatic events of the past nine months, the advocates of political Islam enjoy great advantage over their secular opponents. Not only are the assorted groups well organized and possessed of a radical agenda, all make profound appeals to both Islam and national pride. "Stand tall, you are Egyptian" is a chant virtually identical to the more recent, "Stand tall, you are Muslim."
The necessary inference from what has been observed and reported throughout the Mideast and North Africa is simply that Egypt, Libya, and perhaps others will move to the totalistic national sense of self which has been in play in Turkey and Israel. One implication of this trajectory is that Turkey will fail to reestablish the Ottoman Empire. Another, far more disturbing one considering all that has been at work in the Israeli political system is that war will become far more likely in the near to mid-term.
The next war will sneak up on the West. This is to be expected. The elites of the West generally discount nationalism as a spent force, a ancient relic which has outlived whatever usefulness it once may have possessed. At the same time, the Western elites of politics, the media, and academia pretend that religion does not exist as a real force in the lives of people and the policies of governments.
In the US, in the West, the leaders of state and molders of opinion alike will not see what is happening on the Arab streets and states alike. What will not be seen, cannot be prevented.
Pleasant thought, eh?
The target of Turkey's ever more intemperate attacks has likewise reinvented its sense of national identity on the merging of religion and nationalism. When founded, Israel was both a Jewish state and an outpost of European socialist thought which centered upon secularism.
The seismic shift in Turkey's national identity came only in the past decade when the long ignored peasant population of the Anatolian highlands moved to the urban centers of Ankara and Istanbul in large enough numbers to form an effective political base for the AKP, a party whose roots ran deeply into the rich soil of political Islam. When the internal migrants, searchers for a better life, joined with the equally ignored Muslim clerical establishment, it became possible to organize the discontented and marginalized new arrivals into a potent political base. This, in turn, brought the AKP to power--a power it has developed further by defanging the military and the secular elites of the cities.
The shift of Israeli politics from the secular left to the ethno-religious right started back in 1977 when Likud tapped the pool of resentment felt within significant segments of the Israeli population. By melding a new coalition of expansive hyper-nationalists, new immigrants, and the more religiously minded, Likud was able to gain power. As the years went by, the nationalist and religiously observant right was strengthened in numbers by arrivals from the Soviet Union, and, after the collapse of that state, its ruins.
The movement to the right was accelerated by the First Intifada and the consequent bloodletting imposed by the Palestinian terrorists. This reaction on the part of the Israeli public was to be expected. Terror is normally counterproductive. With every suicide bomber, every rocket, every new outrage, the median of Israeli politics moved more and more into the right hand lane.
The external pressure joined with the Second Intifada to push Israelis even more into the harsh and uncompromising position of national identity based on the juncture of Jewishness and Israeli-ness. This dynamic was fully predictable as pressure consolidates political will long, long before it fractures it. In this context, it is easy to see why the ill-advised efforts by the Obama administration to put the screws to Israel generally and the Netanyahu government in particular were counterproductive failures.
The result is the current loggerheads relation between mirror image politicians--Erdogan and Netanyahu--along with the daggers drawn nature of Turkish-Israeli relations. A larger consequence of national identities based on the merger of ethnic and religious definitions is looming as the "Arab Spring" rolls into Fall, a Fall which will be marked with a very early freeze.
Democracy is dangerous. The power of this truth informed the thinking of the authors of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Democracy is nothing more or less than the popular expression of whatever fad, fancy, or fantasy can be employed effectively to move voters to mark one person's name preferentially.
Among the many fads, fancies, and fantasies which can be employed to this end, none are more powerful than nationalism and religion. The advocates of political Islam in Egypt, in Libya, in Tunisia, and elsewhere in the Arab Muslim states know this perfectly. Knowledge need only to be put into action.
In the classic treatment of revolution, Anatomy of Revolution, the author makes a key point. Although only ancient offensive insurgencies were considered in this book, the power of this one observation has been enhanced by each and every revolution which has succeeded in the post-World War II years.
The point?
Revolutions move to the extreme. That is to say, the group with the most radical agenda for change following the overthrow of the old regime will win. The reasons for this inevitable move to the extreme are few and simple. The more extreme the group, the more sweeping will be the changes contained in its agenda. In addition, the more extreme groups are tightly organized, their action plan is simple, easy to understand, and addresses fundamental fears and aspirations held by the majority of the public.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the Salifists, and others advocating political Islam are all tightly organized. All have agendas which are virtually interchangeable, making group merger thinkable. And, most importantly, all have action plans which are predicated on the strictures and requirements of Islam as well as the notions of dignity and pride resident in nationalism.
In all the countries involved in the dramatic events of the past nine months, the advocates of political Islam enjoy great advantage over their secular opponents. Not only are the assorted groups well organized and possessed of a radical agenda, all make profound appeals to both Islam and national pride. "Stand tall, you are Egyptian" is a chant virtually identical to the more recent, "Stand tall, you are Muslim."
The necessary inference from what has been observed and reported throughout the Mideast and North Africa is simply that Egypt, Libya, and perhaps others will move to the totalistic national sense of self which has been in play in Turkey and Israel. One implication of this trajectory is that Turkey will fail to reestablish the Ottoman Empire. Another, far more disturbing one considering all that has been at work in the Israeli political system is that war will become far more likely in the near to mid-term.
The next war will sneak up on the West. This is to be expected. The elites of the West generally discount nationalism as a spent force, a ancient relic which has outlived whatever usefulness it once may have possessed. At the same time, the Western elites of politics, the media, and academia pretend that religion does not exist as a real force in the lives of people and the policies of governments.
In the US, in the West, the leaders of state and molders of opinion alike will not see what is happening on the Arab streets and states alike. What will not be seen, cannot be prevented.
Pleasant thought, eh?
Friday, September 16, 2011
Don't Veto The Palestinian State
Palestinian Authority jefe grande Abbas has tossed down the gauntlet to Barack Obama and the rest of his "foreign policy team." The PA will seek full membership in the UN as a sovereign state Abbas declared in a highly reported speech to his fellow countrymen.
This move seems to be a very severe defeat for both Israel and the Obama administration. The Netanyahu ministry has done everything short of declaring war on the PA. The Obama "team" including the president has not been much more restrained, threatening (or promising, if you prefer) to veto the move when it comes before the Security Council for action.
A veto would not be looked at with favor in the Arab states generally as was made palpably clear in a recent op-ed piece in the WaPo by one of those interminable Saudi princes and diplomatic heavyweights. Participants in outdoor sports favored by the "Arab Street" such as riots and suicide bombings will be much less restrained in their disapprobation.
Advocates of realpolitik have noted that even admission to the UN either as a state or a state observer will change nothing for the better on the ground. There is much to justify this view. Likewise there is much to support the dystopian notions that the Palestinians will use either state observer or state status to cause a world of hurt for Israel in the assorted UN sub-agencies and the International Criminal Court.
The pessimistic interpretations do not, however, merit the US using its veto power in the Security Council. Doing such would only assure the PA would take its petition to the General Assembly in search of the consolation prize of state observer status, which would give it all the trouble making possibilities along with assuring a very large can would be tied to Uncle Sam's tail.
A far better course of action for the Obama administration to take is that of delay. The process established for seeking recognition as a state by the UN provides an almost infinite mechanism of creative stalling. The formal request must first go to the Secretary General. The Secretary General does not have to handle the matter instantly but can request further information before forwarding the request to the Security Council. Doing this can take weeks--or months.
The Security Council can also demand more information as well as proof that the proposed Palestinian state meets all the diplomatic requirements for state status. This means the Council can find itself caught in a set of hearings and debates over the degree to which the Palestinian Authority and the territory under its purported control does in fact constitute a fully functioning state. Given the deep and growing divide between the West Bank based Palestinian Authority and its rival in the Gaza Strip, Hamas, and the fiction that Palestine constitutes a single entity, this could lead to a number of second thoughts within chanceries seemingly committed to the idea of Palestinian statehood.
A full fledged inquiry and debate within the Security Council could even have the potential to undercut any move in the General Assembly for state observer status. This is not a nontrivial benefit given the uncertainty and ambiguity extant within the European Union for this gambit. The US might even enlist the cooperation of Russia in seeking a complete airing of whether or not the Palestinian state really exists by quietly noting that any approval by either the Security Council or the General Assembly would constitute a bad precedent from the Kremlin's point of view considering the current ethnic and religious unrest in the Northern Caucasus. The name, "Tibet," whispered in certain ears might elicit a reasonably favorable response from Beijing.
The point is the US could lobby effectively for a prolonged inquiry by the Security Council, which would buy that most precious of commodities--time--for bilateral diplomacy to make another run at the moribund "peace process" between Israel and the PA. Abbas would have his political posterior covered enough to keep him in his tenuous position for some while since he would have delivered on his promises and cannot be held personally responsible for UN protocol.
Sure there would still be some riots, some bombings, some threats of worse from the "Arab Street" and other usual Muslim suspects such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, but what else is to be expected? The US would be spared the major problems which exercise of the veto would bring.
The Israelis, or at least some of them, would not be thrilled but, again, what else would you expect? A delay might allow calmer heads (assuming there are any) around Netanyahu to provide sound counsel respecting the recommencement of talks with Abbas and company. There is even the faint prospect that the Obama administration might find the right magic to convince Netanyahu to wake up to the new and alarming political realities in his neighborhood, realities which cannot be addressed by simple words and the implied threat of Israeli military displeasure.
A delay would benefit all interested parties. A veto would not. It looks like a no-brainer. Of course, being the simplest and safest way to go means it is not acceptable to either the Deep Thinkers or the ideologues who populate too much of the foreign policy world, not only here but everywhere.
This move seems to be a very severe defeat for both Israel and the Obama administration. The Netanyahu ministry has done everything short of declaring war on the PA. The Obama "team" including the president has not been much more restrained, threatening (or promising, if you prefer) to veto the move when it comes before the Security Council for action.
A veto would not be looked at with favor in the Arab states generally as was made palpably clear in a recent op-ed piece in the WaPo by one of those interminable Saudi princes and diplomatic heavyweights. Participants in outdoor sports favored by the "Arab Street" such as riots and suicide bombings will be much less restrained in their disapprobation.
Advocates of realpolitik have noted that even admission to the UN either as a state or a state observer will change nothing for the better on the ground. There is much to justify this view. Likewise there is much to support the dystopian notions that the Palestinians will use either state observer or state status to cause a world of hurt for Israel in the assorted UN sub-agencies and the International Criminal Court.
The pessimistic interpretations do not, however, merit the US using its veto power in the Security Council. Doing such would only assure the PA would take its petition to the General Assembly in search of the consolation prize of state observer status, which would give it all the trouble making possibilities along with assuring a very large can would be tied to Uncle Sam's tail.
A far better course of action for the Obama administration to take is that of delay. The process established for seeking recognition as a state by the UN provides an almost infinite mechanism of creative stalling. The formal request must first go to the Secretary General. The Secretary General does not have to handle the matter instantly but can request further information before forwarding the request to the Security Council. Doing this can take weeks--or months.
The Security Council can also demand more information as well as proof that the proposed Palestinian state meets all the diplomatic requirements for state status. This means the Council can find itself caught in a set of hearings and debates over the degree to which the Palestinian Authority and the territory under its purported control does in fact constitute a fully functioning state. Given the deep and growing divide between the West Bank based Palestinian Authority and its rival in the Gaza Strip, Hamas, and the fiction that Palestine constitutes a single entity, this could lead to a number of second thoughts within chanceries seemingly committed to the idea of Palestinian statehood.
A full fledged inquiry and debate within the Security Council could even have the potential to undercut any move in the General Assembly for state observer status. This is not a nontrivial benefit given the uncertainty and ambiguity extant within the European Union for this gambit. The US might even enlist the cooperation of Russia in seeking a complete airing of whether or not the Palestinian state really exists by quietly noting that any approval by either the Security Council or the General Assembly would constitute a bad precedent from the Kremlin's point of view considering the current ethnic and religious unrest in the Northern Caucasus. The name, "Tibet," whispered in certain ears might elicit a reasonably favorable response from Beijing.
The point is the US could lobby effectively for a prolonged inquiry by the Security Council, which would buy that most precious of commodities--time--for bilateral diplomacy to make another run at the moribund "peace process" between Israel and the PA. Abbas would have his political posterior covered enough to keep him in his tenuous position for some while since he would have delivered on his promises and cannot be held personally responsible for UN protocol.
Sure there would still be some riots, some bombings, some threats of worse from the "Arab Street" and other usual Muslim suspects such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, but what else is to be expected? The US would be spared the major problems which exercise of the veto would bring.
The Israelis, or at least some of them, would not be thrilled but, again, what else would you expect? A delay might allow calmer heads (assuming there are any) around Netanyahu to provide sound counsel respecting the recommencement of talks with Abbas and company. There is even the faint prospect that the Obama administration might find the right magic to convince Netanyahu to wake up to the new and alarming political realities in his neighborhood, realities which cannot be addressed by simple words and the implied threat of Israeli military displeasure.
A delay would benefit all interested parties. A veto would not. It looks like a no-brainer. Of course, being the simplest and safest way to go means it is not acceptable to either the Deep Thinkers or the ideologues who populate too much of the foreign policy world, not only here but everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)