Sic Semper Tyrannis

Dempsey and the Israelis

 "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders Jan. 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers.

Dempsey's warning, conveyed to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, represents the strongest move yet by President Barack Obama to deter an Israeli attack and ensure that the United States is not caught up in a regional conflagration with Iran.

But the Israeli government remains defiant about maintaining its freedom of action to make war on Iran, and it is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in U.S. politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this fall." Gareth Porter

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

I have heard the same thing from other, different sources.  I may become a "fan" of this man, Dempsey.  I notice that he usually wears just two rows of ribbons.  This is a good sign.  It is unlike the current "peacock" display of meaningless ribbons.  Notice how many rows Marshall wore.  pl

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106621

Fred Kagan's desired foreign policy

"Advocates of the president’s strategy say that we do not need that human capital or expertise in ground operations because we will never again fight wars that put large numbers of our soldiers at risk. Technology, they say, will make future wars precise, rapid and decisive. We have heard this argument many times since the Cold War ended, from George W. Bush as enthusiastically as Bill Clinton. Yet every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan has ordered tens of thousands of troops into ground combat. Obama himself sent 70,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops have been deployed abroad to wars or peacekeeping operations for 38 of the past 70 years — and nearly continuously since 1989. The argument that next time will be different is unpersuasive."  Fred Kagan

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

Fred Kagan wants a foreign policy of aggressive overseas deployments and COIN wars like the ones he favored in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

In his oped piece cited here he uses absurd terms like "never again."  No one makes that claim.  The ral question has to do with "when" and "how big."  As for Obama's decision to send a lot more troops to Afghanistan, Kagan was a direct influence in that mistaken decision.

National strategy dictates foreign policy which dictates military strategy which dictates programming and budgeting.  Obama's newly announced military strategy is reflective of a new foreign policy, one that implictly rejects massive pacification projects (COIN wars) involving the large ground forces needed to hold the subject population down while COIN works its magic over some decades.

In the new strategy COIN is not dicarded.  It is merely reduced to a technique useful in small conflicts at reduced cost.

The other large purpose for big ground forces would be the prospect of conventional ground wars against big, capable armies.  Where are the enemies of this type that are likely to be adversaries for the United States.  Where?  Europe?  Asia? Africa?  This seems implausible.

Kagan says he wants us to have large ground forces that will serve as "incubators" for leadership for the big ground wars that we are unlikely to have.  His paradigm implies a continuing commitment to large scale combat situations.  His own logic rejects the idea that peacetime experience "grows" the kind of leadership that he wants to see.

Small ground acions are likely to continue around the peripheries of the oceans or in SOF situations but big ground wars are, for the US, a matter of choice, not necessity.

Kagan and his neocon "brothers" and their familiars are unhappy with the new strategy because it represent a foreign policy that rejects the neocon vision.  pl 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-military-strategy-should-focus-on-troops-not-technology/2012/01/13/gIQAYTXfTQ_story.html

"What the Adelsons will want for their money" Salon

"The latest $5 million to the pro-Newt super PAC was donated by Miriam Adelson, who is reportedly a dual citizen of the United States and Israel. And here, as reported in the New Yorker, is a small but telling example of how Miriam previously interacted with the recipients of the Adelsons’ largesse:  The Adelsons seem not to take their power for granted. Recently, Miriam told an associate, “I had a CD on Islamic jihad. I brought it to the [Bush] White House and told the chief of staff, ‘I would like the President to see this.’ It really is amazing that we have this influence.”"  Salon

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

Adelson says that those who are not rich are not worth listening to.  Adelson is reported to have said that he regrets that he served in the US Army rather than the IDF.  He hates unions because they cut into his"meager" profits in the casino business.  He seems to be against prevention of illegal immigration.  He is one of Bibi's principal backers.  He wants the US Embassy moved to Jerusalem to signal total unity with Israel.  IMO he wants to use his money to arrange for a US Administration that will do whatever Israeli nationalists like him desire. 

Gingrich used to be pro-Palestinian.  That was before he found Adelson.  Well, if he is a whore, at least he is an expensive whore.

And then there is Romney.  As Newt says, what kind of man thinks that he can invest his money in the Cayman Islands and other convenient places and then convince us all that he is for us "dumb people,"   I'm using Adelson's definition. 

I hope Gingrich gets the nomination.  That would be "fun."   pl

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/what_the_adelsons_get_for_their_money/

The "forgotten" fatwa

"Here are two good links.  First one reports it appears to have been issued sometime in 2004 in response to something from the IAEA

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2005/08/081105.html

This one from 2005 includes the text of the fatwa (got the link from the online fatwa wiki), which appears to have been restated for some sort of international commemoration of the Hiroshima bombing held in 2005:

http://mathaba.net/news/pda.shtml?x=302258  "

Silverman

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

    I suppose the reason this fatwa is not mentioned more is that the war party propagandists and the Zionists don't want it mentioned.  The Israeli/Cheney 1% solution requires a belief that Iran is hell bent for development and probable use of nuclear weapons.  The anti-Muslim crowd of whom the medival fanatic, Santorum, is the present exemplar, would never accept the idea that such a fatwa could be anything but a satanic deception. All these forces are converging to cooperate with the nuts on the Iranian side to drive the USA toward war with Iran.  This has been coming for nearly a decade.  Why is CJCS going to Israel now?  Is he going to try to persuade the Bibi/Barak faction not to attack or is he going to coordinate our actions?  I know not.  pl

The 2003 Iranian Overture

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

This morning I tried to put most of this material up as a comment reply to Pirouz's remarks/question but Typepad ate it.  So I apologize for the delay.  The links to the actual Iranian fax are below the post.

In 2003 the Iranians, through Swiss diplomatic channels, made an offer to largely cooperate with the US in exchange for normalization of relations.  While there is no way to know if they were offering in good faith, or if the offer had been accepted if they would have then acted in good faith going forward, the major issue is that the Bush (43) Administration mishandled the offer.  In fact the offer only came to light after Flynt Leverett, a senior director on the National Security Staff at the time, wrote a NY Times' op-ed about it and Trita Parsi, who had been a staffer for Congressman Ney (of Abromoff scandal fame), who had been one of the pass throughs for the offer as he both spoke Farsi and was highly interested and involved in matters pertaining to the Middle East, went public with the story as well.  Secretary Rice denied ever having knowledge of Iran's offer, which is (partially) what led to Leverett's coming forward and a somewhat public spat between them.

Scott Pelley said what?

""Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us," Panetta told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer. "And our red line to Iran is to not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us." 

Panetta also said that the U.S. would "not tolerate" the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz. 

"That's another red line for us and that we will respond to them," he added. 

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that while the Iranians have the capability to block the strait for a time, the U.S. would also be able to "defeat" them if it happened."  CBS News

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

What part of this is hard to understand? Panetta may think that the Iranians could detonate something out in the desert in a year or so.  I don't know if he thinks that.  If he does, so what?  Something the size of a boxcar set off in experimental conditions is a bit hard to deliver.  Our red line to Iran should be clear.  We (the US) do not want further nuclear proliferation and if we find that you have a DELIVERABLE weapon we will destroy it and along the way do untold damage.  This does not necessarily have anything to do with Israel.  At the same time it is clear that every Zionist in the world and all the contemptible flacks in th MSM are doing everythinhg they can to drag the US into war with Iran and the Iranians in their egregious actions are helping them.  pl

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57354645/panetta-iran-cannot-develop-nukes-block-strait/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Face the Nation Transcript: All of Secretary Panetta's Remarks

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

BillH, in the comments to the Secretary Panetta's Comments thread indicated that Scott Pelley reported that the SecDef indicated a time frame for Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon.  The transcript of his Face the Nation interview can be found here.  I don't see any reference like that, but click over and see for yourselves.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College (USAWC).  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of USAWC and/or the US Army.

Secretary Panetta's Remarks on Iran

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

This past Sunday morning, on CBS's Face the Nation, Secretary of Defense Panetta made some very interesting comments regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations (video at the link):

    “To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are     they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to     develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is,     do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”

This seems to be a very public reiteration of the findings of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear intentions.  It is also a very welcome public admission given all the recent sabre rattling in the early GOP primaries and debates, as well as among members of Congress.  The only real question now is how much will Secretary Panetta's remarks offend the tender sensibilities of the Iran hawks?

(hat tip to Zandar - I don't watch the Sunday shows, they give me a headache..., which is why I didn't know about this till today)

* Adam L. Silverman, PhD is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College (USAWC).  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of USAWC and/or the US Army.

National Security Blog 9 January 2012 #2

What Do You Think of Obama's New Defense Strategy? - National Security Experts.

pl

National Journal Blog 9 January 2012

What Do You Think of Obama's New Defense Strategy? - National Security Experts.

pl

The Washington Post's defense obsession in the ME

"A more dubious, and risky, assumption of Mr. Obama’s plan is that the United States will no longer conduct operations like those of the last decade: “long-term nation-building with large military footprints.” Though counterinsurgency has produced results in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it — and the troop levels required for it — will be retired; the size of the Army and Marines will be returned to prewar levels. This, too, is not a new concept: After Vietnam, the Pentagon abandoned counterinsurgency and planning for troop-intensive operations."  Washpost Editorial Board

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

It is to be expected that the neocon editorial page board and staff of the Washington Post would be upset with the newly announced national defense strategy.  This strategy will inevitably result in two things these people do not like: 1- Fewer conventional ground troop will be available for "reforming" foreign countries in COIN campaigns like Iraq and Afghanistan and 2- The strategy will begin a dilution of our decades long obsession with the Middle East and Europe.

As I say, this was to be expected.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-defense-strategy/2012/01/06/gIQAKm5pfP_story.html

Cordesman on the New Defense Strategy

Download The New US Strategy Asking the Right Questions

 

 The data in this piece is at a link called"Download the full report."  pl

A Brave New World for the armed forces

"... administration officials speaking before the roll-out of the strategy on Thursday said Army and Marine Corps personnel numbers would be cut by 10 percent to 15 percent in the next decade, a figure that translates into tens of thousands of troops.

The strategy underscores the United States' "enduring interests" in Europe and the importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization but says the force posture in Europe must "evolve" with the changing times.

Administration officials have said the United States is likely to further reduce the number of ground forces in Europe by another combat brigade, a unit of 3,000 to 4,000 people depending on its composition.

The strategy document underscores a U.S. interest in maintaining stability in the Middle East while responding to the aspirations of the people as expressed in the Arab Awakening last year. It also says the United States will continue working to halt nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.

"U.S. policy will emphasize Gulf security, in collaboration with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries when appropriate, to prevent Iran's development of a nuclear weapon capability and counter its destabilizing policies," the strategy document says."  Reuters

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

It is always pleasant to hear confirmation of policy change that one has favored.   This is just the beginning.  We will have much smaller conventional ground forces.  This refelcts a decision to accept the notion that we will not fight land wars overseas that involve massive numbers of grounf troops.  IMO, the US Army will take the biggest "hit" in this since it is far easier in such a national strategy to justify marine forces that will operate as part of naval task forces.  The USAF is an obvious beneficiary of such strategy alhough the future for human pilots is beginning to dim.  SOF forces for Libya type involvement and CT work will clearly be maintained or reinforced.

Those who seek to advance Israel's interests through America's strength should take little comfort from this announcement.  The shift in attention to the Pacific cannot be viewed favorably in those quarters.

We will have a lot to say about these changes as developements and documents appear.  pl

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-usa-military-obama-idUSTRE8031Z020120105

"The Goodbye Kiss" by Basilisk

A Saturday night in January 1991: my colleague sat morosely, looking at the muted TV. Some vaguely international jazz—chewing gum for the ears–played in the background. The fog had rolled in around four p.m. and the temperature was hovering around twenty-five.  We were ensconced in a glitzy hotel on the Kärntner Ring in Vienna, but it might have been anywhere in the world. They had CNN International running nonstop.

“You could drop one of those things right through a silo door.” He was watching perhaps the fiftieth repeat of video clip showing the display of laser-guided bomb guiding unerringly into the top of a multistory building in downtown Baghdad.

“That’s not what they’re for,” I said.

“Sure, but we trade everything away, and you still have those.”

It was the second or third night of the air offensive for DESERT STORM. The fireworks were impressive. My colleague was a Soviet diplomat attached to the Arms Control delegation negotiating the treaty we called Conventional Forces in Europe.

“Those are tactical aircraft,” I said, “they would have to penetrate a thousand miles of air defenses to get to your ICBM’s. It would be impossible.”

“The Iraqis have our air defenses and they don’t seem to be stopping anything there.” His face was glum as he watched the sequence run again.

The Iraq Lie That Needs to Die (Kill it, Kill it Quick, Before Someone Names It...)

*

Adam L. Silverman, PhD**

Even before we left Iraq earlier this month, informed observers had begun to notice the beginnings of a new lie about Iraq: that the Obama Administration, and specifically President Obama, had pulled US troops out, leaving the job undone, and therefore jeopardizing everything we had fought so hard to achieve there.  I have seen this in the press and I have heard otherwise well informed military personnel parrot it (often, for them and for obvious reasons, with a great amount of personal pain coming through).  Now I am not suprised that Ms. Rubin or Ms. Pletka have gotten this wrong, not to mention many other commenters, pundits, and even reporters.  In their cases it is appropriate to quote Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."  Unfortunately their either misinformed or willingly misinforming understanding of what actually happened to lead the US to complete a timely withdrawl from Iraq ending Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn after seven years is being picked up by people who need to have a correct understanding of the situation as they attempt to reach proper understandings of various problem sets and potential problem sets that the US faces in the Middle East, Central Asia, and other parts of the world.

As I have written here at SST, as well as at Foreign Policy's Best Defense (Tom Ricks' site and, like all his guest "correspondents" have NO control over the titles to their posts...), we were leaving, and have now left, Iraq because the Iraqis told us to.  They were able to do this because we transferred sovereignty back to them at the end of 2008 when our UN authorization to occupy Iraq expired and we agreed to a security agreement with the Iraqis that would allow US personnel to remain in place, with continued and increased transfer of control back to the Government of Iraq, with a complete withdrawl to occur no later than 31 December 2011.  The reasons for this are simple to follow:

 

Congressman Paul Material

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Since folks in the comments to the last Congressman Paul thread have been asking where to find the material, I've pulled together a HUGE chunk of it below.  Including links to pdfs of his newsletters (these were published together this past week at The New Republic (which highlighted the problematic sections/passages), as well as appeals written on his Congressional letterhead and signed (most likely, I would think, with an autopen) by him.  I am also including Esquire's excellent (as in interesting and informative) articles and interviews on/with him from earlier in the year, as well as the Reason article from several years ago looking into who wrote the (bulk of the) newsletters (Reason's conclusion: former Paul staffer Lew Rockwell).  I'm also including the links to the videos of Congressman Paul speaking to the John Birch Society and some interesting reporting I tripped over while pulling this together for you all about the attitudes of his constituents, as well as remarks about his attitudes made by a former senior staffer.  Read it all, or some of it and make up your own minds.  Or if you've already done so, just ignore it.

Here you go:

The Esquire Coverage:

http://www.esquire.com/features/ron-paul-profile-0511

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ron-paul-quotes-5593289

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ron-paul-on-the-fed-5593602

The Reason article:

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

Statement from a former Paul staffer on the Congressman's actual beliefs and attitudes:

http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/

Iraqi Demographics

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

In the comments thread of COL Lang's recent post on Maliki's most recent activities vis a vis the US, WP asked about Iraqi demographics.  I was involved in several attempts during OIF 2008 to develop census protocals, specifically for Mada'in Qada, which, along with part of Wassit Province, was my BCT's OE (OE Striker).  What I developed borrowed from the last census Saddam's government had carried out (for familiarity) and from the UN's Food Security Survey of Iraq (they had THE BEST demographic questions).  We were never able to execute on the tasker, however, because of orders from higher (Division and Theater Command) that always took precedence.  One of the reasons my BCT's leadership was interesting in conducting a census was in support of the local qada (an agricultural district in Baghdad Province, but outside of municipal/greater Baghdad) government as under the CPA Mada'in had been put into Diyala Province (which is geographically where it belongs as part of the Diyala Watershed, but it has historically, in the modern period, been politically part of Baghdad Province).  As a result of having its political connections mucked about with, it was important to get an accurate accounting of population size so that the new qada leadership could back up their requests for funding.  Attached is the pdf of the UN's most recent Food Security Survey for Iraq and when I get the chance over the next day or so, I'll try to dig out where I've got the best estimations of the sectarian breakdown.

Download Wfp192521

UPDATE:

I came across this, which is consistent with most of the stuff I have seen over the past several years in estimating the sectarian breakdown in Iraq.  As COL Lang noted, they have not done an official count by sect in a long time (1957) even though the last official census was in 1987.  Basically none of the groups wants to change the official numbers by getting actual up to date official numbers.  

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College (USAWC).  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of USAWC and/or the US Army.

Iraq Analysis by Gareth Porter

"The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmanoeuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement."  Porter

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

I agree with all of this except the role that Porter ascribes to the "US Military Leadership."  The mistake there is a common one.  In fact, the US military seeks to implement the elected government's policy.  It does not originate  policy initiatives that amount to national grand strategy.  pl

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106244

 

 

 

 

Iran is an existential threat to the US - Gingrich

Gingrich had the line of the night at the Iowa debate when he said that Iran was such a threat that he used the phrase "if we survive" in connection to the Iranian threat.,  This was on a par with the willingness of Santorum, Romney, Bachmann and Perry to stand up and be counted as 5th columnists who would surrender American policy in the ME to Israel.  Watch the video.  pl

We have two armies - why?

"...some in Congress it raises this question: Does a nation drowning in debt really need two armies? Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, says that misses the real point. He argues that the Marines, while willing and able to operate from dug-in positions on land, are uniquely equipped and trained to do much more -- to get to any crisis, on land, at sea or in the air, on a moment's notice."

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

What a crock!  In fact we DO have two armies.  If Amos thinks that going on "float" more , getting rid of a few infantry battalions and having more unaccompanied rotations to places like Okinawa and Australia will obscure that fact, then IMO he is mistaken.  Let's have one ground force.  Call it whatever you want.  If you want to call it the "Super Duper Marine Army," go for it!  The economies that would result from amalgamation of the two armies would be large.  I am sure that it is not a great surprise for people if I say that making amphibious landings from barracks ships is not really "rocket science."  You like the uniforms, keep'em.  You are in better physical condition?  BS!  Look around you at today's soldiers.  You have better generals?  Well then, they will end by running the whole thing.

BTW, weren't the marines on 7 month unit rotations in both these wars?

Give America a break.  Let's have one army.  pl

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/12/05/postwar_marines_smaller_less_focused_on_land_war/

Happy Anniversary Iran-Contra

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

As events in and about Iran continue to unfold, from students storming the British Embassy to increased discussions and threats of new and harsher sanctions, we should take a few moments and recall that this week marks the 25th anniversary of the Iran-Contra scandal breaking into the national consciousness.  The National Security Archives at George Washington University has all the documentation that they have been able to get the government to release about what happened and even if you are familiar with the events it is interesting reading.  The Iran-Contra archive contains not only documents, but video - a lot of which has not been previously available.  A good summary of the scandal and its implications, written by a senior analyst at the National Security Archives can be found here.

*Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

The Game of Kings: A Bit More on Iran

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

As we move past the Thanksgiving holiday into December, and as the Republican primaries lurch ever closer, we can be assured that the reverbations from the recent IAEA report about Iran's nuclear program will continue.  While some of this will be part of the posturing by candidates either in the Republican presidential primaries or in the lead up to the House and Senate campaigns in 2012, some of it will be the result of the US's responses to the report and the challenge that Iran presents, as well as how other major international and regional actors respond.  As the US attempts to ratchet up the economic pressure through new sanctions, Russia, a major trading partner of Iran, as well as a major player in Iran's nuclear development program, has indicated that it opposes them.  It is, perhaps, an appropriate time to step back and reflect on the actual strategic challenge that Iran's nuclear program presents to the US.

There are two key questions we have to ask in regard to any potential response towards Iran's nuclear development program: 1) will US action towards Iran actually prevent them from pursuing and/or acquiring a nuclear weapons capability? and 2) will US action towards Iran to prevent them from pursuing and/or acquiring a nuclear weapons capability change the Iranian government's behavior in the manner that we want?  Looking at possible options we can reasonably rule out further and/or increased sanctions.  To be blunt they have not worked.  While they initially inflicted some pain on Iran that gave way long ago and Iran has managed to survive and grow despite them.  While I am sure I am about to give a whole lot of people serious agita, now might be a good time to consider what might happen if we actually tried doing something else like pursuing a serious diplomatic initiative.  Since trying to lock down and close off Iran has not actually worked, perhaps opening up trade and travel to Iran just might.  While there is certainly no gaurantee of success, continuing to do what we are doing is, to paraphrase Professor Einstein, crazy.  I can not help but think that the ability of diasporan Iranians to travel home, for Iranians to travel to other places including the US with less hassle and difficulty, for scientific, professional, and business exchanges to occur can not but have a positive effect.  At some point we can not keep pointing to the stick and saying it is a carrot.

More on Ms. Rubin: WaPo Double Standard Edition

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

The Washington Post's Ombudsman, in an email exchange with a reader (that the ombudsman has not denied, just refused to comment on), seems to pretty clearly indicate that a clear double standard was in play.  If Ms. Rubin had retweeted remarks that had made the same or similar assertions about Jews and/or Israelis, or called for them to killed, then it was quite possible that Ms. Rubin would have been fired.  This has led to a number of interesting remarks, from, among others Glenn Greenwald, Dr. Farley at LGM (who gets the hat tip as I saw it there first), and from the King of Snark Tbogg (which is where Farley seems to have found it).

What I find the most interesting about all of this is both the double standard (not that it surprises me that it exists), but that it seems to always be applied to analysts, pundits, commentators, and in some cases elected and appointed officials (often who seem to revolve between being analysts, pundits, and appointed officials) that not only seem to have a consistent track record of being wrong about what they are remarking on, but also get the shield portion of the double standard: they are never hurt by the remarks.  It does not seem to matter how wrong they are, how ill informed, how bigoted, they just seem to continuously be rewarded with another fellowship or think tank gig or staff position or column or tv or radio slot.  I think that of all the things that future generations, whether of Americans or of other nationalities, conclude about us is that we have willingly become ignorant.  Not only would the founders and framers be dismayed by this, but many of the subsequent generations of Americans - elite, notable, or not, as well.

* Adam L. Silverman, PhD is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

Some Overdue Thoughts on Iraq

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Several weeks ago, in regards to some correspondence between COL Lang and myself, he asked me to make sure I wrote some of it up for SST.  The some of it pertains to Iraq, specifically to the final, official announcement that yes, the US military will be leaving Iraq on the last day of 2011 and that is now final and non-negotiable.  I asked for a couple of weeks to address this so that the post would not become an essay length screed.  Not that some folks do not deserve to be called out for the damage they have done by committing strategic malpractice, strategic malpractice that cost a lot of good Americans, Brits, Georgians (we had a Georgian Battalion assigned to our BCT), and, of course, Iraqis their lives.  And it is in this vein, strategic malpractice, that I want to really address the soon to be reached end of the US military presense in Iraq; especially as many of the mistakes in forethought, understanding, and planning, not to mention the people responsible for them or who enabled those responsible, threaten to set us up for a rerun regarding Iran.

In April, Tom Ricks (full disclosure: I guest blog for Tom several times a year) ran a piece at his Foreign Policy site about the need to begin negotiations for keeping some US troops in Iraq after the date for withdrawl agreed to in the Security Agreement negotiated by the Bush (43) Administration in 2008.  In his post, Tom quotes Ambassador Crocker discussing how the US might negotiate some extension beyond/despite the 2008 agreement.  Several days later Tom posted my response to his post on the topic.  In it I made it clear that while we might be able to keep a small group of security force advisors in Iraq, based on an agreement that was separate from the security agreement, there was no chance for any meaningful, large scale extension.  The reasons for this are the reasons that hit us in the face over the past several months as the Obama Administration could not move the Iraqis off of the idea that US military personnel, should an extension be granted, would not receive immunity from prosecution: they do NOT want us there as they have been waiting to settle things between themselves once we leave or further consolidate power or not lose power.  

"Back to the Future" in the ME

"Twelve Republican Senators demanded hearings on the administration’s ending of negotiations with the Iraqis — for now at least — on the continuation of American training and on counterterrorism efforts in Iraq.

“As you know, the complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is likely to be viewed as a strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime,” the senators wrote Wednesday in a letter to the chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee"  NY Times

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

Surely these senators know better than this.  The Bush Administration negotiated the agreement under which the Maliki government has effectively demanded complete American withdrawal.  Obama did not end negotiations for modification of that agreement.  The Iraqis did that because Maliki's coalition includes several groups that want us out.  That being the case, the fact that the non-Kurdish population wants an end to occupation was decisive.  What was Obama to do in that context?  Should he have staged another "surge" to satisfy those who never understood that we had not conquered Iraq and could not keep it?

Social Security is 46 bilion dollars in the red this year in the US.  That is a small amount of money in the context of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.  The US needs to re-structure its forces to deal with real threats rather than the shiboleths which many generals and admirals are fond of because they maintain traditional types of forces within which generations of people like me have prospered.   In my view, we need airforces, but maybe a lot less in the way of manned aircraft.  We need naval forces to hold the seas open for us and keep trade moving.  We need SOF forces to pursue irregular enemies on the direct action side and on the SF side to work with the locals in ways that worked well in Libya.

What we do not need are ground forces as big as the ones we have now.  Both the Army and Marine Corps should be restructured and made smaller in their armor, infantry and artillery forces.  These should not be done away with but they should be smaller, less expensive and tailored to a a foreign policy that is less clearly imperial with all this talk of "exceptionalism," etc.

A tripwire in Kuwait?  I have argued for that since the First Gulf War.  IMO something like a composite division of ground troops and an air wing would probably be appropriate.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=1&hp

Sharia Law is NOT Closer to America than it Appears... Part V: Dubious Qualifications for a Presidential Advisor

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

"Phares obtained a fellowship at the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a teaching position at National Defense University. He became a trainer at the Center for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, a nongovernmental organization that claims to have "trained over 75,000 Intelligence Community, Military, Law Enforcement, Homeland Security, Government and Corporate employees over the past 14 years." Phares has testified before Congress and advised the Department of Homeland Security."  and ""[Phares] is telling people to suspect all Muslims Americans as something other than how they portray to themselves," says Thomas Cincotta, one of the authors of a report titled "Manufacturing the Muslim Menace," published by the liberal group Political Research Associates. But it's not just anyone Phares is preaching his ideas to. "He's addressing the intelligence community, he's addressing policymakers, military personnel," Cincotta notes." (hat tip to a commenter named Alex at Stiftung Leo Strauss: The Bunker)

Click on over and read the whole thing.  I first met Dr. Phares in person in 2004 at a Florida Political Science Association conference.  I was coordinating the panels on terrorism and political violence (and was one of the presenters).  Every so often we'd cross paths.  While I was a post-doc at UF we did some Florida Public Radio segments together by three way telecon on events related to 9-11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  I knew he was a Lebanese Christian, somewhat conservative, and had been involved with the Maronite militias.  What I did not know was just how involved.  From listening to his conference papers, reading his articles on conflict resolution, and doing one or two radio segments together you would have thought he was a center-right, pretty main stream, professor at a tier 2 university.  Apparently when you make the jump to a neo-Con funded outfit originally backed by Frank Gaffney and run by one of his proteges, you can really let your freak flag fly!  The frightening thing with this is not just that he provides expert testimony for the prosecution in counter-terrorism prosecutions (as we've detailed here before), while admitting he doesn't know a whole lot about Islam or that he's training law enforcement and intelligence personnel (as the Mother Jones' reporting indicates), but that he is now advising the GOP candidate that is considered to be the most likely to gain the nomination at this time.  Have to give the neo-Cons credit, they do know how to play the long game.

*Adam L. Silverman

President Romney will follow the generals and Israelis.

If Mitt Romney becomes president, there are a lot of important foreign policy decisions that he’d leave up to others. Most notably, Romney often says that whatever the generals decide, that’s the course he’ll take in Afghanistan (although he backtracked on that stance when pressed recently).  Think Progress

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

Romney appears to be yet another person who wants to be something rather that to do something.  In this case he wants to be president and to that end is kissing up to anyone and everything who will have some effect on the outcome next November.

Evangelicals, Zionists, hard hearted Republicans who boo gay soldiers deployed in the theater of war, other (or the same) hard hearted Republicans who yell, "Let him die!" when asked if treatment should be given to someone with no health insurance, all these are in Romney's constituency.  Ah, I forgot the Mormons.

It is implicit in Romney's position that the COCOMS and JCS will run foreign policy, or, at least any part of it that the Israelis don't want to run.  I can't vote for this man.  The president of the US is supposed to run foreign and defense policy within boundaries of funding and structure allowed by Congress.  Romney either does not "buy" that or is playing a completely cynical geme.  Take your pick among those two undesirable possibilities.

Who are the other possibilities? 

-  The president.  I am unimpressed by his foreign policy "triumphs," and his domestic actions seem to be those of a servant of the moneyed class who wishes to disguise that identity.

- Cain?   I like the smile but IMO this whole effort on his part is a joke that has gotten out of control.  The "smoking" commercial seems to have been an appeal for an escape route.

- Perry?  No.

-  Gingrich?  Hell no!

- Father Santorum?  No.

- Ron Paul?  Evidently not.

- All others now running?  No.

So, what's left?  A hung Republican convention and a "dark horse?"  Maybe.  pl

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/10/28/356276/romney-israel-policy/

Neocon Resurrection

" Frankly, if anyone lost Iraq to Iran, it was the neocons. It was they who pressed to crush Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and when they did, they destroyed the only regional counterweight to Iran. Take a bow, neocons."  Gelb

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

Well, no s--t, Les.

Someone will refresh my memory as to what exactly was his position on the 2003 war.  Memory fails.  Whatever his position on the war may have been, Gelb was a highly effective president of the CFR.  i remember sitting in his little office and wondering what sort of man places a large print of  "The Return of the Hunters" ten feet from his face where he has no choice but to look at it constantly.  He has a bizarre sense of humor, or something.  On one occesion he sat down next to me and explained in his best avuncular style that if only I lived somewhere other than the Virginia suburbs of Washington I would have been elected to membership in the CFR.  'We just have too many people from Washington," he said.  I thanked him for his concern.

In any event, he is dead right on this.  pl

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/19/leslie-h-gelb-argues-that-neocons-like-bill-kristol-are-back-to-warmongering.html

Koolaid anyone?

Col. W. Patrick Lang Responds to What Should the Administration Do to Pressure Iran??.

Pincus on Aid to Israel

"If Israel can reduce its defense spending because of its domestic economic problems, shouldn’t the United States — which must cut military costs because of its major budget deficit — consider reducing its aid to Israel?"  Walter Pincus

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

Amen.  Walter is not a man to mince words.  He is right, of course.  Israel is a prosperous country that is experiencing internal class struggle on the basis of the 1%-99% thing.   They are now receiving  3 billion US dollars a year in grant military aid from the United States.  They invest the money and use the interest to make payments to the US on old un-guaranteed loans from us.  I suppose that if they were guarateed they could just default on them.  No?  They also are allowed by their "friends" in Congress to use 25% of the borrowed money that we give them to buy their own military products.

So, basically, we are a piggy-bank for srael.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/united-states-needs-to-reevaluate-its-assistance-to-israel/2011/10/15/gIQAK5XksL_story.html

National Journal blog - 11 October, 2011

Col. W. Patrick Lang Responds to What Happens After 2014? ?.

A new kind of war - FB Ali

On the recent thread about Anwar al-Awlaki’s killing, the question came up as to whether the US really is at war or not. This is an important issue, and its answer carries much wider significance beyond just the legality of killing Awlaki.

The short answer to the question, of course, is: it is war, because the US chooses to treat it as such. But it’s the dawn of a very different kind of war.

When George Bush declared his Great War on a nebulous noun (which most people understood to mean Islamists, though some construed it as Islam), he still waged it in the conventional manner. Pinning the blame for 9/11 on Afghanistan and Iraq, he invaded both countries. This was not much different from Austria-Hungary declaring war on and invading Serbia in 1914 because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist.

Gerrymandering a Federal Election?

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Earlier in the week COL Lang wrote about a proposal to get the voluminous amounts of money out of US politics and political campaigns through the creation of a constitutional amendment that would reverse not only the recent Citizens United ruling, but the far older Buckley Vs. Valeo decsion that gave us that in regards to politics money is equal to protected speech under the First Amendment.  

But there is something else that Americans need to keep their eyes on, which is the concerted efforts to disenfranchise voters, gerrymander the electoral college vote, as well as overall election system security.  So lets take these one at a time.  The disenfranchisement of voters has taken many forms over the years in the US, but over the past forty-six years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act it has tended to be a one sided affair: an attempt to keep minority, disabled, some elderly, and younger voters from being able to cast their ballots.  While this has ranged from Operation Eagle Eye (presided over by William Rhenquist) to voter caging by sending mail to addresses on voter rolls and then challenging eligibility based on returned mail** (for which the Republican Party is under a court order to restrain from, but which they still engage in) efforts at voter disenfranchisement, which is itself a type of voter fraud, have been amped way up.  The Bush (43) Administration's US Attorneys firing scandal revolved around the attempt to push the US Attorneys to bring partisan voter fraud investigations and indictments.  The only problem was that there was, and still is, precious little voter registration and casting fraudulent ballots actually happening in the US.  The most recent efforts are state level attempts to push through legislation regarding voter identification (this goes back to our discussion of ALEC here at SST as they are the ones pushing the model legislation out) to resolve the virtually non-existent fraudulent voting problem and to PA's interest in splitting its electoral college vote for the 2012 presidential election.  NYU's Brennan Center's recent report on the effect of the new voting laws indicated that 5 million Americans eligible to vote will have significantly harder times doing so in the 2012 elections.  This is the result of the need to get a state issued photo ID (and before anyone says "so what's the big deal?" the issue is that locales to issue them are being closed as cost cutting measures in areas with the highest concentrations of voters without them), as well as the reduction of early voting days and/or hours and the attempt to scare college students*** into not voting with threats of prosecution (college students, as well as deployed military and governmental personnel, are also two of the biggest targets for vote caging).

 

Panetta's Trip to Israel

 
"The United States has delivered an unusually blunt critique of Israel's foreign policy by claiming that Benjamin Netanyahu's government was partly responsible for its growing isolation in the region.

The US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, suggested that Israel carried a portion of the blame for its deteriorating relationship with Turkey and Egypt.

''There's not much question in my mind that they maintain that [military] edge,'' he said. ''But the question you have to ask is: Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?"  Adrian Blomfield

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

What is Panetta REALLY doing on this trip?  pl

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-shares-blame-for-its-isolation-says-us-20111004-1l78m.html#ixzz1ZoukjgkF

 

National Journal Blog - 26 September 2011

 
After Palestinian Statehood Bid, What's Next for the U.S.? - National Security Experts.

"Dangerous" to whom?

 
"Speaking at a Likud supporters’ rally in New York City, Perry said that he was “indignant of the Obama administration and their Middle East policy of appeasement that has encouraged such an ominous act of bad faith. Simply put, we would not be here today at this very precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama policy in the Middle East was not naive and arrogant, misguided and dangerous.”"  JPost

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

Is Rick Perry running for the Knesset?  Or, is he seeking the position of right hand man to Jesus when the Rapture comes?  Or, is he just seeking to follow the counsel of his Middle East Ziocon adviser, Douglas Feith?

Obama is vunerable among Jewish Americans.   Some have come to believe that  he might actually not be completely at the beck and call of his big money supporters and insufficiently fearful of AIPAC, Israel's organized pals in Washington.  And then, there are all the "mouth breathers" out there in he population who are not smart enough to think for themselves about "Izrul!"  After all, didn't Paul Newman found "Izrul?"

Too bad about Perry, Obama is a lousy president, self-obsessed, vulnerable to flattery and indecisve.   There are many things about Perry that I like, but not enough to put up with his sell out to the Likud.  pl

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=238743

Well This Explains It...

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

In the comments to my most recent Sharia Law is Not Closer to America than It Appears post, DanM brought Spencer Ackerman's** recent reporting on some really factually inaccurate training materials pertaining to Islam that were, apparently, used at the FBI.  After looking through the training slide decks, I have got to say they are a mess!***  And that we need to bring the links to the reporting out of the comments and up where everyone can see it.  The apparent good news, which Spencer reports in his article and links to, is that Senators Lieberman and Collins seem to take these problems seriously and have made it clear they intend to fix it if the relevant agencies do not do so themselves.  But the poor quality information that Spencer has reported is being provided to Federal law enforcement, perhaps explains some of the confounding and very public terrorism prosecutions we have been witness too over the past decade as reported on by Petra Bartosiewicz at Harpers.  

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

** Full disclosure: I once wrote a guest post for Spencer Ackerman.

*** As someone who has briefed, lectured, and presented on Islam, Islamic theology and dogma, and the connections between Islam and a variety of types of political violence and conflict to a number of different US Army elements, I can honestly say that these are some of the worst materials on the subject I have ever seen.  

Sharia Law is NOT Closer to America than it Appears... Part IV: This Club has an Exclusive Membership

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

At Salon's War Room, Justin Elliott brings a report on a Lebanese American who is trying to establish a Republican Muslim club in FL.  As SST readers can no doubt imagine, this has been met with, shall we say, skepticism by some Republicans in FL (there are even more, and more inflammatory, links in Elliott's reporting, I'm not putting them here, if you want to click through to Salon and then click through fair enough).  Apparently the fear of a MUSLIM AMERICA is so upsetting to some Americans that it has garnered Governor Perry some negative campaign publicity from everyone's favorite Islamophobes and deep thinkers, as well as a Muslim running for a GOP spot in VA's House of Delegates from one of the same deep thinkers.  It has even led the Orthodox Jewish Candidate trying to hold Congressman Weiner's seat in NY for the Democrats to trail in the race, and combined with concerns over Democrats (because of President Obama) not being supportive enough of Israel has led Mayor Koch to endorse the Republican Candidate.  And what really gets me is that the guy who wants to form the Republican Muslim club indicates in Elliott's report that he agrees with Congressman West on many of his views, not just those on Islam.  That's after Congressman West sent him a less than pleasant letter, as a reply to a letter asking him to stop demagoguing on the Islamaphobia and shouted him down at a town hall meeting earlier this year (video at the latter link, as well as Elliott's report).  This reminds me of Hannah Arendt's remarks about Leo Strauss: “he wanted to join a party which wouldn’t have him because he was a Jew.”  And that's the irony in America ten years after the events of 9-11: Muslim Americans have, in many ways, become the Jewish Americans of the late 19th to mid 20th Century America...

*Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

Flotilladamerung...

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

It looks like the next round of flotilla disputes between the Israelis and the Turks is just about ready to kick off. (Hat tip to Zandar) And this time, provided the reporting is correct, the Turks are not going to just send the relief ships.  Just one more problem set to worry about as Septemeber rolls on.  We should all keep good thoughts that cooler heads prevail and that, if they don't, Turkey doesn't invoke its Article 5 rights under the North Atlantic Treaty.  Then again, that might prove very, very interesting...

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

From Redhand's Comment

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

On Saturday, in comments to my post on Additional Thoughts on the Gilded Age, Redhand put up a link to a very interesting story/confessional from a recently retired, and very senior, Congressional Republican staffer.  I saw and read the story before Redhand put it into comments, and had been mulling over whether to do a separate post on it for the beginning of the week.  The link deserves to be in a post of its own, not in comments, so hat tip and thanks to Redhand for bringing it to everyone at SST's attention.   

One of the things I found interesting about the story is where it appeared.  I got the link from the Ballon Juice gang, but I think its very important that we take a second and think about where this was published.  While I have no major issues with Truthout, let's be honest: its not the NY Times, The Atlantic, Harper's, The New Yorker, or several other very well known pubblications with both online and in-print coverage.  While James Fallows at The Atlantic did direct his readers to the piece, I have to agree with Steve M. that because of where this is published, as well as its content, it is very likely to wind up in a sort of main stream news spam filter.  Basically, its going to get a lot of play on a place like SST that is concerned with effective and functioning policy and governance (domestic, foreign), a variety of similar sites, and then a range of what is called the leftist, liberal, and/or progressive blogosphere.  So moving it up to the front page here, so it gets a bit more wider notice, is I think the right thing to do.  Finally, for anyone interested in more information on the GOP as a political/ideological movement in the way that Mr. Lofgren describes, I recommend the Stiftung Leo Strauss website (where someone named Redhand seems to comment...).  The proprietor, a beltway insider, does his best to both explain and channel the Straussian/neo-Con ideology and world view that seems to have infested much of today's GOP (he also has at least one COL Lang quote on his random quote generator).  He does a very interesting job and here's the link to his posts on what he calls The Movement.   I think many here at SST will find them interesting and illuminating.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarilly reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

A Few Additional Thoughts on the Gilded Age

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

COL Lang's recent post on attempts by the GOP to return America to a new Gilded Age excellently picked apart what is being proposed and why.  I wanted to follow up with some additional information I have come across and took note of in case I had reason to use it.  The first is an excellent article in The Atlantic from last winter.  The article, by Chrystia Freeland, a business correspondent, delineates how the wealthiest of Americans have essentially detached themselves from the rest of us.  They have fully embraced the concept of globalization by recognizing that they and their capital can go anywhere, therefore they don't really need the US or the rest of us Americans.  In doing so they have broken the last bits of the economic portions of the American social contract.  Essentially all of the rest of us are just disposable.  This, as I've mentioned before in regards to military service, is at the heart of the book AWOL and Freeland's article makes a more general and economic complement to that argument.  And Timothy Noah (before Slate let him go...) did an outstanding multipart series on income inequality.

Another excellent piece, especially now that one of the major GOP candidates for the party's presidential nomination has said that corporations are people, is a lecture given by Harper'scontributing editor and law professor Scott Horton that was reprinted in (at least the online version) of Harper's.  Professor Horton's presentation takes a look at the corporation through the eyes of James Madison and presents a stark contrast to how many in America, and certainly the (conservative wing of the) Supreme Court based on recent rulings, view and should understand corporations. 

Finally, just a couple of links to some chart heavy sites dealing with how Americans are compensated for their work, facts about US inequality, debunking some major tax myths, historical top tax rates.  New gilded age indeed...

*Adam L. Silverman, PhD is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

 

There is Nothing More Dangerous than a Democracy when it is Scared...

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

When I was an undergraduate, the political science professor who I thook the political theory core from (ancient, modern, feminist, and nietzchean) used to say that the closest thing that political science had to an axiom was that "nothing was more dangerous than a democracy when it was scared".  As we approach the tenth anniversary of the events of 9-11 we have begun to see both straight reporting, analysis, and opinion pieces that look back over the past decade in something of a retrospective manner.  This past week two of these types of pieces (one straight reporting and one op-ed) caught my eye and I think, in many ways, they bear out the truism shared with a class of 18 and 19 year olds in the late 1980s.  

The first piece, in the LA Times, looks at the costs of homeland security spending over the past decade, how much of it there is, if it makes sense the way we are spending it and using it, and if it is actually making us safer.  One of my favorite portions is the quotation from Professor Mueller at Ohio State about the odds of an American being killed in a terrorist attack: 1 in 3.5 million.  For those wondering how Professor Mueller gets that number he lays it out in his book on US responses to the 9-11 attacks: Overblown.  Professor Mueller's book is excellent and I highly recommend it.  And for anyone wondering, I calculated an odds ratio similar to the one he presents back in 2003 using an open source data chronology of terrorism posted online (total number of incidents, over the time span in days from the first recorded incidents to the day I did the analysis, calculated against the adjusted population figures).  That one focused less on the odds to an American, just the overall odds.  Basically the chance is extremely unlikely, though it does go up if you reside in conflict areas.

The second piece, which is a full retrospective op-ed, is by Frank Rich.  Mr. Rich's column ponders who has won?   Just something for us to ponder as we move into the final week of the decade that began on 9/11/01.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

Libya Update

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

The Libyan rebels appear to have not only entered Tripoli, but seem to have brought about the collapse of Qhatafi's government.  It is also being reported that three of his sons, including his two eldest, are in custody and that Qhatafi's location is currently unknown.

*Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

Seeking Dominion?

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

With Congresswoman Bachmann's victory in the Iowa Straw Poll and Governor Perry's announcement that he is entering the 2012 presidential race timed to essentially step all over the events in Iowa, both candidates are getting a lot of media coverage and attention.  While there have been a number of articles, some of the most recent are beginning to bring more attention to and highlight the religious beliefs of both politicians.  While discussions of other's religious beliefs can be dicey, both candidates have regularly and routinely referred to their devout Christianity as not only important parts of their lives, but as major influences on their politics and political views.

Both Congresswoman Bachmann and Governor Perry are part of two different variants of a particularly American form of Evangelicalism referred to as Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, and/or Theonomy.  Ryan Lizza's recent New Yorker profile does a good job detailing how Congresswoman Bachmann came to her faith and how she is influenced by Dominionism.   Forrest Wilder does an excellent job covering Governor Perry's much more recent movement into Dominionism in The Texas Observer.  Frank Schaeffer, the son of Francis Schaeffer one of the founders of Dominionism who eventually broke with the movement, provides a former insider's view of the beliefs of Dominion theology and Christian Reconstructionism, as well as how those beliefs have not only influenced Congresswoman Bachmann, but all of American Christianity and politics for the past thirty plus years.  To see Francis Schaeffer's own take on Dominionism, his video series How Should We Then Live, can be found here.  To see the views of the other father of Dominionism and founder of the Chalcedon Foundation, Rousas John Rushdoony, The Second American Revolution, they can be found here.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

The ALEC Material

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

About two weeks or so ago, someone in comments to a previous thread mentioned ALEC - the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has recently been identified as producing standardized legislation and farming it out state by state.  I indicated that I'd put the link up to the ALEC memos that surfaced.  I apologize for it taking so long, but the link to the memos can be found here at ALEC Exposed.  Here's some of the preliminare reporting from the LA Times.  And here's a piece from the Nation. 

*Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College or the US Army.

We "did Afghanistan - 50 Years Ago: The Supporting Documents

 
 
Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Here are two historic AID (the precursor, sort of, to USAID) documents pertaining to US development work and interaction with Afghanistan.  I found them about two years ago, just using a regular google search, while doing prep work for what I thought was going to be project I'd be working on regarding Afghanistan.  You all can judge for yourselves just how much has changed. The third document is simply a catalogue of sorts, from much more recently, of other documents such as the first two.

Download PNACN319

Download PNACN326

Download 11188

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College or the US Army.

Sharia Law is NOT Closer to America than it Appears... Part II

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

I was all set to write something to not only highlight, but rebut the absolute wrongness that is reported in this NY Times article on one of the key individuals behind the anti-Sharia movement in the US (hat tip to Steve Benen).  Fortunately I saw this very interesting article about the most recent Gallup Polling, and the report based on it, pertaining to both Muslim American attitudes and the attitudes towards Muslims by other religious groups.  The full report can be found here:  (Download MAR_Report_ADGC_Bilingual_072011_sa_LR_web).  Among other things it indicates that Muslim Americans are the most likely of any religious adherents in the US to oppose attacks on civilians, either by the military or other actors, that Muslim Americans identify as strongly with America as they do with their religion, and as a direct antidote to what the NY Times article reports, Jewish Americans are even more likely than Muslim Americans to recongize and indicate that Muslim Americans face prejudice in the US.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College or the US Army.

Zakariyah and O'Hanlon want to cancel soldiers' retired pay.

 
FZ, the Indian born darling of the foreign policy clique, and O'Hanlon, a defense budget analyst (accountant) have published editorials in the last two days advocating defense budget cuts as part of the solution to the financial and economic decline of the United States.

Fair enough, but what is not fair is that both want to carve some of those defense cuts out of the "hide" of armed forces retirees.  These two men, innocent as they are of any personal knowledge of military life, want the government to renege on promises made to lure soldiers into 20 year service careers.  The promises made by the government obviously mean nothing to them.  They are well off.  Soldiers who served for 20 years typically are not.  Combat arms people have not been trained or experienced to do anything personally profitable in civilian life.  There is little civilian market for armored cavalrymen, airborne infantrymen or cannoneers.  There are markets for the skills of personnel specialists, pay clerks, medical corpsmen, air traffic controllers, etc.  Nevertheless, in the Zakariyah/O'Hanlon scheme of values a 40 year old infantry sergeant who has not been seriously wounded in combat should leave military service to go find a job as a stock boy or yardman.  Medical care?  He can take his children to the emergency room at a civilian hospital if they are ill. 

 What great thinkers!  How about this as an alternative?  Let's change our foreign policy and abandon foreign "adventurism" as a way of life.  Let's reduce the size of the conventional ground forces to fit that new policy.  Let's grandfather the people whom we promised a good life in return for their lives and let's think about ending 20 year non-disability retirements from the armed forces. 

Zakariyah had the brilliant idea few weeks back that he wanted to re-structure the federal government to his taste.  Perhaps he should restrict himself ro discussing foreign affairs.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-defense-spending-should-be-cut/2011/08/03/gIQAsRuqsI_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-cut-defense-spending--but-by-how-much/2011/08/04/gIQATLq5uI_story.html

 

As I expected, Obama Surrendered.

 
"Late Saturday night, media outlets first reported that President Obama would sign onto a debt ceiling deal with large spending cuts and no promise of revenue, signaling a final concession that seemed unthinkable just a few days ago."  The New Republic

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

It was inevitable really.  Obama has to run the operating parts of the government.  For that, he needs money.  Unless he wants to play the Iran-Contra game and raise his own money illegally, he needs the cooperation of Congress.  The Tea Party bloc is an apparently solid bar to traditional deal making among the professional politians.  How long that will last in the reality of Washington jockeying among the various interests remains to be seen.

The Tea Party will contemplate its victory and then proceed to drive the traditional Republicans and Obama from pillar to post as they please.

Oh yes, Boehner is done.  Stick a fork in him and check.  pl

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/01/opinion/main20086254.shtml

"Why America’s Rich Should (and Many Do) Support A Tax Increase" By: Robert K. Lifton

 
While raising the debt ceiling has generated an untoward amount of conflict and anxiety, the really tough fight still lies ahead of our country – how to enact a program that reduces deficits and ultimately the overwhelming national debt. Any effort in this direction places the question of tax increases front and center. Warren Buffet, America’s wealthiest person, has so often stated his belief that taxes should be raised for the richest Americans that it has become a commonplace. But some were surprised, including the conservative anchors of CNBC’s Squawk Box, to hear a Home Depot founder Ken Langone, who has all the right conservative credentials, support raising taxes and even suggest that the distinction between taxes on capital and on earnings should be revisited. While most of the wealthy people have not been public about their views, I can report anecdotally that every affluent person I have asked about the subject has agreed that an increase in taxes is necessary as part of a program to reduce our nation’s deficit and mounting debt. This position by the wealthy is not some altruistic impulse but makes practical sense for them.