Sic Semper Tyrannis

National Journal - 30 November 2009

 
http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/how-long-will-the-us-be-in-afg.php#1397268

Walking the tightrope in Iran

""We have options ranging from complete and full cooperation to leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty on our table," said Kazem Jalali, spokesman for the parliament's national security and foreign policy committee. "But we believe that if the West reforms its path, we can still choose the full-cooperation option."

The parliament has made similar calls in the past to reduce cooperation with the IAEA, to no avail. It has, however, regularly managed to block an update to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that would widen the atomic watchdog's inspection capabilities.

Mashallah Shamsolva'ezin, a journalist who is barred from working by the government and now advises at the Tehran-based Middle East Strategic Research Center, said both Iran and world powers, led by the United States, have little space to maneuver diplomatically. Iran, for its part, believes sanctions from the U.N. Security Council can be ignored.

"Iran's nuclear policy has always been about walking the tightrope at the edge of a cliff," he said. "But our leaders will never take actions that would jeopardize Iran's national security. For both parties, the only solution is negotiations." "  Washpost

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is basically a "nose-thumbing" defiance of the West, especially of the United States.

The issue here is not whether Iran has a legal right to buil whatever size nuclear program that it desires, but rather whether or not such a program will be tolerated by those who can do something about it..

This brings us all closer to "the day."  pl

Some things on which to meditate

""Where we have gone, goodness follows," Conway said. "But the fact is that we are not as expansive as we would like to be, and those probable additional number of Marines are going to help us to get there." "  Washpost

"General McChrystal has been alienated." (by President Obama) Dana Perrino on FNS

"Mr President, We do not want to defeat health care reform, we want to defeat you, and this seems like the best way to do it."  Comedian playing the role of Senator Mitch McConnell on Saturday Night Live, 28 November 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Conway is the Commandant of the US Marine Corps.  Pacification, a better standard of living, greater security, I could understand all of those in this statement, but "goodness?"  Does that mean that General Conway believes that the marines are on a "mission from God" in Afghanistan?  There are a lot of people in the US now who can no longer separate faith and flag in their minds.  Is he one of them?

Abraham Lincoln learned fairly quickly that he was in command, not the generals.  He relieved some of them, transferred some of them when he judged that to be a good idea, allowed some to be court-martialed for failure.  He famously sent Major General Joseph Hooker a letter at the time of Hooker's appointment to command of the Army of the Potomac.  In the letter he wrote that his support of Hooker was conditioned on Hooker's future success and was for lack of a better alternative.  "General McChrystal has been alienated?"  My god, Perrino, why should Obama possibly care if any of these generals have been "alienated?"  What he should want is that they should live in fear of relief from command for failure or insubordination.  These are highly ambitious, overly political men who have been taught by fools to think they have a policy role.  None of them are Grant.  If Lincoln had not found Grant, there might well be two countries here today, not one.

As to the SNL skit, what a moment of truth!  pl

"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

 
Since we have to wait for  Obama to speak from West Point, thereby closing down all his "off ramps," we might as well be entertained.  Thanks to Russ W. for this.  pl

Download TheGoodthebadtheugly

The Kagan/McChrystal Strategy

"If the Afghan government were fully legitimate, there would be no insurgency. U.S. and international actions must aim to improve the Afghan government's ability to provide basic services such as security and dispute resolution nationwide, building the legitimacy of the government in Kabul sufficiently to dampen a large-scale insurgency. They must persuade and even compel Afghan leaders to stop activities that alienate the people and create fertile ground for insurgents. "  The Kagans

-----------------------------------------------------------------

What does the first sentence mean?  Does it mean that if all the Afghans accepted the Karzai government, then the war would not be.  Is that supposed to be profound?   Let's see, on that basis, if all the Apache bands had accepted the territorial government of Arizona in the 1870s and 1880s, there would have been no fighting between whites and Indians...  That is probably true.

The second sentence says that we must make the Karzai government a better government so that it will be "legitimate" in the sense of the first sentence.  That implies a massive effort to produce those changes.  CORDS, the COIN operation in Vietnam had 10,000 people involved in doing exactly what the Kagans suggest will be necessary.  How many people do we have in Afghanistan today doing this sort of advisory work in all the aspects of Afghan governnance?  How many will we recruit, train, pay, sustain, replace?  In the CORDS effort the families of the advisers were moved to nearby third countries like the Phillippines or Thailand in order to be able to commit the advisers "in country" for several years.  Are we going to do that?

The third sentence says that we must be prepared to use whatever means necessary to "compel" Afghan government to be what the Kagans believe would suffice to insure "legitimacy."  What will we do if they fail to obey us?

To make any of this feasible a great many friendly troops must be available to "protect the people" so that good governance can move their sentiments in the direction of granting "legitimacy" to the government.

There are a lot of village and towns in Afghanistan, even if one only considers Pushtun villages.  The active army is stretched pretty thin.  The suicide and attempted suicide rate is becoming a serious matter.  People with families can not be pushed emotionally beyond a certain level of alienation from home and hearth.  Perhaps it was not such a good idea to build the force around middle class married soldiers.

If President Obama is going to accept the opinions of the Kagans and their four star pupils, then McChrystal should be given all the troops he asks for in this trenche and the next ones as well.  Some consideration of a revival of the draft should also be done and a start made on recruiting, etc. for a really large body of qualified advisers.  pl

Happy Thanksgiving

How "Special" are the Kennedys?

 

Last night Christopher Matthews abused his guest, Thomas Tobin, the Catholic Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island in a manner that calls into question Matthews' sanity as well as his claim to being (in his words) a "good Catholic."  It has been well known for some time that Matthews is not a gentleman.  His public behavior established that long ago.

Having invited Tobin to speak on his television program, Matthews screamed and raved at this clergyman for some minutes over Tobin's disapproval of the consistent advocacy by Representative Patrick Kennedy of public laws that do establish or would establish practises that the Catholic Church teaches are morally unacceptable.

Abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, homosexual "marriage," these are the issues we are talking about.

The Washington Post should be registered under FARA

"...it is becoming evident that Mr. Erdogan's commitment to democratic principles and Western values is far from complete. As Turkey's prospects of joining the European Union have dimmed, the government's foreign policy has taken a nasty turn: Shrill denunciations of Israel have been accompanied by increasing coziness with the criminal rulers of Iran, Syria and Sudan."  Washpost editorial

---------------------------------------------------------------------

It should be well established here now that I do not favor any US alliances with political Islamists.  They always seek to disguise their ultimate goals which are:

1- Establish a sharia law state.

2- Retain power at all costs

For Islamists all else is mere tactical maneuver.

Having said that, it is nevertheless clear that today's lead Washington Post editorial is a clumsy expression of neocon and Likudnik displeasure with Turkey's rather minimal show of independence of Israeli influence.

"Shrill denunciations of Israel have been accompanied by increasing coziness with the criminal rulers of Iran, Syria and Sudan"

The first underlined phrase reveals the true nature of the Post editorial page's displeasure.

The inclusion of the present Syrian government in this list of "bad boys" is particularly revealing.  Bashar Assad may be a lot of things, but "criminal" is a charge unproven.  In fact, he has consistently tried to follow a course leading to peace with Israel.  That attempt has been obstructed by both the US and Israeli governments.  A description of Bashar Assad as a "criminal" is an unproven act of libel by what has become an editorial page devoted to foreign interests.  pl

Iraq, Afghanistan and the decisions facing Barack Obama

- Al-Qa'ida is regaining strength in Iraq with a new focus on the Maliki government.  This article in today's Post makes it quite clear that this is happening because of the abandonment of the "Sons of Iraq" by the United States.  In the Middle East people group themselves in temporary alliance against common enemies.  Why is that so difficult to understand?  If you abandon your allies, they will seek other allies.

- The excellent feature article on corruption in Afghanistan that appeared in "The Nation's" last issue got very little attention anywhere.  I suppose that is because the implication of American complicity was not fully comprehended.

- David Ignatius writes in today's Post that a Green Beret major named Jim Gant has written a major piece on the need to use the non-Taliban tribes in Afghanistan to control the strength of the Taliban and their Al-Qa'ida friends OUTSIDE the perimeter of the Route 1 ring road.  The article is entitled "One Tribe at a Time."

The shape of things to come is becoming more apparent.

1. COIN inside the perimeter, COIN focused on the cities and towns

2. International economic and political development and reform inside that perimeter.

3. Raiding against specific targets outside that perimeter.

4. Development of alliances with tribal entities outside the perimeter.

These are the emerging elements of a new strategy.

Such a strategy will allow an eventual  downsizing of the force in Afghanistan to a level that is much more sustainable for the US armed forces.  Some short term increase may be necessary in order to stabilize the perimeter but that can be followed by reductions.  Using the tribes in the way that Major Gant suggests is the optimal force multiplier for a reduced but politically and militarily sustainable policy n Afghanistan.

Why did we not do that before?  As I have written endlessly, the social sciences driven paradigm of the inevitability and desirability of the Nation State in every clime and continent has been an insuperable obstacle to the empowerment of tribal forces.  Why?  Our military and diplomatic leaders have been indoctrinated with the political science view of the world and the future of mankind.

This paper is a major development.  pl

 

National Journal blog - 21 November 2009

 
http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/are-american-muslims-a-threat.php#1393884

I know it is spelled "origin."  pl