Sic Semper Tyrannis

"Jefferson might not agree.." Peter Principle

"All these mournful laments for our dead (or dying) republic remind me of a scene from Robert Graves' Claudius the God. Claudius has hatched a plot to send his son, Britannicus, into exile, from which he will someday emerge to overthrow the evil Nero and restore the Republic (Graves had to come up with a plot device to explain why his supposedly virtuous Claudius chose a depraved monster like Nero as his successor.)

But Britannicus doesn't want any part of it:

“I don’t believe in the Republic anyway. You can’t reverse the course of history. My great-grandmother Livia said that, and it’s true. I love the days of old, as you do, but I’m not blind. The Republic is dead, except for old-fashioned people like you and Sosibus. Rome is an empire now and the choice only lies between good Emperors and bad ones.”

I'm afraid I have to side with Britannicus (and Livia, the murderous old hag) on this one. It is in the nature of things for republics, if successful enough, to evolve into empires. It is certainly unrealistic to expect a global superpower like the United States, with worldwide political and economic interests requiring the worldwide projection of military power, to remain one indefinitely. The framers, with their horror of standing armies and European militarism, would probably be surprised to learn it has lasted as long as it has, despite more than 60 years of permanent wartime moblization.

There was a time (like the 1950s) when those who thought about such things could hope that the enormous powers of modern bureaucratic institutions -- corporations, unions, the Pentagon, big media, the organs of state security -- could and would be counterveiling, allowing a system designed for the less gargantuan 18th century to survive into the 21st. But instead those institutions are either in terminal decline (the unions) or are integrating and evolving into a more perfected form of imperial control and self-control. Meanwhile, dissent and opposition (terms that already sound almost archaic) are increasingly channeled to the essentially neutered arena of the fringe parties and the Internet.   

I'm not sure how much mourning is called for here. Two hundred and thirty some years is a pretty good run, as constitutions go. The framers built well, but no structure lasts forever. We can pine for a lost republic (which, like it's Roman predecessor, was never as golden as it appeared in hindsight) or we can accept reality and see what can be done to make our new empire more humane and rational than it is at the moment.

An enlightened technocracy run by a self-selecting bureaucratic elite may not be very inspiring, but under the circumstances it may be better and more sustainable than a corrupt, demagogic republic run by the likes of Karl Rove (or Rahm Emanuel, for that matter) and using all the manipulative tools of modern social science.

Jefferson might not agree, but we don't live in his world, nor him in ours."

Peter Principle

Dick Cheney and the Return of the King.

"..Cheney and Addington will go down in history as the most aggressive and successful advocates of executive powers in this nation's history. As Fritz Schwarz and I have charted, Cheney and Addington were in large part responsible for the 1987 Congressional Minority Report out of the Iran-contra affair, which first asserted that the White House could wield "monarchical notions of prerogatives." They grounded their vision of executive power on the prerogatives exercised by the British kings who were overthrown by the American Revolution.

Since 2001 Cheney has been at the tip of the spear in pushing for executive authority to override laws against surveillance and torture, among other things. And he's aggressively used the Office of the Vice President to make unprecedented secrecy claims. In litigation around his energy task force, for example, Cheney invoked Article II of the Constitution--which creates the presidency--to underwrite his defiance of Congressional and private demands for information. The Supreme Court, while it didn't wholly accept Cheney's position, yielded to it with alarming deference in 2004. The suit was later dismissed by a lower court.

To rub salt in the open sore of hypocrisy, Cheney has been among the most assertive Vice Presidents in wielding executive privilege independent of the President. He's also made extravagantly petty claims of secrecy: for example, ordering the Secret Service to destroy logs of visitors to his residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington despite the 1978 Presidential Records Act's contrary demand.

For Cheney to be pushing the envelope on executive power is especially ironic, given the original constitutional status of the vice presidency: That office is a vestigial afterthought tacked on to the Constitution toward the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention to solve a gaggle of unrelated problems. And it quickly proved more trouble than it was worth."  The Nation

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

Ah, for the days when a vice president understood that his function was to preside over the senate (occasionally), play cards with his old pals from the same senate and wait for a "sickly season."

Very few VPs have had any function at all other than that.  The VP is not in the chain of command of any department of government.  He has no authority at all other than that which the president gives him.  This president likes to be a "big picture" kind of guy.  "You're either with us or against us" would be his level of detail in running the affairs of state.  Cheney is an "operator."  He makes the "trains run on time."  In one example, he makes them run all the way to Gitmo.

For those who peer beneath the surface of Washington's daily facade of tourism and monumental buildings it is now evident that Dick Cheney is an anti-constitutionalist. 

The US Constitution was constructed by men who distrusted concentrations of power.  They had lived through the experience of what they saw as an excessive and arbitrary use of power by the Westminster parliament and the king's ministers.  They did not want to experience that again.  For that reason they wrote a document which seeks to limit power rather than to enable it.  That determination to prevent the consolidation of power has been weakened over the centuries.  The Civil War's outcome with its emphasis on the "oneness" of the union, the granting to the federal government of taxation rights on the income of individuals, the election of senators by a direct process rather than by the legislatures of the states, all these, and many other changes, have strengthened central power at the expense of the framers' original intent.

Now we have Cheney and Addington, the leaders of the monarchist faction of the Republican Party.  We had the right to think that these issues had been settled by the Revolution itself or at the least by the election of 1800.

After that one, Jefferson freed the captive editors and after his inauguration walked through the dust from Capitol Hill to the White House.  Who will save us now?

Franklin was right to say that we have a republic, but that it is up to us to keep it.  pl

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/huq

Nir Rosen on CNN - 24 June, 2007

"NIR ROSEN, JOURNALIST: Well, it already did. We created a civil war. This is actually outrageous. Outgoing U.N. envoy to the Middle East peace process, Alvaro De Soto, himself accused the U.S. of fomenting a civil war by training, funding and arming Fatah thugs and inserting them into Gaza to destabilize the Hamas government. We never gave them a chance. They were democratically elected in an election that was widely recognized as free and fair, even by former President Jimmy Carter. And then the U.S., along with Israel, Jordan and Egypt trained these gangs and actually put them in Gaza to overthrow the Hamas government. And, of course, it's actually backfired and Fatah was overthrown. But all you're going to do is isolate and further radicalize Hamas. And so when you say that the U.S. is seeking to ease tensions in the Middle East, I disagree with you. These are tensions that the U.S. actually created in the Middle East.
ROBERTS: Nir, I mean what are you talking about, we have Fatah thugs being sent into the country to wage war with Hamas?
ROSEN: Well, they were trained by the U.S. General Dayton (ph), our envoy to the peace process, was responsible for a program, along with Elliot Abrams (ph), the deputy national security adviser for the Middle East, and they actually trained Fatah in the West Banks. The Jordanian special forces created the Fatah Badr brigade. The Egyptians, as well, trained Fatah in Egypt. The United Arab Emirates actually sent money and arms. And then they were allowed to enter Gaza and then began to attack Hamas. I mean this was an existential threat to a democratically elected government. What we've done is overthrow a government that was elected. The U.S. . . ."

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2007/06/nir-rosen-angry-journalist-on-cnn.html

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

"we have Fatah thugs being sent into the country to wage war with Hamas?"  John Roberts.  This should be treated as a rhetorical question.  Roberts is good at his job.

Nir Rosen is an exceedingly fine journalist who covers the hard stories with a flair and courage not seen in many.  He expends a great deal of effort in getting the facts straight.  US policy in the Middle East continues to be run by people who collectively can be described as ignorant of the  region and/or partisans deeply invested in specific outcomes.  At the beginning of this, just after the US intervention in Iraq began, I was solemnly assured by a young woman who was fresh from graduate school and working deep in the heart of the neocon labyrinth, that the Arabs and Muslims had no culture or ways worth saving and that they needed to be "re-made" into something worthwhile.  Clearly, she thought of them as "untermenschen."  Considering her own heritage I thought that a particularly shameful belief.  Some at the table, made up of those similar to her, protested but not many.  Surprised, I asked her if she thought it would be easy to do that.  She said that the level of difficulty would vary, but the job must be done.  I hope she has relatives in the war, and not just in the think tanks and political science departments.  pl

.."a horribly distorted secularization of Judaism.." Sidney Smith

Our friend Sidney Smith sends us this to continue the recent discussion:

pl

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

"David Habukkak:

Thank you very much for your critique and extraordinary insights.

At least in my opinion, the vision underlying economic "shock therapy" is the same as that leading to "shock and awe" as well as that which has resulted in the color-coded revolutions cheered on by the neoconservatives.

As mere speculation...I'll offer the following for your consideration: that this vision is the same as that of the esoteric Straussian club. Or to word differently, the worldview of the Straussian club embraces these economic, political, and military revolutions and therefore they offer a way to define exactly what is the "fire in the mind" of the Straussian neoconservatives, if such indeed does exist.

The symptomatic manifestations of this vision -- as the Peter Murrell suggests in his work -- are glaringly apparent and point to one thing -- a type of elitism that aspires to impose radical change. Economic shock therapy entails top down changes by an elite of technocrats who, in essence, foster a revolution and not an evolution. In the political realm, we have witnessed "revolutions", such as the cedar revolution, so wildly cheered on by the National Review crowd. And certainly Rumsfeld and the Pentagon architects reflected the same approach to the prosecution of the Iraqi war.

Neoconisme - A "perverse Secularization of Christian Concepts?"

David Habakkuk sends us this:

"Michael Murry,

You are I think absolutely right about opportunism of the enthusiasm of people like Krauthammer for alliance with the Armageddonites -- and also its incautiousness.

An old limerick goes:

There was a young lady of Riga
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the tiger.

Moreover, one perhaps neglected effect of neocon strategy is that it puts Jews in America and Europe whose political affiliations are with one variety or another of the heritage of the Enlightenment in an increasingly impossible position. Commonly, they are tied to Israel by a complex mixture of emotions -- among them residual fear and that very deep loyalty people often have to the dead. But one cannot in the end combine identification with liberal or leftist principles in an American or British context with a commitment to what is essentially an ideology of 'Blut und Boden' in the Middle East. And in terms of pure political expediency the neocons' choice of political allies may very well turn out to be peculiarly shortsighted.. Up until recently, the political alliances of Jews in the United States or Britain were largely either with secularists -- be they liberal, leftist, or pragmatic conservative -- or with the kind of Christians who had no desire to put ideas of 'crucifixion denial' at the heart of their faith. To abandon such alliances in favour of an alliance with people for whom conceptions of 'crucifixion denial' -- with their strong historical relation to antisemitism -- are central to their conception of Christianity seems a risky strategy, to put it mildly.

One can see the tensions being worked out in the writings of a number of interesting Jewish intellectuals. Tony Judt is an obviously example, so too the Time correspondent Tony Karon -- whose blog is called 'Rootless Cosmopolitan'. There is also an interesting article by Philip Weiss in The American Conservative, (at http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_04/feature.html. And Norman Birnbaum's article last year in 'The Nation' confronts the problems head on (at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/is_israel_good_for_the_jews).

Krauthammer and the return of the "Comintern"

"Hamas is a client of Iran. Gaza now constitutes the farthest reach of the archipelago of Iranian proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Mahdi army (among others) in Iraq and the Alawite regime of Syria.

This Islamist mini-replica of the Comintern is at war not just with Israel but with the moderate Arab states, who finally woke up to this threat last summer when they denounced Hezbollah for provoking the Lebanon war with Israel. The fall of Gaza is particularly terrifying to Egypt because Hamas is so closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the chief Islamist threat to the secular-nationalist regime that has ruled Egypt since the revolution of 1952. Which is why Egypt has just invited Israeli, Jordanian and moderate Palestinian leaders to a summit next week -- pointedly excluding and isolating Hamas."  Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101863.html

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

I won't quibble with Dr. Krauthammer over his characterization of all those governments and movements as mere "proxies" for Iran however inadequate that categorization is.  Relationships in "the region" are not that simple.

In many ways these states and groups are making use of Iran as much as they are being made use of.  Symbiotic relationships like this are hard to classify in the simplistic way that he is doing it here.  Often a supposed "client" has so much agenda of its own that to describe it that way is meaningless.  When I was in government, (oh happy day of my deliverance), I used to hear people from the proto-neocon group describe Iraq, Syria, or Egypt as "clients" of the USSR.  That was absurd because the Soviet Union was never able to control these countries in the ways implied by the "C" word.  Yemen is a good example today.  If GWB and his crew think that Salih is under their control because he "strokes" them and takes their money, they are sadly misled (by him).

The use of the word "Comintern" continues the neocon/Bush crew IO propaganda theme that the Islamicate civilization is rising like the phoenix from the ashes of its previous clashes with the West (sounds a bit tolkienesque) to consolidate itself into a massive state power which will be an existential threat to, what, "The Shire?"  This is drivel, but the idea appeals to those who treasure vaguely understood half truths about the Saracen Menace. In furthering that theme, the neocon/Bush crew are trying hard to stitch together in popular imagination an image of the Saracen Menace united in all its variety behind the banners of Iran.  This is a massive undertaking for any propagandist or group of propagandists, but their previous successes were so great that they are encouraged to make the attempt.  Will they succeed?  Who can tell? 

The takfiri jihadis ARE a menace, but they are a menace best dealt with by stealth and guile.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern

Gaza and Melos- Two Dialogues.

"Last year, I was among a small group of Palestinians that met Elliott Abrams, President George Bush's deputy national security adviser. He was blunt that the Hamas government, which was democratically elected, must be pushed out at any cost. We're not Hamas followers, but we tried to persuade him and other officials that engagement, rather than confrontation, is the better choice; but their determination was unshakable. We warned there would be suffering and starvation and even armed conflict, but to no avail. It wouldn't be the fault of the U.S. if that happened, he said."

Eyad Sarraj - Director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program

Eyad Sarraj received the 1997 Physicians for Human Rights Award and the 1998 Martin Ennals Award for human-rights defenders.

Download sarraj_essay_on_gaza.htm

FB Ali kindly provided the Sarraj essay.

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

"Well, then, we Athenians will use no fine words; we will not go out of our way to prove at length that we have a right to rule, because we overthrew the Persians; or that we attack you now because we are suffering any injury at your hands. We should not convince you if we did; nor must you expect to convince us by arguing that, although a colony of the Lacedaemonians, you have taken no part in their expeditions, or that you have never done us any wrong. But you and we should say what we really think, and aim only at what is possible, for we both alike know that in the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters where there is equal power to enforce it, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must. "  Thucydides in the Peloponnesian War.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/MELIAN.HTM

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

Hamas and the IRA are both terrorist nationalist organizations.  Both have been careful not to wage war against or in the United States.  The "volunteers" of the IRA have always judged it unwise that they should attack British targets or interests in the United States.  That policy was rewarded by eventual successful American mediation of the Irish Problem.  Hamas has not carried out any outrages on American soil.  It has restricted its depredations to the territory of its "national" adversary. 

The American government response has been to insist that Hamas is part of the fantasy empire of the re-born "caliphate," a kingdom as real and as likely of realization as Middle Earth. 

The takfiri jihadis hold the idea of the re-birth of the Caliphate and world wide rule of the Ummah as an aspiration that frames their actions.  That does not mean that they have any chance of realizing that hope.   Neither does it mean that every national struggle involving Muslims should be seen as a part of the jihad of the Al-Qa'ida network for that impossible vision.  The Al-Qa'ida takfiris are irreconcilable and universalist enemies of the West and of Israel.  They are not synonymous in focus or aspirations with Hamas which is specifically Palestinian.  Hamas has indicated a willingness to make a truce (hudna) with Israel.  Ten years would give all concerned a chance to re-construct their communities if that is what is really desired.  One of our commenters here has made the point that "temporary" can be a long time in the Middle East.

Let us not let the maximalist demands on either side be the enemy of a decent life for the people.  Let us not let the representatives of special interests drive American policy.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue

The Washington Post on Hamas.

"The most dangerous illusion to emerge from the U.S.-Israeli discussions is the idea that Hamas can be isolated in Gaza while Mr. Abbas is built up in the West Bank. The Palestinian president is unlikely to abandon the 1.5 million people of Gaza to a de facto military and economic siege. If he does, Hamas will use its own forces to ensure that the West Bank also is ungovernable or to start a new war with Israel. As repugnant as its terrorism and ideology are, Hamas won a free election and still has the support of a large part of the Palestinian population. It cannot be abolished by decree, and isolation will only make it more radical and more dependent on sponsors in Syria and Iran."  Washpost

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

Is Fred Hiatt (editorial page editor of WAPO) on vacation?  How did this editorial manage to find its way to the top of the page? 

One of the most dangerous features of the joint Israeli/AIPAC/US/WINEP policy toward the "question" of Palestine has been the "dangerous illusion" that the Palestinians (and, indeed all the Middle Eastern peoples) are a bit like malicious children who can be coaxed, cajoled or manipulated into doing whatever the "grownups" want them to do.  This editorial warns against thinking that this is true.

Fred Hiatt is a Bushy apparatchik, a cuckoo planted in the editorial "nest" of the Washington Post.  He has transformed the once liberal newspaper's "meditations" into something nearly unrecognizable.  Has he suddenly had a "road to Damascus" moment?  Hmmm, that might be an awkward phrase on several levels.

I observed on the tube a week ago that it is very difficult under any circumstances to tell a people who their leaders may be.  It is even more difficult to do that when those leaders were democratically elected in a process held to be fair by the international community.  The US/Israeli/AIPAC/WINEP position seems to be to "hope" that the bribery and threats being employed against Hamas will bring the Palestinians to accept that they may not have Hamas as their government until Hamas accepts de jure the permanent existence of Israel.  The Palestinians have never shown any vulnerability to such "arguments" before.  Why do we/they think that will work now?  There are no countries or parties in the Arab World that truly accept Israel.  Even the ones who have signed treaties with Israel have done so most grudgingly and exist in a state of "cold peace" with her.  Is FATAH really reconciled to the idea of Israel?  If you think so, just wait a few months.  What you will see is the commencement of operations against Israel by factions of FATAH.

To bolster the image of the awfulness of Hamas, we are "assured" by the organs of propaganda that Hamas is merely a tool of Syria and Iran.  Syria?  Who knows?  I doubt that this is more than a mere assertion of a propaganda (IO) theme.  Where is the evidence?  Iran? This is more likely.  In fact, it is nearly certain in the context of Iran's drive to power in the Islamic world.  Nevertheless, I would still like to see the evidence.  The country not named in the "indictment" of Hamas financers and suppliers is Saudi Arabia.  The kingdom of sand, oil and prevarication has been among the principal supporters of Hamas and many other Islamist groups for a long time.  I don't need to be shown the evidence for that.  It is a matter of personal knowledge for me.  It is inconvenient for the Bush Administration to acknowledge Saudi support for Hamas, and so they don't.

Hamas offered Israel a ten year truce when it came to office after the election that it won.  That was scorned.  The Israelis want a permanent cession of "their" land, and until now will accept nothing else.  They argue that a truce (hudna) would serve as "cover" for the recovery of strength by their enemies and nothing else.  They are unlikely to get anything but a truce, so maybe they should think this over.

Most people do not now remember that the United States expended a great deal of money and effort in "growing" the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority's semi-state, only to see it destroyed utterly by Israel.  That destruction cleared the way for Hamas' rise to "glory."  In that context how can Americans, believe anything that a right wing Israeli government says of its attitude toward Palestine.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061901814.html

Iraq- An Unbalanced Government That Likes it That Way

"In reality, they are forcing the Iraqi government and the Shia and the Kurds to reconcile with the Saddamists," the official added. "This is similar to going to the South in 1865 and forcing the Confederates to reconcile immediately with the Northerners. And this is not going to happen."

American military commanders involved in the partnerships with Sunnis say they intend to quickly train and register them under the aegis of the Interior Ministry, which oversees the police force. In Anbar province, tribesmen have received training and become policemen, and receive salaries from the Interior Ministry, according to U.S. military officials. The officials have said that as long as the Sunni groups are watched closely and kept from mistreating people, the intelligence they provide about al-Qaeda in Iraq makes them valuable partners.

Mithal Alusi, a secular Sunni lawmaker, said he supported the U.S. military efforts because "al-Qa'ida is danger No. 1 in Iraq."

"The prime minister has to understand this is not a one-man show," Alusi said. "We cannot trust the government to deal with al-Qaeda, to play this game alone. We are very thankful for the American process and the American point of view."

Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Maliki, said the government would like to absorb anyone who wants to decrease violence as long as they accept the political process and are recruited in a systematic way to ensure that they are not using their newly official status for nefarious purposes."  WAPO

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

The post Civil War analogy is interesting.  The government member speaking still thinks of the Shia majority as the underdogs when confronted with the Sunni Arab minority. (20% maybe?)

The present government of Iraq is lopsidedly Shia Arab and Kurd in allocation of power and resources.  These formerly dominated communities have been liberated from Sunni Arab rule.  Not surprisingly, they like the new situation and want to keep things the way they are.  One is reminded of Ben Franklin's comment to a bystander in Philadelphia, "We have given you a republic, if you can keep it.."  The Shia and Kurds are not at all sure that they will be able to continue to hold power in a new Iraq.  The Sunni Arab, Islamist and Shia secular forces arrayed against them are relentless and the insurgent strategy they are following has some chance of success in restoring, if not Sunni Arab rule, then a balance of state power that favors them in a way disproportionate to their numbers, but, perhaps, not disproportionate to their actual political weight in the state.  After all, there are more ways of allocating political and economic power than "constitutional" elections.

Two points:

- Government complaints about American cooperation with non-jihadi insurgents and tribes should be seen for what they are, pleas for protection against those whom the Shia and Kurds fear.

- It is the policy of the US government to seek reconciliation amongst the Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Shia Arabs.  Thus far admonitions to the government to "play nice" with the other "children" have been met with public stalling and private amusement at the gullibility of the Americans.  An effective performance by the groups with whom the US is seeking "alliance" against the jihadis would shift the actual balance of power toward a situation in which the government may find it necessary to share the "goodies."   Expect to hear more and more frantic protests from Maliki et al.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700762.html?hpid=sec-world

Biography, etc.

Download CompleteCV

Download SESbio.pdf

Republished because of additions.  pl

CNN Tomorrow

5 PM hour with Wolf Blitzer.  pl

Here is the video of the interview, thanks to one of you.  pl

Download the_situation_room_cnn_15_06_2007_14_58_01.wmv

John in the Boro on dogs, and tails.

John in the Boro wrote this to comment on "Temporary Friends" and one of Jonst's thoughts on that piece. I think this comment conveys something that is key to the discussion. pl

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

"“jonst,
Methinks the dog hath caught his tail. Pray he does not choke upon it.
Irony indeed.”

Jonst writes: “Sure, go ahead and use whomever, if it will get us out sooner and safer. It might be asked however, whether announcing, and acknowledging, indeed, trumpeting, this apparent change of 'stomach' is helpful, in the utilitarian sense, to the ostensibly desired goal. But in any event the deed is done. And lets leave it to 'dextox counselors to point out delicious irony of having those, who assured us of a connection between Saddam, and his sunni tribal kin, with AQ, now pay said same kin, essentially, to go after the so called AQ of Mesopotamia.

That recognition of that irony (to the extent they are capable of recognizing irony in general) will however, make for a long stay in detox I suspect.”

The comment I made refers to the disconnect of whatever it is that the Bush administration is trying to accomplish in Iraq and what the military in Iraq does to implement that vision. It seems to me that the military has been chasing a rather ambiguous, ideologically framed, goal (the dog’s tail aka Bush’s vision). When the military fastens on an operational or tactical strategy, the strategy comes up short back in DC. It must be exasperating for the military to have a boss who says, “I don’t know what I want exactly, but I’ll recognize it when I see it”

(choking on the tail). jonst touches this in his comments. The efforts of the military in Iraq to find common ground with Sunni tribes against foreign fighters is another instance of the military adopting a strategy—a praiseworthy effort in my opinion—that would mesh nicely with a wide range of other actions, political and military. The question for me is does this comport with “the whole neocon thesis about the Middle East?” That thesis is long on “Calvinist [Straussian] assumptions” and short on pragmatism, realism, ground truth, and transparency. Will the “commander guy” allow the military commanders on the ground to continue dealing with the tribes, or will he and his entourage denounce the action and impose another catchy slogan? Mind you, I am not a member of the “stabbed in the back” gang. I think Bush’s administration has made a mess out of our foreign relations and has not been forthright in its actions. The military has been given an endless mission in Iraq.

Your post "Temporary Friends" expresses thoughts that most probably are spoken in Iraq."

Temporary Friends

With the four-month-old "surge" in U.S. troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight Al Qaeda-linked militants who have been their allies in the past.

The commanders say they have successfully tested the strategy in Anbar Province and have held talks with Sunni groups suspected of prior assaults on U.S. units, or of links to groups that have attacked Americans, in at least four other areas where the insurgency has been strong.

In some cases, the commanders say, these groups have been provided, usually through Iraqi military units allied with the Americans, with arms, ammunition, cash, fuel and other supplies.

U.S. officials who have engaged in what they call "outreach" to the Sunni groups say the groups are mostly ones with links to Al Qaeda but disillusioned with Al Qaeda's extremist tactics, particularly suicide bombings that have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. In exchange for American backing, these officials say, the Sunni groups have agreed to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on U.S. units. Commanders who have undertaken these negotiations say that in some cases Sunni groups have agreed to alert American troops to the location of roadside bombs and other lethal booby traps. But critics of the strategy, including some U.S. officers, say it could amount to the Americans arming both sides in a future civil war"  IHT

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

""Oilies," don't bother to read this.  you already know everything, about history, the world, etc.

For the rest of you I will say that this tactic as well as that of cooperating with tribal groups in Iraq (whether Sunni or Shia) has my full support.

Can you trust them?  Will they be loyal to the Americans (or the government)?  Is this "paying protection money?"  Will this hurt the Iraqi government?

The answers;  No.  Not necessarily.  No.  Maybe (So what!)

- You can't logically make a comparison between 1 - paying a hoodlum in the US not to beat you up and 2 - supporting a dissident guerrilla leader who may be of use to you in an insurgency in a foreign country.  This is isn't Sunday School, folks.  Did you really think that the various kinds of Iraqis were going to become ardent candidates for Alderman,  Councilman, Member of School Board, etc. just because you think they should be eager to be what you think they should be?  If you do think that, you should get out more.   People want to be what they are.  They do not want to become something out of a group of foreigners reveries in graduate school.  That was was what was wrong from the start with the whole neocon thesis about the Middle East.  They knew nothing other than what they told each other that they knew, and what little they did know was wrong and distorted by special interests.  There was never any chance that their fantasies would be realized in Iraq.  They were not criminal.  They were just uninformed and conceited.

- It is not a question of the "new friends" being loyal to anyone except themselves.  People are generally faithless if they think their interests are not favored.  You have to to deal with that.  That is how people generally are in the Middle East (or anywhere else).  The real question here is whether or not these people can be useful to you with regard to something specific that you want to get done.  (like kill Jihadis)  The solution,  use'em and then abuse'em if they become a real liability.

- "Protection money?"  Let's call it a bribe.  A lot of you will be more comfortable with that.  It isn't really a bribe.  It is what used to be called a "subvention."  Translation?  Sometimes people need and want to do something for which they have not the means.  Providing the equipment and money that makes that work isn't a bribe.  It is just common sense.

- The Iraqi government?  Hah!  I am concerned with American interests.

The Puritan heritage of the dominant culture in the United States is really showing in the drivel that is being mouthed about these issues.  War is not about virtue as opposed to sin.  War is about the struggle of opposed interests and wills.  To begin this war, a "morality play" atmosphere was generated which led to "war fever" on a massive scale.  It was skilfully done by people who thought "they knew best."  I hope they are happy with the result of their efforts.  The country is only now slowly recovering.  It is as though the United States is now in a protracted "de-tox" program.

Some of the insurgents fought American troops?  Yes, and we fought them.  We fought the Germans and Japanese and Vietnamese Communists.  I served in the field with former VC and NVA soldiers during the unpleasantness there.  We need to grow up about this.  The Calvinist assumptions that govern popular thought in this country lead to an unwillingness to accept change of this kind.  Get over it.  pl

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/11/frontpage/strat.php

"Show Russia More Respect"

An oped today in the "Christian Science Monitor."  pl

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0611/p09s01-coop.html

I want it, so it must be so..

"officials here (Baghdad) are increasingly envisioning a "post-occupation" troop presence in Iraq that neither maintains current levels nor leads to a complete pullout, but aims for a smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years.

This goal, drawn from recent interviews with more than 20 U.S. military officers and other officials here, including senior commanders, strategists and analysts, remains in the early planning stages. It is based on officials' assessment that a sharp drawdown of troops is likely to begin by the middle of next year, with roughly two-thirds of the current force of 150,000 moving out by late 2008 or early 2009. The questions officials are grappling with are not whether the U.S. presence will be cut, but how quickly, to what level and to what purpose."  Ricks

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

Is this a joke?  Is Ricks being ironic here?  Is this a "take off" on an Evelyn Waugh novel? 

For years the declared US policy in Iraq was based on the idea that the US would remove its troops when the forces of the Baghdad government could control the security situation on their own.

Now, Ricks implies that American military officers (who should have some grasp of the realities of the situation) are saying (without qualification as to the future state of affairs) that US forces WILL be withdrawn on a schedule that evidently has nothing to do with the combat situation in the country.

A couple of things:

- This withdrawal talk must be based on the assumption that the present Petraeus/Keane/Kagan plan will succeed in "breaking the back" of the insurgents.  There is no real evidence for that so far, so one must assume that the supposed "improvement" is what is called a "planning assumption."  A military plan exists within a universe created by assumptions about the world in which the plan will be executed.  Thus, there can be several different plans designed to deal with a situation and they may be different because they are based on different assumptions.  These assumptions are listed in the front of a published plan.

- If the combat situation is not improved by the time the imagined withdrawal is taking place it will quickly become apparent that such a withdrawal will result in the collapse of what is left of Iraq into an even greater chaos.  That will stop the withdrawal.

- The idea of trying to leave one division plus advisors plus logistical troops and contractors is absurd if the assumption in the planning concept is incorrect. 

- Surely, military people in Iraq know that this is a foolish idea in the absence of an effective "cease-fire."  Do they know something that we do not?  That is always a possibility.

- The probability that this planning assumption is politically imposed by the desire of the sitting government in Washington to be successful in both the GWOT and the '08 election is overwhelming.

Anyone who thinks this "plan" is a good idea should think about what the personal consequences might be for advocating something this silly.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901464.html?hpid=topnews

A Bad Idea

"The plan for permanent bases in Iraq must have been long in the making. The president ignored a recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Commission that he state that America seeks no permanent bases in Iraq. At one point last year, the Senate and House passed an amendment to the military-spending bill banning the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq. The bill went to conference and then the ban on bases, adopted by both chambers, mysteriously disappeared.

The building of four bases along with a gigantic new American embassy in the Green Zone on the Tigris River has been moving along rapidly. The bases will have runways two miles long to accommodate the largest American planes. The Balad base north of Baghdad covers 14 square miles. Another base is planned for the area that was ancient Babylon.

The new embassy, which will be the largest American mission in the world, will be complete with swimming pool and commissary. Retired General Anthony Zinni has said that permanent bases are "a stupid idea." He said that they will damage America's image in the whole region.

These huge installations must be intended for more than Iraqi stabilization. Former President Jimmy Carter said in a speech in February of last year that "the reason we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region." And few are missing the point that bases in Iraq will keep American might on Iran's doorstep."  Yahoo News

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

Zinni is right.  This is a bad idea.  The reason for that is simple.  The peoples of the region and across the world of Islam will regard this as proof that they were correct in their previous belief that all the high rhetoric about "liberation" and "democracy" was a lie and that the war in Iraq is simply a renewal of Western imperialism in the Middle East.  They will see this as inherently anti-Islamic, a "crusade" against their religion and Islamicate culture.

The presence of such permanent bases will unify resistance against us even if those fighting us continue to fight each other.  People who are now starting to turn to cooperation with American forces in order to resist the AQ jihadis, will return to fighting us as our intentions become increasingly clear.  These bases and the embassy will be effectively surrounded and under continuous if sporadic indirect fire attack with mortars and rockets.  A continuing and perhaps increased program of attacks against our supply lines is to be expected.

If there is an expectation that there will be support for such a presence in any of the surrounding states, that expectation is mistaken.  Even if some of the governments voice support in private, they will be under such popular pressure to oppose the permanent US garrisons that their support will be unreliable and in some cases the governments will secretly support those who oppose us. 

Altogether, it is difficult to see what the point would be in establishing such bases.

Oil?  No.  Once again, the oil markets don't work that way.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070608/cm_csm/yschorr08_1

Turkey, the Kurds and the U.S.

US policy in the Middle East seems to presume that Washington has the ability to re-arrange national and group attitudes and fears at will in the pursuit of a better world.  This is ambition on a scale that brings to mind hackneyed words describing spiritual pride that "goes before a fall."

American policy on Turkey and the Kurds is an example.  Modern Turkey is a consolidation and amalgamation of a number of Muslim peoples in the aftermath of the First World War.  In that war, the "ecumenical" Ottoman Empire was defeated as a member of the Central Powers alliance and what is now Turkey in Anatolia and Thrace was saved from the wreckage of the empire by the efforts of Mustafa Kamal Atataturk.  The revanchist ambitions of the non Muslim peoples of the empire threatened in the early 1920s to deny the Turkish speaking peoples of the area a "national" homeland that could be consolidated permanently.  Ataturk, by a combination of competent military campaigning and effective and far-sighted diplomacy solved that problem.   His diplomatic agreements with Greek premier Venizelos transferred large populations between Greek and Turkish territory in such a way that Greece became overwhelmingly Orthodox Christian and the Turkish Republic almost completely Muslim.

The "fly in the ointment" in this solution has always been the pre-existing presence of large numbers of Kurds in eastern Turkey.  The largely Sunni Muslim Kurds are not Turkish in speech or culture but by Kemalist standards of national identity had to be accepted into modern Turkey in order to justify the inclusion of many other groups of doubtful Turkish identity into the Turkish state.  For that reason the Turkish government, using a definition of "national" identity other than linguistic and cultural self identification has always insisted that Kurds who are Turkish citizens are merely "mountain Turks,"  who will be assimilated into the larger population through a process of state run education.

Not surprisingly, the Kurds in Turkey have resisted that process of assimilation, preferring to remain what they have always believed themselves to be.  Turkey's modern borders are a new thing.  Kurdish identity is ancient. 

The tensions between the Turkish government and dissident Kurds is what it has always been.  Sporadic fighting and terrorist action in Turkey is a continuing fact of life in the region.  The Turkish government regards northern Iraq, with some justification, as a sanctuary and redoubt area for Turkey's Kurdish rebels.

The United States has encouraged the ambitions of Kurdish Iraqis for political and social autonomy in the north.  The US has protected a nearly independent Kurdish autonomous zone for over a decade.  It should be obvious that the real aspiration of the Kurds is northern Iraq is independence.

Turkey regards that as a threat to its long term stability and territorial integrity.

Should the American government not have foreseen that?  How difficult was it to see that coming?  Has the US government tried hard to resolve the potential for further war in the region over this issue?

Now Turkey is assembling its forces on the border.  It is not too late to act.  The US government shold aggressively seek an agreement in which Turkey and the Kurdish entity in the north accept a US guarantee (enabled by an American military presence)  that preserves both Kurdish and Turkish equities.  The US is now a Middle Eastern regional power and must accept its responsibilities as such.  pl

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/07/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Northern-Iraq.php

"Poor Scooter!"

Cries of compassion and calls for pardon arise now across the land.  "Poor Scooter!"  "His children, his poor wife!"  The cable news shows are all reverberating with "inside the beltway' outrage over Libby's stiff sentence.  Pay no attention, folks. Republicans and Democrats alike in this beautiful but rotten town care more for whether or not they will continue to be invited to Georgetown dinner parties than anything else.  Political incest would be too mild a word for it.  Virtue matters not at all.

Lewis Libby was one of the main enablers for the Cheney "crew" in "setting Americans up" for acquiescence in the foolish war in Iraq.  He participated in the attack on Joe Wilson for the "crime" of pointing out the embarrassing truth that the fabricated Niger uranium story was just that.  Libby was not the first or only character assassin in this matter?  So what?

His "stonewalling," obstruction of justice and perjury were primary obstacles to Fitzgerald's ability to make cases against some of the other conspirators. It is for that this righteous judge has sentenced him to prison.

Should others have been tried and sentenced with him?  Absolutely!

The war was "sold" to the American people in a massive campaign of lies and exaggerations. 

Libby is going to pay one way or another for his and his friends' sins.  Will the president pardon him?  It does not matter.  He will always be a convicted felon.

You feel sorry for Libby?  Feel sorry for all those brave, patriotic people who have been victimized by his "crew." pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial

The "surge" is not doing well.

"In an interview, he (BG Brooks) said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.

That is forcing American commanders to conduct operations to remove insurgents from some areas multiple times. The heavily Shiite security forces have also repeatedly failed to intervene in some areas when fighters, who fled or laid low when the American troops arrived, resumed sectarian killings.

“Until you have the ability to have a presence on the street by people who are seen as honest and who are not letting things come back in,” said General Brooks, referring to the Iraqi police units, “you can’t shift into another area and expect that place to stay the way it was.”

When planners devised the Baghdad security plan late last year, they had assumed most Baghdad neighborhoods would be under control around July, according to a senior American military officer, so the emphasis could shift into restoring services and rebuilding the neighborhoods as the summer progressed.

“We were way too optimistic,” said the officer, adding that September is now the goal for establishing basic security in most neighborhoods, the same month that Bush administration officials have said they plan to review the progress of the plan."  NY Times

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

Yes, Kevin, the war is a contest of wills.  Having said that, it is also true that American popular support for the war will not continue if the methods being used do not appear to be effective.

So far, there is little non-PR evidence that the Kagan/Keane/Petraeus plan is "clearing" Baghdad of insurgent and militia control.

If that continues into September, the war will lose so much support that a catastrophic ending will become inevitable.

Before that happens, a shift to a "Fight, fight - Talk, talk!) strategy would be advisable.  Yes.  I am talking again about seeking a regional solution.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/world/middleeast/04surge.html?th&emc=th

Evolving Tactics in Iraq

"The overall percentage of U.S. military fatalities caused by roadside bombs had dipped from more than 60 percent late last year to 35 percent in February. It then rose again to 70.9 percent in May, according to research by the independent Web site casualties.org. Gains in defeating the bombs have not resulted in fewer deaths because the number of bombs -- and the lethality of some types -- have increased, military officials said.

Insurgents are also staging carefully planned, complex ambushes and retaliatory attacks as they target U.S. troops, the officials said. While few in number, these include direct assaults on U.S. military outposts, ambushes in which American troops have been captured, and complex attacks that use multiple weapons to strike more than one U.S. target. For example, attackers will bomb a patrol and then target ground forces or aircraft that come to its aid.

"We are starting to see more sophistication and training in their attacks," said a senior military official in Baghdad. While the vast majority of attacks are still relatively simple and involve a single type of weapon, "clearly the trend is going in the wrong direction," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

In an attack Monday in Diyala, for example, an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter carrying two U.S. soldiers took heavy enemy fire during combat and crashed in farmland southwest of the town of Abu Saydah, about 40 miles north of Baghdad in a region where the Sunni extremist group AQ in Iraq is trying to establish a new stronghold.

The U.S. military scrambled Bradley Fighting Vehicles at Forward Operating Base Normandy, 19 miles from the crash, for an urgent rescue. But as the Quick Reaction Force rumbled through the rural terrain just a mile and a half from the crash site, a huge roadside bomb hit a Bradley, killing four soldiers and wounding another four, one mortally. Suddenly, the rescue mission itself was in peril, and helicopters rushed to evacuate the injured. WAPO

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

As Clausewitz observed, war itself is the best teacher.  This war has gone on so long that even those who were zealous but unskilled have "been to school" on American forces for so long that they have learned to so all the things mentioned in this article.  When this is combined with the cadres provided by the former Iraqi armed forces, there emerges a "heady" brew endlessly capable of learning, adapting and improvising.

The Post story about the action fought by US SF and the Iraqi police recounts the relative incapacity of the police vis a vis the insurgents.  If it had not been for American leadership in this engagement, the insurgents would probably have "bagged" the lot.

An interesting note in this story is the factoid that although the gadgetry developed by Meigs' IED Defeat Task Force is effective, the number of casualties is still rising because the insurgents are building and installing ever more IEDS, many of which are truly huge.  So far the US has spent something over 3 billion dollars on the IED problem.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/02/AR2007060201294.html?hpid=topnews

Lebanese Mischief

"Nahr al-bared."  Peculiar name. As it is written in transliteration it means "river of the cold."  I doubt if that is right.  It is probably "an-nahr al-bared," meaning "the cold river."  Local geography reference?

So, what is this all about?  I mean the brutally inept attacks of the LAF on this camp, whatever it is called.

Everything in Lebanon is so traditionally murky and obscure that it is difficult to say with great certainty what sort of "play" this is.  Nevertheless, at popular request I will offer a theory.

I think that this is is truly a matter of "unintended consequences" from the NSC/OVP point of view.  Cheney, Abrams et al have been encouraging the Saudis to spend money on various "projects" near and dear to their hears involving opposition to both the AQ apparat and to the drive for increased power of the Hizbullah/Iran combination in Lebanon.  Money has been spent to support Iraqi nationalist insurgent groups, traditional Sunni tribes (Shia tribes, also maybe?) and on Sunni zealots in Lebanon who have been patronized by the "Future" people as a potential counterweight to HA.

In accordance with the principles of "Chaos Theory" as elucidated in "Jurassic Park," it proved impossible to fully control the outcome in a system as complex as the multiplicity of faction and conspiracies that is Lebanese public life.  In other words, some of the "dinosaurs" escaped and started acting like dinosaurs instead of convenient "tools" in the game against the "opposition."

What precipitated the crisis?  It could be anything and whatever it is, it is probably unimportant.  Maybe the Saudis decided that in the end they did not like the theology of these characters at Tripoli?  Maybe the Saudis told Hariri to cut off the money to these people?

In any event we now have the spectacle of the LAF demonstrating its fumbling timidity while killing off a lot of civilians.  At the same time HA in the south is holding in check the possible action of friends of the "Nahr al-Bared" crew while the LAF tries to deal with them.

I ask you is that not irony?  The Abrams crew should face up to the "sad" fact that they are "out of their depth" in the Middle East.  They never seem to understand that an analogy for Lebaon would be Renaissance Italy, not the American Revolution. pl

Audio of UDC Colloquy now posted on TA

The second URL there is the audio.  pl