Sic Semper Tyrannis

The RAND study of counter-terrorism.

"Since 2001, al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history. "We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 11, 2001," says Seth Jones, coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda."

The authors evaluate al Qaeda since 2001 as being both "strong" and "competent."

What's needed, the report suggests, is a "fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy" to focus on minimizing overt military action and increasing intelligence collection and partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the world."  Rand Corporation

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

RAND is a "federally funded research and development corporation."  In other words it is essentially a research arm of the government.

The Republicans and the McBush crowd love to talk about the poor, deluded souls who think that the takfiri jihadi enemy is not the equivalent of the Nazi or Soviet enemies.  The McBushies insist that the activists and their passive supporters are apt to find a nuclear weapon somewhere, or build one in someone's garage and therewith destroy America.  Someone I went to college with insisted to me that there might be a just handful (thousands) of active takfiri jihadis now but "Hitler started with just a handful of followers."   Today, the northwest frontier of Pakistan, tomorrow the world!!.  (irony alert).  This all sounds a bit "yellow peril-ish" or maybe like the crazed devotee of Kali in the '30s movie, "Gunga Din."

In fact, although there are counter-terrorist situations that call for a lot of military force, it has always been true that covert organizations like Al-Qa'ida are better attacked using the somewhat symmetrical methods of our side's intelligence and covert action arms.  It should not be hard to make this case.  Look at the mess in Iraq.  Think of the costs in money, blood and political damage.  In the end the Iraq War has been won, not by the sheer muscle of of our force but by the indirect methods used in helping the awakening among the Sunni Arabs

Now, we have this RAND study which says that quite clearly.  This is worth discussing.  pl

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/07/30/in-fighting-al-qaeda-bushs-global-war-on-terrorism-is-off-target.html

Iran and the hinge of fate

In Geneva, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China - plus Germany offered Iran a package of incentives to suspend its controversial enrichment program. Tehran has until Saturday to respond.

"They submitted a package, and we responded by submitting our own package," Ahmadinejad said when asked what Iran's response would be.

""It's very natural in the first steps we are going to negotiate over the common ground as they exist inside the two packages. If the two parties succeed in agreeing over the common ground, that will help us to work on our differences as well, to reach an agreement."

Ahmadinejad also signalled that if the recent diplomatic overture by the U.S. in Geneva was sincere, it could lead to positive developments.

"For more than 50 years now, the policy of American statesmen has been to confront the Iranian people, and our people to a large sense, have become acclimated with this situation, and we have tried to work around it. Today, we see new behaviour shown by the United States and the officials of the United States. My question is: is such behaviour rooted in a new approach, in other words, mutual respect, cooperation and justice? Or this approach is a continuation in the confrontation with the Iranian people, but in a new guise?" he said.

"But if the approach changes, we will be facing a new situation, and the response by the Iranian people will be a positive one.""

Canada.com

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

The Bush Administration is dying, not listening.  It does not seem to want anything more from Iran than continued belligerence that may contain an excuse for an "execute" order for existing plans.  The Israeili right and its friends in the US continue to urge preventive war against Iran.  They urge it every day.  As I have written before, people must remember that there are no effective restraints in the US on short term presidential use of air and sea based power.  If President Bush orders operations in Iran, the armed forces of the United States will not ask for a legal opinion as to whether or not he has the legal right.  They will obey orders and let the lawyers and Congress sort out the niceties of constitutional authority after the fact.

I include the Iranians as "people" in this admonition.  In the interest of keeping the peace I offer them the following unsolicited advice:

An excuse should not be provided to the Bush Administration if war is not the desired "end state."

Iran is still transmitting ambiguous messages to the United States.  I presume that this is a matter of national pride.  This kind of pride can be a deadly thing.  Forget pride.

Send messages so unambiguous that your desire to work out a viable relationship with the US can not be distorted into something to be taken "with a grain of salt."

Find international mediators who are not "allies" of the US.  Try the UN again.  Try the Organization of Islamic Unity.  Try Pope Benedict.  Try.  pl

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=a5ac431a-1bbf-48e1-a7bf-fd63f7b97088

What is an infantryman?

Matthew wrote to ask what an infantryman is .

I quote the Wiki on "infantry."

"Due to the very nature of the "work" with firearms, explosives, physical-emotional stress, and genuine violence, casualties and or deaths are not uncommon in both war and in peace. The infantryman is expected and trained to continue on with the mission despite personal fear, despair, fatigue and injury; through the foe, to the objective, though he be the last man.

Life in an active duty infantry unit is rigorous, a 24 hour cycle makes for long hours of exercise/training/fighting/patrolling in often brutal climates armed only with the weapons, ammunition and essential war fighting equipment that they can carry on their backs. Remaining space is meant for a meal rations to fight their hunger. Infantry are usually afforded upwards of 4000 calories per day when on operations. Very little space is afforded for comforts. The physical demands are extreme. Forced marches, carrying in excess of 80lbs (36 kg) of equipment upwards of 25 miles (40 km) at a 4-6mi/h (6–10 km/h) pace is not uncommon. 15 mile runs at a forced pace are common as well. Mastering one's body is essential, as eating just one meal a day may be experienced occasionally when situations dictate such. Teamwork and absolute trust are essential for the survival of not only the individual, but the unit as a whole.

Very strong bonds that last an entire life time form within these infantry units and there is a sort of professional respect given from one infantryman to another, both inside and outside of the military, which is based on a common understanding of what life is like on the inside of an infantry battalion and the character and discipline of the individuals who comprise them." Wikipedia

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

The "poor bloody infantry" are the people whose job it is to occupy the ground, to define the area of friendly control by their very presence.  In a counter-guerrilla war like the one that Senator Hagel fought in, they are the people most frequently in the close presence of the enemy.

90% of all casualties are experienced in the infantry, which,in the US Army, is often referred to as the "Queen of Battles."  Do not confuse the infantry with the armored troops, the artillery, etc.  pl

"Have you left no sense of decency?"

"On Saturday, though, McCain released a new television advertisement in which the announcer says that on his trip, Obama “made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.”

"John McCain is always there for our troops," adds the announcer, before concluding with the campaign’s new slogan: “McCain, country first.”

The slogan’s inverse implication for his opponent was made clear earlier in the week, when McCain accused Obama of placing the his political ambitions before the national interest.

"It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign," McCain said Tuesday in New Hampshire, a line he’s been using regularly since.

While Republican presidential candidates have long sought to paint their Democrat foes as insufficiently devoted to the country, the military or both, McCain’s suggestion that Obama preferred to hit the gym than to visit wounded soldiers is considerably more personal than, say, President Bush’s 2004 attack on Sen. John F. Kerry for voting against bills to fund troops in Iraq. In some ways, it bears more of a resemblance to the third-party Swift Boat campaign that denigrated Kerry’s service in Vietnam. "  Yahoo News

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

Is winning all?  Has John McCain become a modern man, a man for whom winning is all and a prize to be sought above honor, above truth, above all?

Are we to believe that McCain thinks that Obama cares nothing for American soldiers?  I do not believe McCain thinks that, but he should consider that, in implying it, he risks the disdain of those who should regret his defeat in the coming election whether they support his candidacy or not.

Hagel was not a prisoner of war in Vietnam.  No, he and his brother were in the same rifle platoon in the infantry.  Senator Hagel was a buck sergeant, a fire team leader.  He was a 11B, a light weapons infantryman.  For those who understand, that says a lot, a whole lot.  What will Senator Hagel think of his old friend McCain after this?

Since I do not believe McCain really believes the rubbish that his consultants are telling him to say, I can only think that he is cynically and untruthfully seeking to manipulate public opinion.

I have never been a fan of John Kerry, but the people who slandered him are the same kind of scumbags who are advising McCain now.

It's not worth it, John.  Nothing is worth it.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/12092

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army-McCarthy_Hearings

First Manhattan, then Berlin, then...?

"Mr Obama is now the world's most recognisable phenomenon. There were, by 11 yesterday morning, hundreds of fans standing in King Charles Road, round the corner from Downing Street, cameras and phones held high. There were banners: 'Mr B Obama you are a ray of hope 4 billions of young men and women around the globe'. There were tears, really. Crying. Logos. Slogans. Hope. The woman on the Clapham omnibus quite literally rose to her feet. A big old belching red number 88 was the first vehicle stopped at 12.44 as Obama's convoy fled the gates of Westminster to head back to Illinois. She stood up, earrings and sunglasses bouncing, shouting through the glass, furiously snapping away on her phone, ecstatic. The woman on the Clapham omnibus is our 'How will it play in Peoria?' in America. I almost tried to find her. We like to have names. But the bus was going, for once, too fast, leaving on the retina only the shimmering slick of an advertising flyer for, I assume, a film called Space Chimps Go Bananas. There was a cartoon monkey. Disappearing fast. Perhaps you want to provide the Bush metaphor?

And now Mr O, with his wickedly easy smile, has been flying, home, and very possibly listening to Leonard Cohen, and smiling. First we take Manhattan. Then we take Berlin."   Euon Ferguson in The Guardian

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

Hope of what?  No more Bush?  I'll drink to that. No more irrationality in foreign policy?  I'll drink to that as well.  An end to the foolish division of America between black and white?  If that were to truly happen on both sides of the divide, then I would be glad to go get "stiff" somewhere with the ghosts of Willam Faulkner, Walker Percy and so many others who have yearned for that outcome.  The divide in America is still between black and white.  All the other groups, Chinese, Japanese, East Indian, etc. are easily disappearing into the blender.

Poor McCain is reduced to appearing a quarrelsome old man who can not find anything better to "bitch" about than a cancelled appearance at a military hospital, a sad thing.  The Army evidently told the Obamanauts that a campaign gig at a hospital is not appropriate.  Good. There has been enough of generals (and other politicians) shaking hands with soldiers at bedside and passing on the "thanks of a grateful nation."   The world will soon forget the mutilated and damaged in the beds, but one can hope that politicians would have some care for their dignity.

If elected, Obama will be a president with an abundant opportunity to fulfill Lincoln's promises or to disappoint.  I hope he does not disappoint, but the hope of the world he is not.  That is too much to expect.

Obama's rhetoric?  It is; delightful, amazing, deeply satisfying, but what does it signify?  pl

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/27/barackobama.uselections2008

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

Obama's rhetoric is not enough.

"Obama speeches almost always have the same narrative arc. Some problem threatens. The odds are against the forces of righteousness. But then people of good faith unite and walls come tumbling down. Obama used the word “walls” 16 times in the Berlin speech, and in 11 of those cases, he was talking about walls coming down.

The Berlin blockade was thwarted because people came together. Apartheid ended because people came together and walls tumbled. Winning the cold war was the same: “People of the world,” Obama declared, “look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together and history proved there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”

When I first heard this sort of radically optimistic speech in Iowa, I have to confess my American soul was stirred. It seemed like the overture for a new yet quintessentially American campaign.

But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more."  David Brooks

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

Ah, but is the overture really "the whole symphony" or is there something else which is not seen?

Brooks has put his finger on one of the issues that Americans have with the man.

Obama is clearly Europe's man in the contest to become president of the United States next year, but the sale is not made to those who will elect the president. I think it is likely that Obama will be elected but the outcome is still in doubt.

Few Europeans understand the complexities of American politics or political culture.  They think they do, but they do not.  They tend to think that Americans are unsophisticated Europeans who would do better if they knew how.  This view is largely self deception and based on a mistaken belief that the US is a cultural extension of Europe.

In fact, we are an alien race, far, far removed from ancestral roots.  Most Americans are largely without ideology, without any sense of history that extends beyond the 4th of July and the date of their own birth, and without any interest in the outside world.  Even the coastal zones are filled with people who have never been to any foreign country, do not have a passport and certainly do not speak any language other than the "English" of their region.  Americans just do not care about worshipful crowds in any European city.  A big crowd in Paris might actually hurt Obama's chances.

The soaring rhetoric of such speeches and the appeals to the better angels of our natures move people who are already within the percentage of the population who favor the idea of Barack Obama.  John Kennedy's speeches moved many in 1960, but nothing like all.  His false claims of a "missile gap" with the Soviets had as much to do with his election as his exhortation to become one of "freedom's frontiersmen."  His wife and children were appealing, but by '63 he was thought by many Americans to be a remarkably ineffective president.  At the same time, his picture was to be seen on the walls of shacks and mud huts around the world.  Would he have been re-elected in 1964?  This is an open question.  Khrushchev thought him a posturing, empty suit.  From that came much mischief.  He forced the Soviet Army out of Cuba?  Yes, but would they have been there if the Soviet leadership had not thought him weak and a dreamer?

There is something hollow about Obama's candidacy, something that gives citizens a chance to think him less rather than more.  He should be far, far ahead of McCain in the polls.  The Republican Party is a wounded beast.  McCain increasingly looks like a declining, mean old man.  Obama should be at least ten points ahead in national polls.  Yes. Yes.  I know we don't elect presidents on a national basis.

William Jennings Bryan was an orator at the soaring level of Barack Obama.  His "cross of gold" speech still lives in legend, but he was never elected president.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/opinion/25brooks.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/

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

The oil "head game" is collapsing - for now

"Oil prices continued to decline Wednesday, after a government report showed stronger-than-expected inventories and a Federal Reserve report showed a weakening economy.

Light, sweet crude for September delivery fell $3.98 to settle at $124.44 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Oil has tumbled nearly $23 since setting a record of $147.27 just eight trading days ago on July 11. Prices have not been this low since June 4.

The September futures contract became the so-called front-month contract as the August contract, which fell $3.09 to settle at $127.95 a barrel in the previous session, expired Tuesday. Oil settled down $3.51 from Tuesday's front-month settle. Oil futures contracts typically expire with seven trading days left in the month."  CNN Money

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

What happened to all the babble on the 24/7 news about the end of western civilization as we knew it?  What happened to the images of Ali Velshi (aka - "the bald headed prophet of doom") trudging across the Alberta tar sands,  gloating over the pain? 

Now, the financial news babes on CNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg, etc.  are looking cautious and pensive as they try to re-adjust their "pitch" to falling prices.  Actually, they look pretty good compared to the collection of group thinkers who pass for experts on these shows.  People ask how it is possible to listen to the chatter from these shows all day long.  That is easy to answer.  They are intensely amusing as further evidence of the herd mentality of humans and the instinct for individual survival manifested in rationalizations after the fact.

Perhaps we should look into hedge fund operations.  Unfortunately, so many of them are now run by the mediocre and unimaginative that there will not be as many to study soon.

Oh, yes, the oil head game.  Don't fret, those of you who loved it.  It will be back after the price gets down to some rational level.

Think for yourselves!  PL

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/23/news/economy/oil/?postversion=2008072314

http://tacticalinvestor.com/masspsychology.html

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

More oil leaking from the barrel.

"The drop offered further evidence that investors who only a week and a half ago drove prices to a new high above $147 a barrel are now quickly pulling money out of the market. It was also a reminder that, with traders for the moment turning bearish, the absence of major news can push the market down — just as incremental supply concerns previously drove prices sharply higher.

"This is more of the long exit from the market by the hedge funds," said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates. "A lot of these investors who have been supporting prices are hitting the road."

In Washington, the Senate voted 94-0 to move ahead with a plan that would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to set limits on trading in oil markets by certain large investors.

A number of Democratic lawmakers and other critics have blamed the historic rise in prices on speculators that they suggest are manipulating prices."  Yahoo news

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

"A lot of these investors who have been supporting prices are hitting the road."

"And may the road rise up to meet yah!"  (Leprechaun Talk  )

My hat's off to all of you who can continue to believe that fundamentals and trivial news can explain the oil futures markets' action in the last couple of weeks.  it takes real discipline to maintain that kind of position in the face of reality.  The ability to do that reminds me of the way the Bush Administration insisted that various nonsense descriptions of the war in Iraq were true.  The Jacobins are still clinging to these ideological positions.  Bravo!  Hang in there!  Don't let reality push you around!

The last month or so I have been watching the various TV financial market networks.  Marvelous!  These "analysts" by and large have no idea at all as to what really moves the various markets.  They just mouth the received wisdom and describe what happened as a forecast of what will happen.

They are not a bit different than the sports figures you see interviewed on the tube.  "And how is it that you won today?"  Well, we ran well.  We passed good (sic). We threw a lot, and we won."  "Well, thank you."  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/oil_prices

Obama, probably the 44th president of the United States.

Dan Balz is understandably cautious about the political events of the last week.  He has a job to keep.

He understates the effect of these events. 

1- Senator Obama has, so far, demonstrated a sure footedness in dealing with overseas situations that has surely disappointed his opponents.  It is true that the US military are taking the pictures and they are doing what they normally do which is to release only those photographs that make their guests look good.  That is normal, but he is photogenic and benefits thereby.

2- He looks good with the troops and they look comfortable with him.  He is a young man.  He looks like them, and the basketball thing is helpful.  It is true that there are a disproportionate number of African-American soldiers in these pictures.  These meetings may be voluntary and limited in possible numbers of invitees.  In that context a greater number of Black soldiers at such meetings would be predictable.  It is also true that a lot of these meetings are being held in what passes for a rear base environment.  American forces are volunteer forces and Blacks opt for enlisted support jobs in disproportionaltely large numbers since they tend (more than others) to see military service as a path for upward social migration.  In short, he does not seem to have a problem with soldiers, as some had predicted he might.

3- His stated positions with regard to timetables for; withdrawal from Iraq, reinforcment in Afghanistan and a generally tightened focus on suppresson of takfiri jihadi groups are such that they are likely to bring him more suppport from the general American public than they are likely to lose him on the left of his party.

4- Most importantly, Prime Minister Maliki has disemboweled McCain's desire to be seen as the strong, wise, soldierly man who knows far better than the upstart Obama what path should be followed in Iraq.  In spite of White House efforts to explain what Maliki would have said if he had not been mistranslated, Maliki has insisted that he really does agree with Obama's goal of getting US combat units out of Iraq by the end of 2010. This leaves McCain in the untenable position of insisting that he knows better than Maliki what is good for Iraq and implicitly that the US will withdraw when it chooses to.  Also implicit in McCain's position is the assumption that Iraq is (and will remain) a base area for a World War waged against militant Islam.  Perrino, at the White House, reinforces this notional framework by saying that in siding with Obama, Maliki is merely building a negotiating position.  A negotiating position for negotiating with the US for withdrawal of forces from their country? There is a name for that way of thinking.  The name is not "alliance building."

It seems to me that all of this has inflicted what should be fatal wounds on McCain's chance of becoming president.  Am I sure that he will not be elected?  No.  Why?  Look at the polls.  Given the disastrous situation of the Republican Party, Obama should be polling ahead of McCain everywhere.  He is not.  Why is that?

Frankly, there are still a lot of people in the US who are very leery of voting for a Black man whom they do not know.  That is a sad thing, but true.  Blacks know that it is true.  Some readers will assume that I write of the South.  No.  I think Obama will do a lot better here than the pundits believe.

Barack Obama should be very careful in his choice of running mate.  He needs someone who will assure all those who are afraid of a leap into an unknown future.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/21/AR2008072102851.html

McCain - US/Iraqi agreements are binding - on them.

Watching 24/7 news television is a more fruitful pursuit than one might think.  It makes for endurable background noise in the office.

Just now, McCain said that there are agreements between Maliki's government and the US concerning the circumstances and timing of US forces' departures.

He said that these are circumstances based, not date based.

The implication was clear in the way that he said this.  That implication is that withdrawal must be based on mutual agreement.

In other words, the US has a veto over when and therefore, if, our forces will withdraw from Iraq.  If that is not his position, he should say so, and quickly.  pl

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2136345520080721

The brass pushes back.

Yesterday, on Fox New Sunday (FNS), Admiral Mullen, (CJCS) firmly told the host that the armed forces make plans in the context of the policy of the Commander in Chief (CinC),the president.  He continued to say that when there is another CinC of either party who has a different set of policies, then the armed forces will plan to fit those policies.

General Petraeus said today to Andrea Mitchell (NBC News) that if she or anyone else wants to know if the armed forces can withdraw from Iraq in 16 months, then he needs to be told what his mission is before he can answer the question.  He is exactly correct.  He, like all US military commanders, operates within the context of national policy.  He went on to say that if policy requires a 16 month withdrawal then it will be done.  If policy requires a withdrawal that leaves Iraq relatively stable then this will take longer.

The foolish notion that military commanders and ambassadors make national policy has never been anything but a deception and an evasion of responsibility by the political leaders of the US.

Now, the military evidently see that this idea has vast potential for them to be left "holding the bag" in the event of misadventure.  As a result they are pushing back against assignment of responsibility where it does not exist.

pl 

More thoughts on "the next war"

"In military journals, midlevel officers' conferences and gatherings around the Pentagon, a growing number have expressed concern that the Defense Department's planning and resources are being trained disproportionately on small guerrilla wars.

At the same time, they fear that important military skills -- storming beaches, fighting tank battles, using air and land power in unison to attack enemy lines -- are beginning to atrophy.

"The military is almost always accused of preparing to fight the last war," said former Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne. "The most interesting part of 'next-war-itis' is that we are being accused of trying to fight the next war."

The military, Wynne said, has the responsibility to prepare for wars against competing nations even as it fights what he calls the war of "choice" in Iraq. "We shouldn't have to pick between this war and the next war," he said. "That is a bad deal.""  NY Times

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

After Vietnam the armed forces, particularly the US Army turned away from all that had been learned by hard experience and study of counterinsurgency (COIN).  This subject was resolutely avoided for decades and over time was largely forgotten  Counter-terrorism became the principal mission of the community of light forces called, "Special Operations Forces."  For a long time, this mission consisted largely of preparation and exercises, but 9/11 brought that to the front of everyone's mind.  Counter-terrorism became the "flavor of the month," and these forces have been allowed to operate across the world with a degree of independence that is worrisome to many in the armed forces. 

The disastrous miscalculations regarding Iraq were compounded early on by the US ground forces' ignorance and frankly disbelief in the possibility of a serious guerrilla enemy.  The inability at that time of many officers to think usefully about insurgency and counterinsurgency without official sanction for such thought should give one pause.  Perhaps the right habits of thought are not being inculcated?

Now we have a great ongoing resurgence of counterinsurgency doctrine and practice.  In Vietnam and the other COIN wars of the 20th Century, specialists in that field largely ran such wars while the main ground forces of the US remained focused on the Soviet Army and the central German corridor.  When brought into Vietnam they thrashed around in the woods looking for the enemy's main forces (the North Vietnamese Army with its divisions, artillery and tanks) and were hardly involved in COIN at all. Now, the main forces of US ground power have been told that COIN is the thing for them to do.  Great!  I love it that battalion commanders of infantry read learned articles by foreign experts and speak with confidence in the vocabulary of social anthropology (cool) and political science (not cool).

Nevertheless, this is a mixed blessing.  I have written earlier of my concern that a cult of generational development in warfare is spreading the idea that warfare develops progressively new forms and that old forms are no longer relevant because the nature of world society has moved "beyond" them.  This is a false and misleading notion.  War is a process of human social interaction carried out along a broad spectrum of possible forms.  The resort to these forms has much to do with local conditions and the relative strength of the adversaries. In other words, many different forms of warfare can exist simultaneously and have generally always done so. 

In the era of COIN doctrine ascendancy and the re-organization of the US Army into a brigade based structure largely stripped of mass, and heavy weaponry, the question must be asked, "what happens if we encounter an adversary who has a lot of equipment and who is determined to fight for a long time?"  I asked Rumsfeld that question five years ago.  His answer was that the crowd of obviously intimidated generals whom he had brought to the meeting had told him that this was not a problem.  Maybe that is why I was not invited to any more meetings.

Now, we have a group of officers who are arguing at the risk of their careers that history does not march in lockstep towards the future.  They should be heard.  A balanced defense policy and forces are what are needed.  pl

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-nextwar21-2008jul21,0,4118211.story?track=ntothtml

Bill Kristol, General Odierno and media management.

On Fox News Sunday (FNS) today, Bill Kristol, the Jacobin publisher of the "Weekly Standard" said "I was invited to Fort Hood with a small group to talk to General Odierno who is taking over in Iraq..."

Several months ago it became a matter of passing media attention that Rumsfeld's Defense Department had for years been briefing a hand picked group of retired officers on a regular basis to prepare them for their roles as on and off screen commentators on the military aspects of Bush Administration foreign policy.  At  these briefing meetings(often held in the Secretary of Defense's own conference room) talking points on issues of the day were discussed and talking points were distributed or faxed and e-mailed to participants. 

I was invited to one of these meetings in the time frame of the Abu Ghraib crisis and sat in on a couple of conference calls.  I was disinvited after that.  Why? I really don't know.  Maybe someone did not like my questions?  I wrote about this phenomenon several years ago on this blog and that was repeated at "No Quarter."

In my opinion, Kristol is not shy in pushing for an attack on Iran.  He thinks that diplomacy is another word for weakness and merely a preparation of public opinion for military action to come.  This was much the same view that he expressed before the Iraq War.

Why was Kristol invited by the Defense department to Ft. Hood, Texas to talk to Odierno?  Who were the other member of the "small group" who were invited?  Why does Odierno want to talk to such a group privately?  Is Odierno involved in information operations in the United States?

I am surprised that Secretary Gates would countenance such shenanigans.  pl

Iraq's Prime Minister states his position

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.""  Der Spiegel

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

OK, John.  What do you say about this?  I would like to know that as well as the spin that will be put on it by the news babe who is the PR flack at the White House now.  pl

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html

The oil bubble is leaking

I told you so!  Ah, that's not very mature.  Yes, but it feels sooo good.

Down how much last week?  What's that again?  I couldn't hear you...

It is true that there is a severe supply and demand problem in crude oil supply, but it is a long term problem.  As is often the case, the time-scape of this problem is one of the most important parts of it.  There clearly is not enough oil in the ground for humanity to continue using it in the ways that we have been doing.  Growing demand in newly industrialized places like China and India exacerbates that problem.  The solution to the supply problem in energy lies in new reliance on different ways to produce electricity.  Cheap electricity would enable short distance drivers to use electric cars and could eliminate the absurd reliance on fuel oil to heat buildings in the deep north.  That would produce a very different situation.  Al Gore is calling for windmills, etc., but the real solution (as he says) is nuclear power.  The Greenies will have to "suck it up" and accept the idea.  Hey, the French get most of their electricity from nuclear power.  The Francophobe crowd should take that as a challenge.

The short term problem is not the same.  This is and has been a bubble generated in the ways that have been discussed in previous articles.  Short term investment in the futures and spot markets have driven prices to levels unrelated to present supply and demand.  The markets have recently been a fantasy world without real limits for movement on the up side.

The bells are now tolling for that fantasy.  The smart people who stand to lose from this festival of childish greed have been kicking the psychological props out from under the process of finding bigger and bigger fools.

You don't think so?  Good.  It will be amusing to see how much money is lost in your disillusionment.

Sometime in the next few months the price per barrel will fall below 100/barrel.  It will be interesting to see how far it falls below that level...  pl

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

"The Asian smiles..." (Maliki in this case)

"The White House says President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the timing of troop reductions should be part of a broader security agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad."  NY Times

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

Bush's White House probably thinks it has outplayed the Iraqis in this matter, but the Iraqis are likely to see the situation in exactly the opposite way.

Having pressured the occupier (muhtalil) into conceding this much, the Maliki government will "pocket" the result and this expectation of US withdrawal at a pace satisfactory to the Iraqi government will become the "starting point" for future pressure on the US to pull its combat units out of the country gradually on a schedule that the Maliki government thinks will preserve its power.

If Obama is elected, the Baghdad government will find him accommodating in giving them what he already wants to give them.

If McCain is elected,(still a 55% probability IMO) he will have a very hard time denying them what they and the American people want. Since AQI is largely a "dead duck," and likely to stay that way, it would seem likely that the other contestants for power in Iraq; Sunni groups, Shia parties, Kurds, etc., will be quiet enough to set the stage for that.  The Kurds will get some sort of overt assurance from the US.  The Sunni Arabs will be helped as well, but much less visibly, and not just from the US.  Their Sunni brethren will "sign up" for that help.  Iran really wants a deal with America.  How they will behave in the context of an American withdrawal from their backyard is unpredictable in detail.  IMO, they prefer it that way.  I would do the same thing, but their behavior would be altogether predictable in the context of a putative Israeli or US/Israeli attack on their homeland.

Nevertheless, I think that this "agreement" is the beginning of the end for a large scale American troop unit presence in Iraq.  There will be a residual presence in Iraq for some time (several years) doing all the things that are endlessly talked about, but Admiral Mullen's statements about the unavailability of troops for Afghanistan should be taken seriously. 

Get over it, neocons!  You like to talk about Saddam being gone.  Savor that thought!  Revolution in the Middle East was always a bad idea.  There are no good Islamist governments.  How you could have thought there might be is a mystery which points unmistakably at the depth of your illusions about the region.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq.html?hp

Can outsiders manage change in alien cultures?

In the immediate aftermath of the Iraq intervention it was striking that the Jacobin neocon crowd were of the opinion that traditional (dare I say classic) Middle Eastern and Islamic culture was of little or no value in humanist terms and, in fact, is a barrier to the emergence of "modern" man and "modern" societies.  Social revolution was their goal throughout the region.  Some of this sentiment had its roots in their strange, shared educational background.  Some of it was clearly rooted in a desire to provide a friendly environment for Israel.

By 2006, the application of their ideas had nearly led to disaster as the Iraq Project foundered on the shoals of resistance provided by the very culture that the neocons so despised and feared.

Now that the situation has improved, the same people are busy revising history to justify future application of the notion of coerced social revolution in the region.  Anyone who thinks that Jacobin neoconism is in retreat is deceived.   The Iraq war situation has been ameliorated (from the American point of view) through the use of methods traditional to Middle Eastern and colonial history.  Divide and rule works as well today as it has always worked, regardless of whom is doing the dividing and who is being divided.  Humans are easily divided on the basis of their perceived group interests.  There is no evidence that they will ever be any different.  Anything else is merely wishful thinking.

The local cultures in the Middle East and Islamic "worlds" are very strong.  They are likely to change at their own pace, influenced by the flood tides of information in the world today, but they will strongly resist change at anyone else's pace. 

The belief that outsiders can "manage" that change is as destructive today as it has always been. 

Walrus has provided the following rejoinder to the ideas of Spider Rider.

Strike up the band!

pl

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

With respect Spider Rider; "What DOES it really take to establish some sort of democracy in the Middle East?" "But how do we play off of this, and establish the middle east, so the middle easterners WANT a democratic type system, so it emerges, and grows, through sound policy, and not corrupt business?" You are making the fatal assumption that in the Middle East democracy is automatically seen by all as a good thing. The reality is that only a tiny Western educated elite in most Middle Eastern countries have any liking for democracy, and the general population views them with great suspicion. Then you make the assumption that it is somehow our right to overturn their culture and social structures and force them into adopting a political system that is alien to them. ....And then we get all upset when they push back? To put it another way, what would your reaction be if Saudi Arabia decided that sharia law is what America needs and proceeded to do everything in it's power(missionaries, economic aid, mosques, financial inducements, let alone withholding oil supplies) to ram it down your throat? The first requirement is to understand the societies concerned and then do what is possible within the structures of Tribe, Clan, Family and Religious belief to advance the causes of Peace, Free Markets and human Rights as laid out in the U.N. declaration on the subject... ....Oh Wait! We don't have no time for them liberals in the U.N.!

Walrus

Pakistan border situation - 2

I am glad that my note was of interest to many readers. Thank you to those who expressed appreciation. There is one important aspect which I did not explicitly deal with (it is such a given for Pakistanis that, for them, it isn’t worth mentioning, but I should have done that here). If the US mounts sustained attacks on the tribal areas, this will be regarded by all Pakistanis as an attack on their country. The upsurge of anti-US feeling will be such that neither the government nor the military could thereafter afford to show any sign of cooperation with the US. That will seriously compound US problems in Afghanistan and the region. Several commentators have mentioned the possibility of Pakistan unravelling. This is unlikely, but when things continue to spiral downwards, people tend to turn to saviours – and this is what religious fundamentalists claim to be, especially where corruption, lawlessness, and insecurity flourish. David Habbakuk First of all, this war was entirely winnable. As I wrote in my note Pakistan on the Brink (posted here by Col Lang in Oct 2007) : "Critics of the Bush administration point to the invasion of Iraq as its greatest blunder. History may well record that an even bigger blunder was its policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Knowing that al-Qaeda was the real enemy, that they were based in Taliban Afghanistan, and that the Taliban themselves had come to power out of their bases in Pakistan, it focussed its attention instead on invading Iraq. It let the al-Qaeda leadership get away; when the Northern Alliance routed the Taliban it did nothing to ensure that they found no sanctuary in Pakistan. At that time, a little prodding could have got a subdued Musharraf to neutralize the religious parties and take control of their madrassahs (which were the support networks of the Taliban) and deny the latter sanctuaries in the border cities and tribal areas. But the lure of Iraq and a reordered Middle East drew them away, leaving huge unfinished business". What can the West do now? All I can suggest are some pointers. For Afghanistan : remove the target ! The foreign military presence unites former foes in opposition to it. Set a near date for a pullout. The carpetbaggers (Karzai and his clan, et al) will hurriedly depart to enjoy their loot, the old tribes and clans will make their accommodations, as they have for centuries. Their mutual suspicions and hostility (judiciously fed) will ensure they remain inward-focussed rather than a danger abroad. Prevent meddling by regional players. For Pakistan : what it really needs is to hold free elections every two years for the next ten years (quite doable by the army under the supervision of an independent higher judiciary). This will durably empower the people and sweep away not only all the corrupt politicians but also the religious parties; it will also put to rest for good the temptation for a general to step in. The West needs to push in this direction rather than back military dictators and corrupt politicos. Parvati Roma I don’t think there is any chance of a conflict between Pakistan and India in the foreseeable future. Both countries seem to have decided that improved relations between them are good for them both. JT Cornpone The Northern Alliance fought the US war to win back their territories which the Taliban had conquered. The insurgency is in the Pakhtun lands to the south, it does not affect them.

FB Ali

Pakistan border situation

The attack on the Kunar post, because of the sad loss of life, has garnered a lot of attention and comment. But this was, after all, just a minor tactical setback. What should really worry people in the US are the gathering storm clouds that are threatening to jeopardise the entire US-NATO enterprise in Afghanistan. The adjoining tribal territories in Pakistan are rapidly slipping out of control of the country’s government.

Pakistan’s civilian government is in complete disarray. The nominal cabinet has no power; decisions are made by a couple of unelected former fugitives from justice (accused of massive corruption) for whom the US obtained immunity from Musharraf. The political parties and factions are busy undermining each other, the country’s administration is in turmoil, its finances are in a mess, inflation is surging, ordinary people are daily facing shortages of food, water and electricity. The government is trying to negotiate agreements with the tribes, offering them money and autonomy in return for peace – the old policy the British used with considerable success. Unfortunately, when the US used these tribal areas in the 70s as the base from which to launch the jihad to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan (remember the mujahedins, darlings of the West?) they also destroyed the old tribal hierarchies, with radicals and militants taking control. To them, “peace” now means a free hand to support their Pakhtun brethren in Afghanistan in their fight to oust the new invaders. The US will not accept such an agreement. It is not surprising these negotiations are not making much progress.

The Pakistan army, having had its nose bloodied in Musharraf’s earlier attempt to militarily control the tribes, and with its standing in the country badly dented by his political shenanigans, is quite content to use the civilian government’s dithering as an excuse for its inaction; it has no intention of fighting a US proxy war in the tribal territories. It also knows that the US will still continue to pay it large subsidies to ensure the safeguarding of the US supply lines to Afghanistan (and the country’s nuclear weapons).

The US is in a bind. It has to deny the Pakhtun insurgency (the Taliban are only one part of it) the use of the tribal areas as a base. With Pakistan showing no will to control these areas, it is threatening to take unilateral military action there. This will obviously be through air strikes and Special Forces raids, both notorious for their inevitable “collateral damage”. This will add fuel to the fire of militancy, pushing more recruits into the ranks of the jihad, especially the deadly suicide bombers. An insurgency cannot be defeated by a few successful decapitation strikes, or even by turning a rugged mountainous base area into a free-fire zone. The more perceptive US commanders probably know this, but they have to be seen to do something about the continuous guerrilla attacks. How long will the NATO allies stick around fighting an unwinnable war? How long will the US public put up with it?

But that is not the worst of it. Believing Pakistan to be complicit in the US strikes on their people, the tribal militants will turn on it; they have already seen the deadly effect of their suicide bombs in the teeming cities. An already fragile governmental and societal structure will face severe stress; anything could happen. One thing is certain : the religious fundamentalists in the country will take full advantage of this turmoil. For the US, the first impact will be on their supply line through Pakistan. Then, Pakistan itself, as an ally, will be at risk.

One of the most difficult things for both statesman and soldier is to recognize a war as unwinnable before it is proven in the field.

FB Ali

No more Czechoslovakia?

(irony alert)

It's not there anymore, John.  It has been gone for lo, these many years.  The natives divided it up into two little countries, "Boravia," and "Mohemia," or something like that. 

You can learn things like that on the internets.  Your wife can use the internets and the world wide web to discover tricky stuff like that.  She can help you with that.  Your friend George can use the internets, maybe.  His father didn't know about bar code price marking in supermarkets, but that was because Barbara went to the supermarket so that he wouldn't have to.  Do you have a cell phone, John?

There's a whole new world waiting for you, John, out there on the "information superhighway."  If you ask your staff, they will show you something called "Google" which will help you to learn new things and where where smart alecks write articles about the Muzlem enemy on the Wikipedia.  If you don't like the articles, Cindy can change them for you.  Unfortunately, some of these pointy heads think that the Iranians are not supporting Al-Kayda, but you can find others others who will agree with you.

John, once you are president nobody will argue with you and you can forget about all this.  pl

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

Yesterday's attack in Kunar Province

"NATO officials reported that nine soldiers were killed in the Kunar attack but did not specify the nationalities, in accordance with the policy of letting member countries report them first. A senior military official in Washington said that all nine were American.

The Kunar attack also left at least 15 other NATO soldiers — almost certainly Americans — and 4 Afghan soldiers wounded, and it was one of at least three significant attacks on Sunday, including a devastating suicide bombing in a southern city’s bazaar that killed at least 25 people, 20 of them civilians.

This year of the Afghanistan war is already proving to be the deadliest since the American-led invasion. Bush administration officials are now considering a redeployment of troops to Afghanistan from Iraq to help deal with the rising threat."  NY Times

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

A single tactical event such as this attack in Kunar is of interest in itself, but may be the result of local circumstances of terrain, misjudgment, good judgment, weaponry, sheer numbers, weather or any number of other factors singly or in combination.  The command will undoubtedly examine the event to decide what happened.  Evidently, the hostiles penetrated the position before they were repulsed.  That is not good.  The difference between that and losing the position altogether is often just a matter of luck and passing determination on the part of some of the defenders.  Evidently the action lasted several hours.  I would be curious to know if the position was reinforced by air during the battle and how much fire support the garrison was given.

The fact that there were several other attacks more or less simultaneous to this one, that is worrisome.  It

That may be reflective of a new ability to command and organize on the part of the hostiles.

Information would be welcomed.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world/asia/14afghan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

"Half a Loaf..." in Iraq

"The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord -- blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms and the complexity of the task -- deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years.

Although President Bush has repeatedly rejected calls for a troop withdrawal timeline, "we are talking about dates," acknowledged one U.S. official close to the negotiations. Iraqi political leaders "are all telling us the same thing. They need something like this in there. . . . Iraqis want to know that foreign troops are not going to be here forever." "  Washpost

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

It was predictable that the hubris of the Bush Administration belief that it had acquired a NATO-like position with regard to the "new Iraq" would prove to be both false and dangerous.

Whatever the terms of the temporary agreements that will be agreed on between Baghdad and Washington, those agreements will not be a solid basis for an indefinite US occupation of Iraq.

Future Iraqi governments will be able to repudiate them to demand withdrawal and true independence.  A future US president will be able to cite them as justification for a reduction in US forces leading to the sort of relationship that the US has with Jordan and Egypt.

The Iraqi negotiators, whatever their motivations, have served both Iraq and the US well.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201915.html?hpid=topnews

Good news in the Levant

"Electing a new president was the easy part and it happened within days of Doha.

Both of Lebanon's political groupings agreed on the former army chief, Michel Suleiman, who is as close to a neutral public figure as you can find in Lebanon at the moment.

He will preside over the first government since November 2006 with representatives from all the major parties.

There will be 30 ministers - 16 of them from the Western-leaning parties, who back the Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora.

Eleven are supporters of what was the opposition grouping, which includes Hezbollah.

With more than a third of the cabinet seats, that party and its allies now have a veto on the major decisions of the government. "  BBC

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

A veto?  That makes it sound like the Doha agreement contained a provision that allowed Hizbullah as a party to simply deny passage to any action of the Lebanese government that it does not like.  No. That is not the case.  What "veto" really means here is that there is now recognition that the "opposition group" has enough seats in parliament to block passage by the majority of measures which constitutionally require a super-majority.  That is called constitutional democracy.  The "opposition group" won those seats in the last parliamentary election.

The political impasse of the last year and a half resulted from the unwillingness of the Siniora government to apportion cabinet seats in a way that reflected the result of that parliamentary election.

The Lebanese government refused to do so largely because its foreign sponsors (the US, France and Saudi Arabia) encouraged it to do so.  To make a refusal to empower rivals is always tempting in Lebanon where the chance to "screw" other Lebanese who are not members of one's own community continues to be an urgent psychological imperative.

In the end, common sense and external Arab mediation won the day and peace will descend over the Lebanon for a while.

In a related matter President Sarkozy of France has invited President Bashar Assad to be his guest at the Bastille Day festivities in Paris where Assad will meet with the new Lebanese president, Suleiman.  In the context of continuing German sponsorship of Israeli/Syrian peace talks all of this is good news indeed.

Where is Secretary Rice in all this?  Nowhere.  pl

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7503008.stm

What are these rockets?

"OK, fake photo - showing four long- and medium-range missiles rise into the air..."  AFP

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

OK.  Someone altered the photograph.  That is interesting but not the primary curiosity about these "long and medium range missiles."  To justify this description it would seem that they would have to be ballistic missiles of the Shehab series, probably Shehab 3b.

Is it not the case that ballistic missiles rise nearly vertically from the Transporter Erector Launcher (TEL) in the launch phase of flight?

This is a picture of the Shehab 3 on its TEL.  Does this look like the TEL in the doctored photograph above?

These are photographs of the Shehab 3 in the launch phase. 

I am not an expert in the field of missile technology, but the missiles in the faked photograph appear to be anti-aircraft ground to air missiles or artillery rockets.  The slanted attitude of launch speaks to that.  No?  Anti-aircraft missiles would be a threat to aircraft, not to Israeli cities.  Artillery rockets are a battlefield weapon.

If those missiles are not ballistic missiles, then several interesting questions arise:

1- Which governments are fooling around here?

2- If these are not ballistic missiles, why are the MSM propagating the implication that this photograph displays missiles that are a threat to Israel? pl

http://blogs.timesunion.com/editors/?p=913

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

"Blessed are the peacemakers"

"But leaked information says otherwise.

The latest such leak came from Alon Liel, a former Israeli diplomat involved in back-channel talks that led to the current peace negotiations, in which Syria is seeking to retrieve the Syrian Golan Heights that Israel captured and occupied in the 1967 war.

"They are asking not only for the Golan Heights, but a change in Washington that will break the Syrian isolation internationally," Mr. Liel was quoted as saying in London's Daily Telegraph. "I also think they will not do it unless they are assured they can have an alternative to Iran."

The former envoy's remarks were similar to those made by a top French government official, who privately told a few Arab journalists in Paris last week that Syria has sent "some signs" it was willing to distance itself from Iran.

The source, who was not identified, said Syria was seeking France's good offices with Washington for a rapprochement and to persuade the United States that real progress in the peace process can only be made with American engagement.

Syrian President Bashar Assad and his foreign minister, Walid Mualem, have on a couple of occasions asked for U.S. involvement in these negotiations. But U.S. officials have been reluctant to open up to Syria until they have a commitment that it would disengage itself from Tehran, as well as from anti-Israeli Palestinian and Lebanese groups described as "terrorists." "  Middle East Times

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

This has been developing for a long time.  Bashar Assad's Syria has been seeking an opening for a new beginning with the United States for many years.  They have tried to approach the Bush Administration above the table, below the table, around the table, over the table, but, to no avail. 

Inspired by the leadership of the likes of Paul Wolfowitz (who breaks out in a rash at the sound of the Assad name), the Bushies have persisted in their own peculiarly Middle Eastern style of diplomacy.  In that school of diplomatic work, one demands the pre-emptive surrender of the other party to one's maximum demands in the expectation that the actual negotiation will concern the rehabilitation of the penitent.  Amen.  Amen.  Ahhmen!

Yes.  The Syrians want a relationship to replace that which they have with Iran.  What a dastardly, underhanded thing to try for.

I have a thought.  Perhaps the Syrians could send a mission to Libya to study the methodology of Qaddhafi's surrender of his fearsome WMD programs.  That worked for him. 

I assure you that the tourism will be better in Syria than in Libya.  I recommend a stop in the Damascus bazaar followed by an expedition to Krak des Chevaliers (Qala'at al Husn)  pl

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/signs-pointing-to-damascus-break-with-iran/

When interests collide - The US, Israel and Iran

Quite a few Americans are now beginning to grasp the idea that Israel is a foreign country, a country which seeks to advance its perceived or real self-interest in all matters. 

In the past, most Americans have thought of Israel as a kind of "suburb" of Miami or New York City that just happened to be in the Middle East.  Anti-semitism is largely a thing of the past in the US.  What has taken the place of that particular bigotry has been a paternalistic  affection for Israel as an outpost of Western and indeed American values in the Arab World.  How did that happen?

Movies and television productions like "Exodus" have been a continuing feature of American life for at least fifty years.  The Holocaust Museum in Washington is a major feature of capital region tourism and high school class trips from all over the country.   Protestant evangelicals have a special place for Israel in their system of belief.  The cumulative effect of these and similar phenomena has been to create the illusion that US and Israeli interests are identical and likely to be always identical.  This notion is both sentimental and egregious.

Israel is a country which was established to foster the interests of a particular ethno-religious group over all others.  In that way Israel and Pakistan have much in common.

The United States is a country that revers the idea of freedom of and from religion.  The United States has always sought the melding of its populations into one, new and hybridized group.  This has not always been successful but it has remained the "national" zeitgeist for a long time. 

These ideological goals are fundamentally in opposition to each other.

Now we have the case of Iran and its putative nuclear weapons program.  The US intelligence community judged in the latest NIE on the subject that the Iranians are far, far from the ability to design and manufacture a nuclear warhead that could be "mated" to the Shihab-3 missiles that Iran fired recently in what was probably a counter threat to the the US and Israel.  Mitt Romney said on television this morning that he doubts the judgments of that NIE.  What his qualification would be for making such a judgment is another subject.  Could it be that a foreign intelligence service has briefed him on its own judgments and he prefers those judgments?

The Israeli government and its intelligence services do not subscribe to the logic of nuclear deterrence.  Being possessed of only two major targetable population zones (Tel Aviv and Haifa) they correctly reason that they can not possibly"ride out" a counter-value first strike by an adversary.  Following that logic they believe they must eliminate any potential nuclear threat before it materializes.  The intentions of such an adversary and the ability to deter capabilities are not something they are willing to gamble on.  Of even more immediate concern to the Israelis is the clear diminution in their ability to militarily and diplomatically dominate the future that would accompany acquisition of a deliverable nuclear capability by any of its neighbors or even the possession of a plausible and unpredictable future nuclear capability by any of the same countries.

The United States has very different interests in this matter.  Iraq.  Iraq.  Iraq.  The US project in Iraq pins the United States to the maintenance for some years of a substantial force in that country.  That force is a kind of hostage to peace between the US and Iran.  Logistics, and the sheer numbers of possible Iranian influenced combatants in Iraq are major potential threats to the US force in Iraq.

In addition; the vulnerability of the oil transport route out of the Gulf, the unavailability of US ground forces for a new war, the further wreckage that would be inflicted on the US political position in the world, and the havoc that would be wrought on the oil futures and spot markets are major factors that the US should consider in deciding on a course of action vis a vis Iran.

Most importantly, Iran is not anything like a threat to the United States.  It might be someday, but that time is a long way off.  The present threat is to the Middle East nd to Israel specifically.

Israel and its partisans are now engaged in seeking enough "leverage" to have the US do their will in this matter.  Let us sober up in the United States and remember that we are the dog and they are the tail. pl

Kissinger unveiled - again.

"Four questions need to be answered with respect to nuclear proliferation: Do Russia and the United States agree on the nature of the challenge posed by an Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons? Do they agree on the status of Iran's nuclear program? Do they agree on the diplomacy to avert the danger? Do they agree on what measures to take if whatever diplomacy is finally adopted fails?

My impression is that a considerable consensus is emerging between the United States and Russia regarding the first two questions. With respect to the others, both sides must keep in mind that neither is able to easily overcome the challenge alone."  Kissinger

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

One used to think of; Metternich, Tallyrand, Molotov, Ribbentrop or some other remorseless practioner of European realpolitik when contemplating Henry Kissinger and his role in history, but that is at an end.

"Kissinger Associates" gave us what?  Paul Bremer.  Bremer is an archtype of "Brownian" incompetence if there has ever  been one.  We also now know that Kissinger has been, from the beginning, a crypto-neocon counselor to the Bush clique both in and out of the White House.

And here we have "the Henry" pimping for the Israel Right and the AEI/Weekly Spectator crowd in their efforts to drag the US into war with Iran.

Keep it up, Henry, you and your pals are likely to have your way in this if you persist.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/07/AR2008070702218.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Maliki has warned Bush

1-Maliki wants a short term "memorandum of understanding" between the US and Iraq concerning the presence of US troops in the country.

Translation:  contrary to the pseudo Wilsonian fantasies of Bush/Cheney/the Jacobins and McCain, the Iraqis are still Iraqis and their government does not want foreign troops in their country... Period!  Such a memorandum would not amount to a treaty of alliance or even a permanent relationship.  All the spurious talk about American troops in Germany and Korea for fifty years founders here on the rock of Islamic and Arab difference.  Yes.  It's the culture thing again.  Political science dogma about the sameness of peoples is still crap.  Neither the idiot savants of the Jacobin group nor the ignorant buffoons who vote them into office ever comprehended any of this and they still do not.

No predominately Muslim country is going to enter into a treaty of alliance with a non-Muslim state.  That was true before 2003 and it remains true. The Muslims who read here will explain that to you all.

2- Maliki has now specifically warned Bush that Iraqi territory is not to be used for an attack against Iran by US forces.

Translation:  He made sure that it was understood that this prohibition includes facilities and air space.  He did not mention Israeli forces or US assistance to Israeli forces, but it was hardly necessary to do so.

The Dick McBush crowd could go ahead and do it anyway, but that would make it painfully clear that our prattling of Iraqi sovereignty was just a "blind" for neo-colonial adventure.  There are a lot of good hearted and ignorant people in America who think that Iraq now belongs to the US in some way.  Those folk may think that we ought to just "bull" our way through to final victory over the forces of darkness, fighting on to the "End of Evil" as Frum and Perle entitled their book.  AIPAC may like that idea.  WINEP certainly likes that idea in its secret heart of hearts, but the people who would pay the price for such a decision would be men and women in the field whose fortunes would be endangered by such foolishness.  pl

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/05/Maliki_cautions_US_against_Iran_attack/UPI-47341215306714/

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/07/07/iraqs_al_maliki_wants_short_term_us_agreement/

Jacobin fantasy redux

A lot of realistic, tough minded people worked very hard and creatively over the last two years in and about Iraq to create the improved security situation visible there today.

A number of factors contributed to that improvement; the new counterinsurgency methodology, more US troops, continuing emphasis on professionalizing Iraqi security forces and most importantly the great "awakening" of Sunni Arabs and Shia seculars to the unacceptability of takfiri jihadi intentions toward them.  All of that went into making Iraq a more hopeful place.  All of these tendencies are about restoring the modicum of national concord that grew in Iraq in the decades following British occupation of the place in World War One.  None of it is about the Jacobin neocon fantasy of an Iraq made into a Western country, with Western values that is a staunch military ally of the United States and a Jordan/Egypt for Israel.

Nevertheless, on Fox News Sunday (FNS) today the egregious Fred Barnes and Billy Kristol, his less egregious but more mephistophelian boss at "The Weekly Standard," could not resist declaring an impending total victory in Iraq for the neocon goals enumerated above.  Juan Williams, the token liberal on the weekly panel) tried to remonstrate with them citing the fragility of the present lull in hostility toward the US and its forces, but they would have none of that.  Clearly, for them, their faith and perseverance have been rewarded, and now the dastardly Democrats (of uncertain patriotism - irony alert) are seeking to rob President Lincoln, oops!, Bush of the fruits of his long and noble struggle.  According to them, a crushing victory in Iraq against Al-Kayda (sic) can still be counted on to make the Muslims all turn into something "wonderful."  ("2001,  A Space Odyssey" reference there)

Sigh.

Oh, yes, they also pronounced that "the Iranians have suffered a major defeat in Iraq."  They have?  How?

Amusingly, this "gang that can't shoot straight" had just finished predicting victory for the despised "Democrat" party in November before they took up the Middle East question.  Very odd.

I am sure that you will explain it to me.  pl

Bush at Monticello

"President Bush kicked off the Fourth of July at the hilltop estate of one of the nation's Founding Fathers, where he welcomed dozens of new American citizens from 30 countries.

Bush's address Friday at the annual Independence Day naturalization ceremony at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello was immediately interrupted by a handful of antiwar demonstrators, one of whom repeatedly shouted, "Impeach Bush!" Bush, apparently unfazed, offered a holiday-appropriate response.

"To my fellow citizens-to-be, we believe in free speech in the United States of America," Bush said to hearty applause.

Six protesters, including one in a cartoonish Uncle Sam hat, were "voluntarily escorted" away from the crowd of 3,000, and no arrests were made, said Lee Catlin, a spokeswoman for Albemarle County.

The citizenship ceremony has been held annually since 1963 outside Jefferson's colonnaded plantation home in the verdant Piedmont hills. Bush, the fourth U.S. president to address the event, lauded the "guiding principles" Jefferson laid out in the Declaration of Independence, saying they had long inspired immigrants like those gathered before him.

"They've made America a melting pot of cultures from all across the world. They've made diversity one of the great strengths of our democracy," he said. "And all of us here today are here to honor and pay tribute to that great notion of America." "  Washpost

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

If I read the news correctly, this was Bush's first visit to Monticello?  That is a surprise.  Most people who are of the visiting class have been there, often several times.  Monticello and Gettysburg are on the "must do" list.   I wonder if he has been to Mount Vernon right down the road (12 miles perhaps) from the public housing he occupies at present.  I wonder if he has ever been in any of the museums of the Smithsonian Institution?  I suppose that he is not interested in such things.  The past seem to be dead for him.  Perhaps he has been to the Alamo?  Ah, yes.  That would be a political necessity.  In visiting the Alamo a few years ago, I found the damp, dark, little church to be both depressing and unimpressive.  On the other hand, the obvious devotion of the hordes of modern Texans who filled the site to overflowing was indeed impressive.

Bush was heckled at Monticello.  It is not something I would have done.  The place, the day, his office and the new Americans would have kept me safe from such a display, but I am heartened that this could happen and that there were no arrests, just an escorted trip to a parking lot at the bottom of the little mountain.  Homage is due to the officials of Albemarle County for that.

Jefferson succeeded John Adams as president.  Adams had displayed a tendency to authoritarian grandiosity as president.  He liked court uniforms.  He wanted to be called, "your excellency."  He imprisoned editors who disagreed with him.  He had come to be an enemy of his old friend Mr. Jefferson.

Nevertheless, he handed over power without any sort of struggle.  He handed power over to a man who walked to the White House from the capitol after his inaugural address, walked followed by an entourage of children and workmen.  After that, he freed the editors.  Someone will say that he thought freedom more important for editors than for his slaves.

We still have a lot of problems in this country.  We have more problems than we had before George W. Bush was president, but the simple phrase "there were no arrests" in the story above should give us a good deal of hope.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/04/AR2008070402260.html

http://www.monticello.org/

Independence Day - 2008

We are going to have an open thread today.  At our house we have a big annual neighborhood picnic to attend and those helping with the arrangements must arrive early.  This is an annual event held at Matthew F. Maury school a couple of blocks from here.  The picnic involves all the usual old-timey American features; contests for prettiest baby, best looking dressed up dog, bicycle, etc.   Athletic events suitable for the day, such as three legged races will occur along with a lot of picnic food and the inevitable speeches by local politicians.  Ah, I forgot the carnival "rides" for the little kids.  So, we are busy today.

There ought to be a lot to talk about.  Have at it!  pl

Guantanamo and the SERE schools

"In 2002, the training program, known as SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, became a source of interrogation methods both for the C.I.A. and the military. In what critics describe as a remarkable case of historical amnesia, officials who drew on the SERE program appear to have been unaware that it had been created as a result of concern about false confessions by American prisoners.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after reviewing the 1957 article that “every American would be shocked” by the origin of the training document.

“What makes this document doubly stunning is that these were techniques to get false confessions,” Mr. Levin said. “People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don’t need false intelligence.”

A Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col Patrick Ryder, said he could not comment on the Guantánamo training chart. “I can’t speculate on previous decisions that may have been made prior to current D.O.D. policy on interrogations,” Colonel Ryder said. “I can tell you that current D.O.D. policy is clear — we treat all detainees humanely.”

Mr. Biderman’s 1957 article described “one form of torture” used by the Chinese as forcing American prisoners to stand “for exceedingly long periods,” sometimes in conditions of “extreme cold.” Such passive methods, he wrote, were more common than outright physical violence. Prolonged standing and exposure to cold have both been used by American military and C.I.A. interrogators against terrorist suspects. "  NY Times

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

I wrote some years ago in these pages that I thought the methods in use at Gitmo and other places sounded a lot like the resistance to interrogation training that had been done in the '60s in the US armed forces.  The supposedly sophisticated methods of psychological manipulation then said to have been used against French POWs in Indochina and Americans in Korea inspired a lot of that kind of that training.

SERE training was intended to prepare people for the illegal bestialities that were expected to be inflected on American prisoners if they fell into the hands of the communist enemy.  The armed forces had been horrified at the number of "collaborators" who emerged among American prisoners in Korea.  This kind of training and the adoption of the "Code of Conduct"  were seen as specifics against a recurrence.  An exagerated fear of the "Manchurian Candidate" phenomenon was widespread.

It was clearly understood that such methods were to be expected of an enemy devoid of decency.  I experienced such training and it was no fun at all.

The methods of interrogation authorized and thought productive by US forces were very different from that.  They stressed what was essentially a process of seduction similar to that used in recruiting foreign agents.

The US armed forces have no peacetime mission to interrogate prisoners.  Discussion of methods in the context of peacetime military life is a completely abstract subject.

The national intelligence agencies debrief defectors from foreign countries of interest but this is not a hostile process.  The defectors want asylum and for that reason are normally eager to tell what they know.

Clearly, some sadist or group of sadists with a vivid imagination took advantage of the national trauma of 9/11 to use the old communist enemies' methods as a model.

Whoever did that inflicted a grave injury and disgrace on the United States.  The culprits should be punished as an example to future generations of sadists.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=world