« July 2008 | Main | September 2008 »
O God, Lord of the universe, hear the voices of your children. The Sea of Galilee obeyed your command and returned to its quiet. You are the Master of land and sea. We live in the shadow of a danger over which we have no control. The Gulf, a provoked and angry giant, wakes from its lethargy, and invades our land to bring us death and chaos. We turn to You. Spare us another tragedy. The memory is vivid. The wounds have not healed. Have mercy on our brothers and sisters.
Amen.
This past Friday Governor Sarah Palin jolted the 24 hour news cycle into wall-to-wall coverage of John McCain’s unexpected choice for his VP slot, all but burying the Democratic National Convention speeches and aftermath. Something else wound up conveniently buried at the same time. Running on page 8 of Saturday’s NY Times was an article by Eric Lichtblau that detailed news to which very few, if any, MSM outlets paid notice in the flurry of fevered talking head babble regarding Palin’s attributes and shortcomings:
Bush Seeks to Affirm a Continuing War on Terror
WASHINGTON — Tucked deep into a recent proposal from the Bush administration is a provision that has received almost no public attention, yet in many ways captures one of President Bush’s defining legacies: an affirmation that the United States is still at war with Al Qaeda.
Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush’s advisers assert that many Americans may have forgotten that. So they want Congress to say so and “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”
The language, part of a proposal for hearing legal appeals from detainees at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, goes beyond political symbolism. Echoing a measure that Congress passed just days after the Sept. 11 attacks, it carries significant legal and public policy implications for Mr. Bush, and potentially his successor, to claim the imprimatur of Congress to use the tools of war, including detention, interrogation and surveillance, against the enemy, legal and political analysts say.
Some lawmakers are concerned that the administration’s effort to declare anew a war footing is an 11th-hour maneuver to re-establish its broad interpretation of the president’s wartime powers, even in the face of challenges from the Supreme Court and Congress.
The proposal is also the latest step that the administration, in its waning months, has taken to make permanent important aspects of its “long war” against terrorism. From a new wiretapping law approved by Congress to a rewriting of intelligence procedures and F.B.I. investigative techniques, the administration is moving to institutionalize by law, regulation or order a wide variety of antiterrorism tactics...
*************************
24/7 news channels and the MSM dailies’ tight focus on McCain’s unusual choice of running mate seems to have shielded GWB & company from even cursory accounts of this story that might have leaked through the unending Palin analysis. The rare exceptions, as many times is the case, are found on the internet:
From John Byrne @ Raw Story-
Bush quietly seeks to make war powers permanent, by declaring indefinite state of war
...Bush's open-ended permanent war language worries his critics. They say it could provide indefinite, if hazy, legal justification for any number of activities -- including detention of terrorists suspects at bases like Guantanamo Bay (where for years the Administration would not even release the names of those being held), and the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program...
From Bmaz posting @ Emptywheel-
Bush Re-ups War, Obstructs Accountability as Nation Twitters Over Palin
...In all the flurry and bustle of the conventions and Palin, not to mention back to school and Labor Day weekend for the nation, this could be lost in the flow. It must not be. This provision has all the potential implications, problems, and potential for abuse that the Authorization For Military Force (AUMF) had in 2001. And with a Cheney/Bush Administration still in power, and with their known predilection for abuse, this simply cannot be allowed.
This is but another callous and cynical play by the Administration to manipulate timing and political posture for craven gain. Cheney, Bush and the GOP enablers are going to parry this against the Democrats during election season and try to fearmonger them into approving it...
One last quote from Lichtblau’s article, from Bruce Fein, always an astute critic of the Bush administration and its machinations:
For...Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, the answer is simple: do not give the administration the wartime language it seeks.
“I do not believe that we are in a state of war whatsoever,” Mr. Fein said. “We have an odious opponent that the criminal justice system is able to identify and indict and convict. They’re not a goliath. Don’t treat them that way.”
My thanks to Pat for urging me to post here at SST on this story after I emailed him about it yesterday.
-Maureen Lang
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_seeks_to_institutionalize_war_powers_0830.html
"I find it incredibly startling that McCain would choose a person he hardly knows for a job as important as the Vice Presidency of the United States. It is so obvious that he is doing this as a political tactic that it makes me question his judgment. Is that the way he will make decisions about our economy, our security, our well-being as a nation? If, God forbid, Senator McCain dies during his presidency then he will entrust this nation with a person with zero foreign affairs experience, whom he hardly knows to be the Commander in Chief? How irresponsible is that?
I can appreciate that this is a historic moment for women but what is insulting and shameful is that it comes as a result of political tactics and not merits. As a woman, I am insulted. I can't help but asking how does he dare insult the intelligence of millions of women who voted for Clinton with this tactic of trying to appeal to them by choosing a woman with no qualifications as a vice presidential candidate. What does he think, that women are stupid? " Giovanna Negretti
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What does he think, that women are stupid?"
Maybe so. His first marriage broke up after his return from Vietnam. This is often attributed to his inability to accept the change in his wife's appearance. Perhaps that was not the major cause. The wife had been making a life without anything but his memory for over five years. She may have been a more assertive person, someone more sure of her own opinions by the time he came back. Perhaps her independence was more than he could handle in anyone, least of all his wife.
McCain has a reputation as being intolerant of dissent, of disagreement with his views. Does Cindy McCain ever show disagreement with him? He said that his first criterion in choosing a running mate would be a close match with his own opinions. There are some leaders who can not tolerate the existence of differing views in subordinates whether they are expressed or not. Governor Palin does not seem to be someone with whom McCain will have a problem.
I am told that Palin's selection was based on McCain's belief that he and she would have not conflicts and that "the numbers" added up for the campaign staff. pl
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/massvoices/2008/08/candidate_mccain_disappoints.html
"Ms. Palin then took the stage with her husband, Todd, who owns a commercial fishing business. They were accompanied by four of their five children; she said the eldest child, a son, is in the Army, and he is heading to Iraq on Sept. 11.
She described herself as “just your average hockey mom,” who joined the P.T.A., was elected to the City Council and then served as mayor and as governor, adding that she did not get into government to take the safe course.
“A ship in harbor is safe, but that’s not why the ship is built,” Ms. Palin said, adding that she would “challenge the status quo to serve the common good.”
Ms. Palin praised the achievements of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who lost a long and bitter primary race against Senator Obama, saying that she had left “18 million cracks” in the highest glass ceiling in the land.
Then, making an explicit appeal to Ms. Clinton’s disappointed supporters, she said, “It turns out that the women in America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling.”
Ms. Palin, a former mayor of the small town of Wasilla, an Anchorage suburb, and one-time beauty pageant queen, first rose to prominence as a whistle-blower uncovering ethical misconduct in state government. " NY Times
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Smith goes to Washington?
Let's see - What else is there? Oh, yes, evangelical Christian, handicapped infant child, probably only a couple of houses so far.
Well, hell. At least she isn't pushing "peak oil." How bad can it be?
Alexandria, Virginia is full of people just like her. As driver for "she who must be obeyed," I go to meetings chock full of them. There are always people there who are on the school board or who want to be on the school board, city council members, planning commission members... You get the idea. By and large, they nearly all secretly hope that one thing will lead to another and someday they will be standing in the sun somewhere telling a crowd that "women in America aren't finished yet" or some other inanity.
This fantasy life is not so funny today. It actually happened for this "hockey mom," married to a part Eskimo fishing boat captain. Hell, we may see this man on "Deadliest Catch" next season. That's a thought. Is this guy going to have to give up fishing? No way!
"Is this a great country or what?" pl
PS Jose points out that I left out all the "Natty Bumppo" stuff about moose hunting, NRA life membership, etc. I never gutted anything bigger than a white tail deer. A moose must be an "awesome" job. pl
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?hp
Several commenters have written to discuss my rhetorical question as to whether or not Russia and the US will push their renewed rivalry to the point of war. Some have dismissed the possibility of the kind of wars that they have seen in the last decades. They have dismissed the chance of such wars between the two powers on the basis of the full commitment of US ground forces elsewhere. Others have taken up the possibility of a trade war. Only "Curious" addressed my principal concern. Nuclear war.
There will be many who will say that the time has passed when we needed to fear such a thing. The argument will be made that the powers are at last firmly lodged in the character of "rational actors." Are they correct in assuming this state of affairs? I think not. Humans remain a species as much dominated by emotion and the herd instinct as the cool intellect envisioned by "modern" theorists. Group identity in the form of nationalism and other forms of tribal identity are still powerful and likely to remain so.
You think not? Consider this. What was there of really rational calculation in Russia's recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The Russian leaders have every reason to think that Bush, Cheney and the neocons are capable of ideologically driven decisions that are devoid of rational action. The Iraq adventure speaks for itself of an example of that. The near disaster in Iraq has probably been averted through the ability of the US armed forces to learn from their experience there, but the Bush Administration and the neocons dragged their feet and did little to help the armed forces retrieve the situation. McCain can "rattle on" but everyone who really studies the situation in Iraq knows that the solutions reached were complex and only partly the result of the increase in combat units labeled "the surge." The Russians should also consider the bellicose comments of both candidates for the presidency of the United States concerning Georgia and the foolishness of the idea of sending US fleet units into the Black Sea where the potential for a confrontation with the Russian Navy would be high. Such a confrontation, fed by mass emotion expressed by modern media could easily escalate in an an uncontrollable process.
Khrushchev badly misjudged the possibilities for the USSR when he met with Kennedy in 1961. As Kennedy said on a later occasion "the Soviets have made the mistake that many others have. They have thought us weak, soft, and self absorbed."
Russia and the United States still possess the power of Armageddon. They must be more careful in dealing with each other. pl
"Igor Lukes, a professor of international relations at Boston University, said international law contained clear standards for evaluating whether an independence movement should be recognized, in part based upon whether such a territory has well-defined borders, a well-established central authority and a populace that strongly desires secession.
The problem is that these judgments typically become hostage to conflicts between large nations, as in the case of Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Mr. Lukes said.
“These situations are not really murky,” he said. “What makes the situations murky is each superpower tries to exploit ad hoc situations as they emerge to advance its interests and to hurt its rivals. It’s really the way the superpowers manipulate the reality. It’s not the reality that is complicated.”" Levy in the NY Times
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of the United States.
***************************************************************************
Jefferson, the Second Continental Congress and Professor Lukes all see the issue of self determination in the same light. For them, the will of a people living a communal life within their own collective identity trumped any claims that might be made by a distant, alien government.
Some will find this an attractive idea, others will find that their sense of order in the universe is offended by the "messiness" of what will happen if "popular sovereignty" is the effective basis of state formation.
Whatever ones opinion may be on this subject, the truth is that self determination as a principle matters not if it can not be defended by force of arms. History makes that very clear everywhere, including the United States. Force Majeure, force majeure...
Georgian rule is unwelcome in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The majority of people in those regions are not Georgians. If it were not for Russia, these places would eventually have been subdued by force majeure. Would that have been better?
Are the two great powers really going to carry their quarrel over this to the brink of war? Are we really going to do that? pl
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/europe/27russia.html?pagewanted=1&ref=todayspaper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
Our brother Fabius, who evidently writes about oil was courteous enough to inform me that he has posted the following in his blog. I thank him for his help in explaining this complex phenomenon. So many have sought to help in similar ways. I am especially grateful to the army of social scientists who "lent a hand" in so many ways. pl-----------------------------------------------------------
Continue reading "Fabius Maximus teaches us. Thank You, Fabius." »
"al-Maliki's remarks Monday suggested that the Iraqi government is still not satisfied with that arrangement. An aide to the prime minister said Monday that Iraq remained adamant that the last American soldier must leave Iraq by the end of 2011 — regardless of conditions at the time." Yahoo News
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley." Bobby Burns
So true. How the hell are Bush/Cheney/McCain going to deal with that? Whatever it is that they thought would happen in Iraq surely did not include resistance from the "sovereign" government of Iraq on the issue of a departure of US forces from Iraq on an American schedule, not an Iraqi one.
Maliki needs to get the US out of Iraq. We are a potential threat to Shia Arab supremacy. We have learned the hard way that the neocon vision of a Middle East ruled by former underdogs who would be good dogs does not work.
We have learned that a government that can govern in Iraq will have to share power and wealth with all communities.
That makes us dangerous to long term Shia Arab rule in Iraq. Soooo - they want us out!
I had thought that enough venal and self-serving Iraqis would be found to make the two agreements under discussion a "done deal", at least temporarily.
Wrong again! pl
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_pact
Having spoken my piece on Biden, I turn to the Republicans.
McCain is likely to win the election because of the "issues" now built into the Obama campaign but he is a terrible, boring, sleep inducing speaker. Without the impact of his biography or at least the image of his biography carefully cultivated over the years he is an uninteresting candidate. I believe that his candidacy needs some "juice" in the person of a running mate who will "close the deal" with America. He can win without that but like any military man he wants to load up the odds in his favor to insure an overwhelming victory.
It is likely that he will pick Romney. That is what the professional pols are urging on him. They think Romney is a safe choice. Most of them are Washington and New York secularists, and cynics. They see the world through lenses that have dollar signs engraved on them. They see Romney as a business wise asset with which to balance McCain's view of himself as the central figure in a Wagnerian drama. Theology does not matter to most of these professional politicians. If they are associated with some church or other congregation their allegiance is largely a matter of social conformity and life cycle event facilitation. They do not really grasp the fact that many Christians in this country think Mormons are Christians only by their own definition of the word. They do not grasp the fact that in "the heartland" there are people who will not vote for the ticket based on that alone. Would that defeat McCain? Probably not, but why take a chance?
McCain should ask General Petraeus to retire from the Army to run with him. Petraeus is youthful, well spoken, handsome, intelligent, successful in the war in Iraq, youthful, and youthful. Petraeus has reached the top in his profession. There is no "up" in the Army from full general and theater commander. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Yawn... The professional politicians would probably not like to have Petraeus on the ticket, but his presence there would make victory inevitable. pl
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_on_el_se/cvn_mccain_biden
"So while Obama can continue to try to reassure resistant Clinton loyalists in Appalachia that he’s not a bogeyman from Madrassaland, he must also move on to the bigger picture for everyone else. He must rekindle the “fierce urgency of now” — but not, as he did in the primaries, merely to evoke uplifting echoes of the civil-rights struggle or the need for withdrawal from Iraq.
Most Americans, unlike the press, are not obsessed by race. (Those whites who are obsessed by race will not vote for Obama no matter what he or anyone else has to say about it.) And most Americans have turned their backs on the Iraq war, no matter how much McCain keeps bellowing about “victory.” The Bush White House is now poised to alight with the Iraqi government on a withdrawal timetable far closer to Obama’s 16 months than McCain’s vague promise of a 2013 endgame. As Gen. David Petraeus returns home, McCain increasingly resembles those mad Japanese soldiers who remained at war on remote Pacific islands years after Hiroshima." Frank Rich
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. It was forty years ago that the central story of McCain's life was told. Our struggles in the 20th Century were noble in our minds (at least in some of our minds), but that was then and this is now. The country needs to move on into a very different world, a world in which America no longer stands on solid economic ground, an America that exists in a world in which the Soviet Union was buried almost twenty years ago. McCain says that when he looks into Putin's eyes he sees the letters "KG and B?" That is as simplistic and silly as Bush's emotional blubbering about Putin's soul. The medieval gang of takfiri jihadis? How many are they? A few thousand? McCain says that the problem with them is the "transcendant struggle of the 21st Century?" Nonsense. Kill them and move on in a world in which Islam and the rest of the world are free to develop a real modus vivendi free of the burden of their interference.
And then, there is Obama --- As Rich writes, we need no more pitch-man memetics focused on American belief in the magic of the word "change." There will be change? OK. What change? What is it that Obama proposes to change in Washington? Rich calls for a wide program of POLICY change with regard to the economy. Fine. What does Obama specifically intend to propose to Congress? They will have to give him the authority and money to make whatever policy he intends to save the economy. That thought reminds of Obama's description of Washington as "the place where hope is wrung out of your heart." He has suggested that he wants to change the "system?" Really? What system? The Constitution? No more lobbyists on "K Street?" No more lobbyists for; the NEA, the NRA, the AARP, the NAM, the AFL-CIO, AIPAC and its satellites, AFSME, the US Chamber of Commerce? The list is endless. If there are no lobbyists, then how will legislation be framed? Will it be as the product of the divine inspiration of "the leader," of "big brother?"
Let us hear what Brother Barack actually proposes other than the novelty of himself and an end to Bush. pl
I once had the "privilege" of having Senator Joseph Biden rip a strip of hide off me. (figuratively) It was impressive and memorable. I would not want to be the Republicans when he really gets wound up.
I believe that it was in '95 or '96 that I took a consulting client to meet Biden on the basis of an acquaintance I had with one of his staffers. The client did not want anything from Biden. He was one of those people who feel better about themselves if they can say that they know the famous. He was a name dropper. He was an Arab. We were sitting in Biden's office with a couple of staffers having a meaningless "small talk" session when Senator Joe arrived. After a minute or so Biden asked this man what he thought of the situation in the Middle East. My client said the appropriate thing for a typical "grip and grin" meeting. He expressed a modest hope for peace in the region. He was not a Palestinian and this was of fairly distant import for him, but, it was to be said.
Biden's face turned red and he started shouting that the two of us knew there was no real chance of peace in the Middle East and that if we continued to "lie" to him we could get out of his office. He went on like that for some time. His diatribe actually became MORE violent and offensive as he continued for several minutes. He did not seem to realize that this poor fellow in an Armani suit was an industrialist and not responsible for the eternal catastrophe between Israel and the Arabs. He started screaming at me as well, saying that it was the responsibility of people like me to make the world a better place (tikkun olam maybe?) I would have told him to "stick it where the sun don't shine" and left but the Arab gentleman sat through it and so I had little choice but to do the same. If you were not experienced in this kind of thing it would have been hurtful, but it really didn't measure up to some of the behavior I have observed in flag officers. I suspect that the staffer I knew "set me up" somehow.
In any event, I meant it when I said that Biden is a "sledgehammer." His argumentation is logical, passionate and usually (unlike the occasion mentioned,) delivered behind a screen of civility spread across a vast hostility. He is undeterred by unending reminders of events long gone by.
McCain likes to call people "my friend" when he is working himself into a rage. Biden referred to McCain as "my friend" several times today at Springfield, Illinois.
I think HE should debate McCain. I would pay to see that from the front row. pl
"In restive Diyala Province, United States and Iraqi military officials say there were orders to arrest hundreds of members of what is known as the Awakening movement as part of large security operations by the Iraqi military. At least five senior members have been arrested there in recent weeks, leaders of the groups say.
West of Baghdad, former insurgent leaders contend that the Iraqi military is going after 650 Awakening members, many of whom have fled the once-violent area they had kept safe. While the crackdown appears to be focused on a relatively small number of leaders whom the Iraqi government considers the most dangerous, there are influential voices to dismantle the American backed movement entirely.
“The state cannot accept the Awakening,” said Sheik Jalaladeen al-Sagheer, a leading Shiite member of Parliament. “Their days are numbered.”
The government’s rising hostility toward the Awakening Councils amounts to a bet that its military, feeling increasingly strong, can provide security in former guerrilla strongholds without the support of these former Sunni fighters who once waged devastating attacks on United States and Iraqi targets." NY Times
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Jalaladeen, if "their days are numbered," then so are yours. In spite of McCain's baloney, it was the rallying of the Sunni Arabs to the common cause against the AQI fanatics that was principally responsible for the security improvement in the country. Men who once fought us and the Shia dominated government can return to fighting us if disappointed.
The Iranian mediated settlement in Basra and elsewhere should not comfort anyone. It is merely a demonstration of Iranian strength among the Shia factions.
"...a bet that its military, feeling increasingly strong, can provide security in former guerrilla strongholds without the support of these former Sunni fighters..."
This would be a fool's wager. It shows the desperate desire of the Shia Arabs to rule over the Sunni Arabs as overlords. IMO, they lack the strength to pacify the Sunni Arabs without resorting to mass slaughter using modern weapons, aircraft, artillery, etc. These weapons would inflict casualties on Sunni civilians that would amount to genocide.
If that happens the Islamic World will rally behind the Sunni Arabs in support of an insurgent campaign that will last for a long, long time. pl
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/middleeast/22sunni.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Barack Obama has not yet announced his preference for a vice-presidential candidate. I think he would be wise to choose Hillary Clinton. If he does not choose her, then Joseph Biden would be the best choice. The other two possibilities, Kaine and Bayh are capable men but I do not think that they would fulfill the role of "attack dog" against McCain. Unfortunately, that is what is needed. Obama is not the man to confront the political nastiness machine constructed by the McCain campaign. To govern, one must first be elected, and the issue of the election is in doubt. The present Obama team is not adequately dealing with McCain. The best prospect for changing the present situation in favor of the Democrats is to pick a running mate for McCain who will contribute to winning in November.
McCain's machine is built on the idea of politics as marketing. They are in the business of selling John McCain as though he were a new brand of toothpaste. Memetics? I had to look that up, but that is what they are doing. They are endlessly "pitching" bite sized phrases of cultural code of various kinds; "arugula eating," "not questioning his patriotism," "still rejecting victory," "inexperienced" (the ultimate codeword and excuse), "empty suit," (what does that mean?). This technique is designed to influence the vote of the unthinking. The unthinking are the majority. They believe what is said over and over again whether that is said in the media or by their fellow "sheep" in the street.
Obama is not a man equipped to engage in a battle of competing ugliness. He has spent his life becoming what he is and that is not what is needed to defeat the memeticists. What is needed is someone to stand toe to toe with McCain with equal force and a greater wit to push him back rhetorically and announce to the world that he has feet of clay. McCain's narrative has many chapters that have not been brought forcefully to the fore. Hillary would do that with style. Joe Biden with a sledge hammer. pl
"On these matters, there is a quick fix. Under pressure, the cftc is closing the London loophole. Early in the next administration, Congress must slam shut the Enron and swaps loopholes. Index speculation should be curtailed by making such strategies illegal for regulated pension funds and by imposing limits for all traders on how much they can buy or sell. Investment banks using credit default swaps to enter the commodities markets should be regulated to the standards that apply to speculators, not as if they were heating-oil vendors hedging against a warm winter. Investigations now under way at the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Justice should be intensified, and criminal manipulation of the markets, if detected, should be punished.
Finally, the federal government should burn the oil speculators by selling up to 4 million barrels a day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And as economist Tom Palley has pointed out, consumers can help too. An awful lot of gas is stored in cars. If people stop topping off and make do with half a tank, they'll back up supply and lower demand. It's a brilliant suggestion and definitely worth a try.
And while this is being done, and especially if all this smoke leads to fire, someone should ask, "What did Henry Paulson know, and when did he know it?"" Galbraith
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I beating this horse to death?
Yes.
Why?
...Because the horse isn't dead yet.
pl
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/exit-strategy-how-to-burn-the-speculators.html
"In the post-Cold War world, small countries often get into fights they can't finish -- hoping that big powers will come to their rescue. That happened in the 1990s with Bosnia and Kosovo, which hoped their desperate vulnerability would force Western intervention, as it eventually did. On the other side, the Serbs played the same game, hoping (wrongly, as it turned out) that Russia would intervene. The better part of wisdom sometimes is to tell small, embattled nations and ethnic groups: Swallow your pride and compromise; the cavalry isn't coming to save you.
There's a moral problem with all the pro-Georgia cheerleading, which has gotten lost in the op-ed blasts against Putin's neo-imperialism. A recurring phenomenon of the early Cold War was that America encouraged oppressed peoples to rise up and fight for freedom -- and then, when things got rough, abandoned them to their fate. The CIA did that egregiously in the early 1950s, broadcasting to the Soviet republics and the nations of Eastern Europe that America would back their liberation from Soviet tyranny. After the brutal suppression of the Hungarian revolution in 1956, responsible U.S. leaders learned to be more cautious, and more honest about the limits of American power.
Now, after the Georgia war, McCain should learn that lesson: American leaders shouldn't make threats the country can't deliver or promises it isn't prepared to keep. The rhetoric of confrontation may make us feel good, but other people end up getting killed." Davod Ignatius
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries, empires and revolutionary movements of various kinds have always struggled with each other. It appears to be inherent in human nature that people like to array themselves in rival groups. What were the Warsaw Pact and NATO but such groups?
Unfortunately, there is little interest today in what history can teach. This seems to be because the "scientific" view of the human experience holds that man has "moved on" and is now a different beast than he was a few centuries ago. IMO, humans and their societies are essentially unchanged in the period of recorded experience. That experience indicates that inter-group struggle along a wide spectrum of activity from; agitation through political organization to guerrilla war to armored combat to nuclear war continues to be the reality of human existence and the essence of international relations. That continuing reality points to the always present danger of creeping escalation in such struggle from one point on the scale of activity to another until the ultimate category of nuclear war is reached. Given the number of nuclear "players" there is a danger of reaching that "stage" among countries like Pakistan, India, Iran (someday) etc. Nevertheless, it is the possibility of escalation of struggle between Russia and the United States that remains by far the most dangerous feature of international relations. The avoidance of escalation between these powers must be the principal concern of the wise.
The Russians and the United States both still possess many thousands of deliverable warheads of varying size. An "exchange" between the two countries would result in something like one hundred million dead. This bedrock consideration is too little discussed. The possibility of such a thing should impose a certain caution.
It is one thing to help a country or cause surreptitiously. The more covertly that assistance is offered, the less the danger of general war because of it. The traditional "safety valve" built into such projects is the willingness to abandon the effort (and the client) if the risks become too great. "Plausible deniability" is the story built into the project that allows the sponsor to abandon the effort rather than be trapped into deadly confrontation with a major power. When that mechanism breaks down, there is great danger abroad in the world. I leave it to the reader to provide his own examples of times when this has happened in all its variations.
With the neocon Jacobins and their man, McCain, we have something that purports to approach that possibility differently. Addicted to idea of the "power of the will," they seem to be willing to apply bravado and bluff as a basic operating principle in policy. When confronted with overwhelming brute force, their reaction seems to be to "up the ante" with more and more hostile rhetoric and gestures.
This is a very dangerous game when played against a psychologically challenged opponent armed with a thermonuclear strike ability. States, movements and coalitions have emotionally laden trigger points that can initiate processes impossible to halt. Often these processes work themselves out in ways that political scientists would label "irrational."
We should all be more careful. pl
A three-hour gun battle broke out after the attack yesterday, 30 miles east of the capital, in the Surobi district, continuing sporadically overnight and picking up this morning, when the Nato soldiers were killed, Afghan military officials said today. A further 21 were injured. One Afghan source claimed four of the soldiers had been kidnapped by the insurgents and killed. French reinforcements in armoured vehicles joined the battle today, while other troops stopped civilian traffic from entering the area. Witnesses reported helicopters flying overhead. The deaths of the men, from the 8th Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment, represent the biggest single loss of life for the French in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion of 2001 ousted the Taliban regime. Before yesterday's attack, the total French death toll was 14. At April's Nato summit in Bucharest, Sarkozy pledged a further 700 soldiers to Afghanistan, and their arrival by the end of this month will take the French contingent, based mainly in Kapissa province, north-east of Kabul, to 2,600. " Guardian ------------------------------------------------------------------- "8th Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment." These are among the best the French have. "Infanterie de la Marine," the descendants of the old "Troupes Coloniales." It appears to have been a big and prolonged fight. "Sarko, l'Americain" is going to visit the troops. Good idea. Perhaps we should get him to take over the whole Afghanistan "show" and the Americans can then support the French. Seriously, the French armed forces are very nearly the only non-US armed forces in the world with a real expeditionary capability in terms of logistics and power projection. At the same time that this was happening a hundred or so jihadis attacked a US base in the city of Khowst. They had six candidate "shuhada" (suicide martyrs) with them who blew themselves up as appropriate. The attack failed to overrun the post, but if they keep trying.... This is beginning to sound like re-runs of the 1930s "Gunga Din" movie. Yes. I know "Kali," and all that. Afghanistan badly needs reinforcements. Badly. Afghanistan badly needs a serious infrastructure and economic developement program. Badly. No more prattling about "freedom" in the CPA tradition. Get on with it. pl
"Nicolas Sarkozy today said he would travel to Afghanistan after 10 French soldiers were killed after Taliban insurgents attacked their patrol near Kabul.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/19/afghanistan.nicolassarkozy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_Marine_Infantry_Parachute_Regiment
"McCain did a great job of making me feel confident. He was clearly in his element at Saddleback, among supportive evangelical Christians, and he went a long way toward alleviating their fears about his inability to communicate with them in their own language.
Obama came first, and he handled himself well in front of an audience that clearly disagrees with him on many issues. He also managed to put to rest the notion that he is a Muslim, which 12 percent of Americans still believe he is. He talked directly to Rick Warren as though they were having a real conversation, whereas McCain played to the audience, rarely looking at Warren. He was low-key, thoughtful and nuanced.
That kind of nuance is hard to understand sometimes -- it's unclear, complicated. Obama's world can be scarier. It's multicultural. It's realistic (yes, there is evil on the streets of this country as well as in other places, and a lot of evil has been perpetrated in the name of good). It's honest. When does life begin? Only the antiabortionists are clear on that. For the majority of Americans (who are pro-choice), it is "above my pay grade," in Obama's words, where there is no hard and fast line to draw on what's worth dying for, and where people of all faiths have to be respected.
I would rather live in McCain's world than Obama's. But I believe that we live in Obama's world. " Sally Quinn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the fifties there were two presidential elections in which Adlai Stevenson lost to Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower was an intelligent man, who possessed vast experience as a leader and manager. He was cautious, restrained, not inclined to rash action. In many ways he deserved to win the election, and he did, but what happened to Stevenson in those two elections is instructive.
Stevenson lost because he was, in the vulgar idiom of today, an "elitist." He was no any kind of "ist," but he was a member of the WASP elite. He came from a distinguished family, had a fine education in places like Choate, Princeton and Harvard Law and was a wit. During one of his campaigns he was told that he would have the vote "of every thinking man in America." He replied that he "needed a majority to be elected." He was soft spoken, a fine speaker, nuanced in his opinions and pronouncements and indifferent to trivialities like fancy clothes. A newspaper published a picture of the bottom of one of his shoes. It had a hole in the sole. This became emblematic of the man, interpreted by his friends as evidence of a lack of pretension and by his enemies as a pose. He was incapable of speaking in slogans. He lost, twice. Obama is a lot like Stevenson. You could see that in the "forum" held in Orange County the other night.
McCain has been trained by his neocon handlers and advisers to suppress the music in his rugged old soul in favor of "memetics and neurolinguistics." He spoke to the audience, not to the host. He spoke in simplistic terms of complex issues. He exhorted the crowd to fear against the "other." It was a rally against the enemies that so many in America hold dear as a focus for their own group identity.
I continue to think that McCain will win. That does not mean that I favor his candidacy. pl
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702080.html
Georgia has a flag. It is very beautiful. It was adopted a few years ago and is a reference the existence of a medieval Georgian state aligned in some way with the medieval Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem. The design is that of the "cross of the five wounds," the Jerusalem Cross. This was the symbol of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Georgia has a coat of arms. The blazon features St. George (a personal favorite for me). This is another medieval reference to Georgia's alignment with the crusader states. St. George is the patron saint of the Palestinian Christians. He was a Byzantine saint, well known throughout the region in the medieval period and still to be seen in decorative house art throughout Palestine.
The present state of Georgia has little to do with that period of Georgian national life. Georgia in its present de jure boundaries, including; Ajara, Abkhazia and South Ossetia was created in the 1920s by the USSR, largely through the influence of Josef Stalin, an ethnic Georgian.
The Ossetes, Abkhazians and Ajaris are, for the most part, not ethnic Georgians. Their primary languages are other than Georgian. They were "shoehorned" into today's Georgia by the USSR.
We Americans have not yet learned the difference between "state," and "nation." That lacuna in our mentality cost us dearly in Iraq.
"Popular sovereignty" anyone? pl
I would declare Rick Warren, the pastor of the Saddleback Church in Orange County, California to be the "winner" in last night's Evangelical political forum. He organized the event, provided his church as venue and moderated the show. The television commentators mentioned several times that 20,000 people are "members" of his church. That seemed to surprise them. Where I live, (the RC diocese of Arlington) that would not be an unusual thing in any number of parishes. Warren ran his event well. He looked like a prosperous NGO manager a couple of times. Obama referred to Warren's book sales once. They were impressive. Warren at one point told Obama that a family with an income of $150,000/year would be poor in Orange County. Hmmm. That brought to mind a Franciscan priest whom I once encountered in Jerusalem. He had been a diocesan pastor in Orange County and had left to become a friar. When asked why, he said that his Mercedes had been getting in the way of his ability to follow Jesus.
John McCain's journey into the world of neocon thinking is described well in the article cited below. I would not ascribe his political inclinations to the naval background of his upbringing. Many, many people from similar backgrounds end by completely rejecting such a background as they develop their own thinking. Others do not. McCain has problems that originate elsewhere. He does not seem to be a deep thinker. He responds with slogans to questions that require complex solutions.
Warren - "What is worth fighting for (paraphrase)?" McCain - "Freedom!" (followed by other words about national interest, etc.) Warren - "There is evil in the world. What should we do about it?" McCain - "Defeat it!" This is neocon Jacobin koolaid in a "high proof" form.
Whose freedom? Everyone's? If so, we will be very busy if this man is elected president. "Evil?" How will we defeat evil? Richard Perle and David Frum wrote a book entitled something like, "The end of evil." This is childish. Evil is a continuing reality against which humanity is summoned to struggle. There will be no end to evil. There will be no end to the struggle against evil. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask what means McCain intends to rely on to "defeat evil." This is especially true in light of his "Freedom" response. Some may say this is mere campaign talk. If you think that, contemplate McCain's face as he makes responses like those.
The devout in that church loved the slogans. It is to their credit that their approval of McCain's evident inclination to re-open "Freedom's Frontier" would surely be met by increased enlistments of their children in that struggle. It would, would it not?
The NY Times will publish a similar article on Obama. That will get equal attention here. pl
"Many believe the current crisis is a major power play planned by the Russians. That may be correct. Yet, Georgia lit the fuse to open this ugly chapter of a long-running crisis by moving troops into the disputed Georgian region of South Ossetia, which contains Russian “peacekeepers.” Tensions have been rising between South Ossetian separatists and Georgia for several years, but little has been done to restrain the Georgians. Instead, the U.S. in particular has long been ignoring warning signs about a resurgent Russia’s concern over deepening Western ties to a seemingly overconfident Georgia." Wayne White
The TV business channel 24/7 crowd have more or less lapsed into sullen quietude over the continuing fall in the price of the oil commodity. Why? They can't explain it in terms that they are willing to accept.
Some of the anchors are restive and asking embarrassing questions that are "slapped down" as quickly as they arise.
The rise of the dollar, the destruction of US demand, the unexpected decline of Asian demand, etc., etc., ad nauseam. These are the "herd" answers.
In fact, there was never really a short term shortage of petroleum. The talking heads and the mindless anchors on TV business shows hyped and hyped the long term shortages until the unthinking came to believe in oil shortages as every day fact. Talib, in "The Black Swan" describes this phenomenon. Once something like the phony oil shortage became "fact" then the oil commodity was a good candidate for the "play" of traders of the wild eyed variety. Now, they are getting out. This reveals the lack of "fundamentals" underneath todays prices.
A woman "talking head" on CNBC said today that oil is seeking an "equilibrium price" based on the real supply and demand situation. She was correct.
She was hooted down.
pl
"Syria and Lebanon have agreed to start diplomatic ties and exchange ambassadors for the first time since independence about 60 years ago, a Syrian presidential adviser said on Wednesday. The decision was taken during a meeting in Damascus between President Bashar Assad and his visiting Lebanese counterpart Michel Sleiman, said presidential counselor for politics Buthaina Shaaban.
"The two presidents decided to establish diplomatic ties at the level of ambassadors, in line with the treaty of the United Nations and international law," the statement by Shaaban said.
Presidents Assad and Sleiman "instructed their Foreign ministries to take the necessary measures in this regard to conform with the laws of the two countries," the statement added." Daily Star
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon was carved out of the side of the Syrian mandate given to France after World War I.
It was created for reasons satisfactory to the French. These motives were probably a mixture of various interests. One of them was certainly a French desire to create a homeland for the Christian population (specifically the Maronites I think) of that part of the Levant. The French often exhibit a complex national character made up in part of; worldly realism (some might call it cynicism) bordering on weltschmerz, sentimental attachment to hopeless causes and old friends (the US for example) who do not really value the friendship, relentless creativity while clinging to things like artisanal production of wine and cheese in tiny quantities... It should not be surprising that I like them.
The creation of Lebanon was one of their "little projects." Syria itself had never really existed before the League of Nations Mandate. It had always been a geographical expression under various governmental dispensations. Nevertheless, it became a "thing" under French rule and the French chose to detach coastal Syria to make Lebanon. This offended the sentiments of Arab nationalists and Muslim activists alike. The creation of a state for the Christian minority was clearly not something that either of these groups would welcome. To make matters worse, The French decided to include the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon in their creation. They seem to have done this in search of that elusive "beast," ECONOMIC VIABILITY. The problem in doing so was that the valley had a large Muslim population. This was large enough that when combined with the other Muslims in the "country," eventual emergence of Muslim majorities became inevitable. Palestinian flight into Lebanon in the 40s made the process occur even more rapidly than it would have otherwise.
Syria never accepted French action in severing Lebanon from the mandate. The fact that Syria itself existed because of European "meddling" was of no importance to the Syrians.
As a result of the arbitrariness of French action, successive Syrian governments have chosen not to accept Lebanon's existence as a separate country. This the first time that Syria has acted as though it actually accepts the idea of Lebanon. This is the first time.
Supposedly, there will be embassies in the two capitals. There will be public diplomatic recognition. The border will be demarcated.
Perhaps the next American administration will eventually become reconciled to this development. After that, the next American administration will perhaps come to accept the peace that Bashar Assad wants to make with Israel.
Perhaps. pl
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=95057
In spite of the "jelly donut" (Berliner) talk from McCain it is probably time to discuss a methodology for avoiding similar possible flash points between the United States and Russia.
It appears to me that Russia's behavior is largely the result of 20 years of angst over the loss of what the Russians thought was their patrimony in the non-Russian parts of what had been the Russian Empire and then the USSR. Central Asia, the Trans Caucasus, the Ukraine, the Crimea, the Baltics, the list is long.
The 90s were a hard, hard time for Russians, hard emotionally and very hard in terms of the reduction in what had already been a pitifully low standard of living under the Communists.
The boom in oil money has erased a lot of the economic hardship, but the scabs are still there over wounded national pride.
The United States has done little to help those wounds heal. Instead, we have insisted on measures like; the missile shield system in former Warsaw Pact countries. The Russians are neither stupid nor unsophisticated. They know that the difference between the defensive and offensive meanings of most weapons systems lie wholly in the intention of the possessor.
At the same time, we have pushed the boundaries of NATO as close to Russia's shrunken borders as we could manage to do. NATO was always an anti-Soviet alliance. It was a necessary and useful thing. Now, the Russians see NATO pushed right up to their frontiers. Surprise! They now see NATO as an anti-Russian alliance. Its expansion is viewed as a symbol of their continuing humiliation.
The Deal: No expansion of NATO on the borders of Russia in return for a commitment on the part of Russia that there will be no further introduction of Russian Republic forces or "volunteers" into former parts of the USSR that are now independent. pl
"A top Georgian envoy in Israel on Sunday urged the Jewish state to use whatever leverage it has to put pressure on Russia to pull its forces out of the small Caucasus nation. But while voicing support for Georgian territorial integrity, Israel decided instead to appease Russia by halting all arms sales to Tbilisi.
Israel has sold some $500 million worth of military equipment to Georgia over the past few years, and top Israeli military experts have been involved in training Georgian armed forces.
Israeli soldiers who participated in training Georgian forces as recently as four months ago told Ha'aretz that they were not surprised when hostilities broke out. "There was an atmosphere of war about to break out. ...From my point of view, the battles of the past few days were to be expected," said one soldier.
As Russian forces invaded Georgia late last week and the two nations engaged in what is increasingly being called a full-scale war, Israel's leadership expressed concerns that Moscow could retaliate for continued Israeli military support of Georgia by selling advanced arms to Iran and Syria. " Israel Today
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A friend in need is a friend indeed."
The Israelis should be careful or they will acquire a reputation for dumping their allies unde pressure.
Until now the US has held the record for consistency in that field of political action.
Is it coincidence that the US and Israel both acted over the last few years to encourage Georgia in defiance of its giant neighbor?
Israel has 80,000 immigrant Georgian Jews in its population. The defense minister of Georgia is reported to be a "former" Israeli citizen.
Bravado is the Israeli style in international relations and in managing occupations. Rashness bordering on adolescent conceit is another way to describe the style.
I guess Russia doesn't frighten as easily as some of the entities that the Israelis usually deal with.
What did the US think it was doing encouraging little Georgia to provoke the bear?
Ask the Jacobins. pl
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=16875
""We don't say yes or no to Israeli military operations. Israel is a sovereign country," she said in response to a question from The Politico Web site as to whether she was concerned that America would be blamed in the case of an IDF attack on the Islamic Republic.
Her statements come amid speculation that Washington has warned Jerusalem not to attack Iran and media reports that the US told Israel it doesn't have the green light to use Iraqi airspace for any such attack." Jpost
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Artfully worded. What she said was that the US does not take responsibility for Israeli decisions. What it does not say is whether the US will accept Israeli overflight of Iraq going to and coming from strikes on Iran.
It appears that the issue of US and/or Israeli future military operations remains unresolved and subject to the vice-president's skill at argument and the president's decision. pl
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1218104249803
"Corsi is hampered in what he can do - with only 18 soldiers, he cannot allow his men to patrol the vicinity. There are several reconstruction projects ongoing, but the Americans are largely unable to protect them. All Corsi can do is radio headquarters and ask for air support if he hears of an attack. But in such mountainous terrain reports of incidents can take hours to filter through, by which time the Taliban are long gone.
And with military helicopters and jets stretched to the limit on other operations, support is not guaranteed. Margha is resupplied by private contractors using civilian aircraft. Supplies are parachuted into the base by light aircraft or dropped off by a Ukrainian crew using an old Russian helicopter, flying at high altitude to avoid enemy fire." Telegraph
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Half a platoon on a hilltop resupplied by civilian contractors in light planes and Ukrainians using an old Russian helicopter? This is a "shoestring" operation. Clearly there are not enough coalition troops in Afghanistan. What is the mission for Outpost "Margha?" Border surveillance? The officer in charge does not have enough men or fire support to patrol or ambush toward the nearby border. One "heavy" mortar? The miniaturization of this effort is disturbing.
In Vietnam, an equivalent position, similarly sited, was Bu Dop Special Forces Camp in Phuoc Long Province. It was two miles from Cambodia and the rear base area of North Vietnamese Army units that, depending on circumstance, numbered several thousand at any given time.
Bu Dop Camp had about 30 US and Vietnamese Special Forces soldiers and several hundred Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) militia IN THE CAMP. These CIDG "strikers" were full timers who had been recruited from all over the country. The camp covered a couple of acres, was star or triangle shaped ( I forget which), had two concentric lines of defenses, both heavily dug in, underground tunnels running everywhere, underground living facilities and massive fire support available within the camp. This consisted of half a dozen 4.2 inch and 81mm mortars in dug in positions and a 105mm howitzer. There were M2 .50 caliber machine guns in positions all over the inner perimeter and .30 caliber Brownings in similar positions in the outer perimeter. Everything was deeply entrenched with double apron barbed wire fences all around the outside and between the two lines of defense. Anchored concertina wire was piled up between the fences. The wire was booby trapped. Fougasse and claymore mines abounded in the wire obstacle as well as aircraft flares situated to use their cylindrical metal shipping container halves as reflectors to shine 25 million candlepower in the faces of an assault force when needed. In addition to this, the place sometimes had available the fires of American artillery temporarily in the area. Then there was available air support, especially the ubiquitous AC-47 "Spooky" gunships with their gatling guns. A formidable place, but not all that unusual. In spite of this the North Vietnamese tried several times to capture the post. They tried with regimental size attacks backed by a lot of artillery and rockets. They failed although it was a close thing at times.
What was Bu Dop's mission? It was surveillance of the border and North Vietnamese infiltration and supply of their forces in South Vietnam. To that end the garrison of Bu Dop patrolled and ambushed right up to the border across a wide swath of border country. It was dangerous work. A secondary mission was the protection of the nearby district town of Bo Duc and the Vietnamese government apparatus there. These were reasonable missions given the resources available.
Outpost "Margha" is ridiculously under-resourced. Not enough men, very little readily available fire support for the protection of either the outpost or any civilians who could be persuaded to become friendly. The junior officer in command has a thankless task. All he can do is hold on, try not to be over run and pray for his relief to show up.
Air power is lovely as a source of logistical and fire support, but "Margha" is resupplied by civilian contractors and has one mortar as its available indirect fire support? There is obviously not enough US air power available for either job.
Men living on combat rations for months at a time? Constipation must be a problem.
Both the foreground ridge in the picture and the one behind it should be covered with pre-registered artillery and mortar fires so that every attack by fire will be answered so rapidly that it will be extremely dangerous to fire from those positions. Dare I think of an aggressive program of ambush patrols on the part of these paratroops? There would have to be a lot more of them. They are now now more or less pent up in their little fort. The Taliban must think they have already died and gone to paradise. This is eerily reminiscent of old British experience in this same area.
A counter-battery mortar radar would be a good idea at "Margha" if they do not already have one. There should be US artillery positioned to support places like this, but in today's army that kind of thinking seems to have gone away.
Too little, too much risk, disaster waiting to happen. pl
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/08/09/sm_afghanistan09.xml
"From the time that Iran halted the suspension of its centrifuge manufacturing efforts and its adherence to the Additional Protocol, the IAEA’s knowledge of Iran’s centrifuge manufacturing complex has degraded dramatically. U.S. and other intelligence agencies appear to have only partial information about Iran’s centrifuge complex and its ability to reconstitute its program following an attack. Iran’s decision to disperse and keep secret several of its key sites further hinders the development of a full picture of its centrifuge complex. Considering the modular, replicable nature of centrifuge plants, we conclude that an attack on Iran’s nuclear program is unlikely to significantly degrade Iran’s ability to reconstitute its gas centrifuge program." Abright et al
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Albright knows his business.
If it is his judgment that it would be this difficult to severely damage the centrifuge enrichment program, then it is probably so.
This analysis places the putative Israeli onslaught against these facilities in sharp perspective. The Israelis lack the capability for this.
Only a full fledged US air campaign would have any chance of doing the necessary degree of damage to that complex of facilities. Such a US campaign would involve hundreds if not thousands of strike sorties plus many, many more support sorties.
Then, there is the issue of whether or not available targeting intelligence is adequate for the job.
Think deal. pl
"Georgia will withdraw its entire 2,000-strong military contingent from Iraq within three days to help battle South Ossetian separatist rebels, a senior Georgian military official said on Saturday.
"We are actually in the stage of preparing our departure," Colonel Bondo Maisuradze, chief of Georgia's military operations in Iraq, told AFP.
"It will definitely not be today. We are discussing with the Americans the conditions of our departure which may take place tomorrow or the day after tomorrow," said Maisuradze in Baghdad.
The US military has agreed to help with the logistics of the Georgian redeployment, Maisuradze added." Agence France Presse"
---------------------------------------------------------------
This is a Georgian icon. Cool.
I'll be brief. I have written several posts here insisting that war is not generational and that 4th Generation Warfare as a theory of the development of warfare is an illusion if what is meant is that history has moved on past a time of utility for what the 4th Generation crowd would call "oldthink." In other words, the 4th Generation crowd think armored forces or other "heavy" forces are no longer useful.
It seems to me that what has happened in Georgia, South Ossetia and the Russian Federation belies that idea.
I have argued that war is always many headed in its methodology. In South Ossetia, terrorism, resistance warfare and political action have all occurred in whatever it is that Georgia and Russia are doing with each other.
When that did not produce a decisive result, Georgia employed its "conventional forces" in an effort to reintegrate South Ossetia, and Russian sent in forces from its 58th Army.
If I am not mistaken the pictures on television show that tanks, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers, fighter aircraft employed as fighter-bombers, conventional infantry and armored reconnaissance vehicles abound in what is happening in the south Caucasus.
What's this, 5th Generation warfare? pl
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hAZ4s0zJThk3POsYjjP0ZieJyNaw
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=4&islist=true&id=13&d=08-07-2008
Here find the link to Suskind's interview on the NPR radio program "Fresh Air." pl
"The prosecutors said they would have preferred a longer sentence, but noted that they had won a conviction. “That’s the way a fair, open system works,” said one of the prosecutors, Maj. Omar Ashmawy. “The sentence isn’t always what the government asks for.”
Defense lawyers described the verdict as a victory propelled by the military officers on the panel, but they said it did not remedy what they have described as the system’s flaws.
“What ultimately happened, in spite of the system, was justice,” said Charles D. Swift, a former Navy lawyer who has forged a close relationship with Mr. Hamdan through more than five years of battles as his lawyer.
After just over an hour of deliberations on the sentence, the panel of six senior military officers returned to the windowless tribunal room with their sentence on the single war crimes charge on which they convicted him, providing material support to a terrorist organization.
After the president of the panel, the most senior officer, read the sentence, Mr. Hamdan rose at the defense table, collected himself and spoke. Referring to an apology he had made to victims of terrorism on Thursday morning in the same room, he began, “I would like to apologize one more time.” " NY Times
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamdan will be released before the end of the year. The six officers have all had soldier or sailor drivers. They decided that they knew what the role of a driver is, and that this role did not justify further confinement for Hamdan. They also decided that Hamdan was not a planner in Al-Qa'ida or anything other than someone who drove Usama bin Laden for a money salary. This judgment was reflected in their refusal to convict him on more serious charges.
The prosecution sought to use this military commission to communicate a message to the world. This message was to be that any association with any group the United States chooses to call "terrorist" will lead, at the least, to a long, long prison sentence.
The prosecution's, and presumably the Bush Administration's, desire to send that message was thwarted by six officers who preferred justice. Colonels can be unpredictable people.
There will be those, unwilling to say or think anything good about military people, who will insist that Gates or someone signaled, somehow, what the desired outcome was.
Nonsense. pl
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/washington/08gitmo.html?ref=us
"· Fix the half-baked reform of the intelligence agencies. The 2004 law that created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was meant to deal with the intelligence failures that led to Sept. 11, but it instead has created more bureaucracy. Gates understands very well what's wrong; he turned down the DNI job because he knew the structure was unwieldy. Gates has cobbled together an interim solution by working with old friends -- DNI Mike McConnell, CIA Director Mike Hayden and Pentagon intelligence chief James Clapper. But the current arrangement is too dependent on personalities. A sign of continuing backroom friction is the rivalry over who will brief the presidential candidates.
The nation needs a lean, aggressive intelligence community. Nobody is better suited to finishing this job than Gates, who has seen the intelligence morass from all sides." Ignatius
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the suggestion of one of you, I have been reading "The Black Swan" lately. I think the author would agree that the subtext here concerning the intelligence community is more important than the issue of whom shall be Secretary of Defense.
Ignatius, like all MSM commentators lives by access to sources who can give him "the inside scoop." This puts him at the mercy of those who have "the inside scoop" or can influence others to give it to him.
Gates, Gates, Gates, Gates. Who do you suppose is the real source of this column? I do not think it is Gates. No. It is probably the misty eyed sexagenerians who yearn for the "restoration" of CIA power over the intelligence community. Would they like to see Dod power reduced? You bet. In the good old days before the Soviets collapsed the CIA tended to believe that they were the defense of the West, pretty much all by themselves. These old geezers and geezerettes are tired of watching espionage movies on cable. Their outrage at the disruption of the universe of intelligence work still burns bright, and the folks they mentored at Langley are yearning right along with them. Give it up. You had a good run no matter what the left thinks.
Yes, Gates has been a good Secretary of Defense. After Rumsfeld, it would have been difficult to look bad, but, he has done a good job. Should he be kept on as SecDef? Probably not. It is generally not a good idea to keep key subordinates on from previous regimes. This is true in any field, at any level. They always have a different agenda than the one you bring with you. Get new people! Hagel, Clark, Webb are all good possibilities for SecDef if the man who can't use a computer is not elected. I would prefer Hagel, but.... Any of them would be a good bet.
Gates is too smart to welcome this log rolling on his behalf. pl
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080602511.html
"A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.
Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.
The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”
The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’” Politico
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suskind argues that this charge, if proven, would constitute a "High Crime." I agree. "Reasons of State" may be an excuse for such behavior in some polities, but, it is clear that it is not in the United States.
President Bush is called a liar and a law-breaker in this book. The charge is that he, personally, ordered some documents forged and others ignored in order to lure the American people into support of a foreign war. These are charges that make Bll Clinton's difficulties with his libido look rather trivial.
The charge is so serious that Bush deserves an opportunity to clear his name of the accusation. Therefore, the House Judiciary Committee should meet to consider a bill of impeachment. Anything less will leave a stain on Bush that will follow his family name down through the ages. pl
Note: I know Ron Suskind fairly well and respect both him and what I have read of his work in the past. I have not discussed this book with him although we have talked about the general direction of his work.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12308.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Suskind_Congress_wants_testimony_about_Iraq_0806.html
Larry Kudlow, the financial whiz, was on the Joe Scarborough show on MSNBC today. He repeated his unending mantra of "drill, drill, drill," as a way out of the current wilderness of high priced crude.
His insistence on this simplistic solution to the short term price situation has never made a lot of sense to me. Kudlow is a smart man. He gets around enough in the right circles to know that short term traders in oil futures are the fire behind the crude prices we see now.
When pressed by one of the hosts on the show to explain how favorable congressional action on drilling both on and off shore would affect the price in less than several years, he "came clean."
"Ah," he said (roughly). "Approval of drilling will frighten the futures traders out of the market and the price will go a long way down." "They are already leaving the oil futures market" he went on. "This will push them out even faster."
Need I say more? pl
"Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, traveled to Israel in early June; he was followed in late June by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both officials explained to their Israeli counterparts why the United States believes an attack isn't necessary now, because the Iranians can't yet build a nuclear weapon, and why an attack would damage U.S. national interests.
McConnell and Mullen also informed the Israelis that the United States would oppose overflights of Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, an administration official said. The United States has reassured the Iraqi government that it would not approve Israeli overflights, after the Iraqis strongly protested any potential violation of their sovereignty.
"We have made our position abundantly clear to the Israelis and indeed to the world, not just in our public statements but in our private conversations, as well," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. " Ignatius
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ignatius ought to know. He is thought of as a friend by both the Pentagon and the White House. This column might be thought of as something of an announcement by party or parties unknown.
The Israeli/AIPAC huffing anf puffing over the possibility of an independent Israeli attack on Iran is merely a bluff, an attempt to bully the United States into doing something that a simple calcualtion of its own interests would otherwise cause the US not to do. M&M delivered that message.
Military facts rule in this case. To take loose inspiration from Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Israelis can't get there with enough. "There" being somewhere significant in Iran with "enough" to acheve a desired degree of damage. They are not going to use nuclear weapons. Therefore, in the planning problem for a theoretical Iran attack/campaign they have to be able to deliver enough ordnance to the right target(s) to make the whole thing worthwhile considering the casualties they may suffer. Israelis are not given to suicide attacks. They would want to recover as many of their aircrew as they possibly could. The SAR implications of that, so far from home are "awesome" in the vernacular of MTV. Without American help for that...
And then we come to the "elephant in the room." This is the issue of overflight of Iraqi airspace. If the two naval "Ms" have told the Israelis ON THEIR OWN TURF that the US will not accept Israeli overflight of Iraq, then the game is up for the Israelis. They can launch a big (for them) set of strikes against Iran but they would have to route over Turkey or Saudi Arabia. That would make the trip much longer. That would mean that all the negatives in the attack(s) would be greater. In fact, increased distance often means that the negative aspects of an operation grow as a kind of "progression." This set of operations might well have crossed their culminating point before the airplanes leave the ground. (That was Clausewitz folks. By his dictum as interpreted by me, an effort in a battle or campaign reaches its culminating point when the negatives in the situation begin to outweigh the positives. If the objective is achieved before that point is reached, then the goal of the operation is clearly achieved, If the forward motion of the operation continues past the culminating point, then the goal may still be achieved but a sudden reversal of the situation grows more and more likely as the "advance" continues)
Nevertheless, the Iranians should not take comfort from this situation. President Bush will be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States until the new president is inaugurated. His reaction to the results of our election is unpredictable. His fixation on the Iranians within his larger notion of a manichean world made up of "good" and "evil" should give the Iranians something to think about if they intend to continue to make useless comments about their "rights."
At the same time, the Iranians should sober up concerning their prospects with a new American president. McCain will demand an end to their nuclear program of enrichment. Obama will seek negotiations over the same thing, but if the Iranians continue their present policy his policy will, in the end, be not much different than McCain's.
The Iranians should get serious about all this and bring their "theater" of anti- Westernism to an end before a bad result brings this piece of history to a final curtain. pl
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080102872.html
When intelligence reorganization was proposed and then passed by Congress after 9/11 there was a great deal of resistance from the heads of the major US national intelligence agencies; CIA, DIA, NSA, State INR, etc. President Bush was not too keen on the idea either, but, in the end he went along to get along. The major "reform" was the creation of a leadership for the intelligence community that would be separate from the CIA. This would be the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
In the process of creation of the Director of National Intelligence's office, most of CIAs functions were taken away for redistribution either to other agencies or to the new DNI.
CIA was left with the function of heading what was subsequently referred to as the National Clandestine Service, in other words, they were left in charge of the field operations involved in recruiting and running foreign human espionage agents.
This was a much smaller role than the CIA had fulfilled in the past. Formerly, they had controlled the apparatus that doled out the general intelligence funds to the other agencies. They had also controlled the national estimative function in the production of national estimates, and many other functions as well.
In addition, certain functions that properly had nothing to do with the information functions of intelligence were redirected to the armed forces.
In response to this truncation of agency roles, CIA people fought back with an intensive campaign of mobilization of the agency's friends in general and the media in particular. As a result it was predicted or implied in the media that the DNI structure would fail and that in the end CIA would rule once again in the intelligence community.
Yesterday's announcement of further consolidation of power and authority in the hands of the DNI is evidence that function follows form and that once having been given a theoretical mandate, the DNI's office has proceeded to gather actual power into its grasp. In other words CIA has failed to eliminate its rival. Having failed, the CIA will continue its "descent" into the status of a service organization for the rest of the government rather than the alternative foreign policy establishment that it once thought it was.
Several Republican members of the House of Representatives oversight committee for intelligence walked out of the meeting in which they were briefed about the increase in the DNI's power. They and the Democrats on the committee were upset that the change had been made without their agreement or knowledge. Their outrage is probably the proof of the continuing influence of CIA congressional liaison staffs.
"The king is dead. Long live the king!" pl
Recent Comments