Sic Semper Tyrannis

"The Stability of MAD" Habakkuk

A central issue here is the stability of MAD. This is something in which I used to believe, but do not any more.

A major influence has been the writings of Bruce Blair, who before becoming a leading expert on nuclear command and control, served as a Minuteman launch control officer, back in the early Seventies. What he noticed then was that while the declared policy of the United States was deterrence based upon second-strike retaliation, almost all the drills he was called on to carry out involved weapons being fired when no Soviet attack had yet occurred. A wicked conspiracy to hide preparations for a first-strike behind rhetoric about 'deterrence' perhaps?

Iran's Intentions

"Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps tested the Shahab-3 and Sejil missiles in the third phase of a two-day exercise called The Great Prophet IV, state-run news media reported. The missiles are believed to be capable of striking Israel, U.S. military targets in the Middle East and parts of southeastern Europe.

But Gen. Hossein Salami, commander of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force said the test-firings were part of exercises to practice "preventive and defensive operations." They are "in no way a threat to neighboring countries," Iranian news media quoted him as saying. Rather, the tests send "a message for certain greedy nations that seek to create fear, to show that we are able to give a swift and suitable answer to our enemies." "  Washpost

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

Some will say that justice demands that Iran have the same right to ballistic missiles of various ranges and to nuclear weapons as anyone else.  They would be right but that would be irrelevant and dangerous thinking.  As I have tried to point out, justice has nothing to do with outcomes in international relations. Only perceived interests and brute strength, whether economic or military matter in the end, perhaps literally the end for someone.

The Iranians are clearly intent on achieving the possession of a variety of ballistic missiles.  Such weapons are inherently inaccurate to within a few hundred yards at range.  Because of this, they are of no real military value with other than nuclear warheads.  The Israelis were afraid of Iraqi SCUDS.  Well, I guess that is understandable if one might land in your courtyard, but I was in Baghdad during the "War of the Cities" and I will say again that such weapons have no real military value  (other than to frighten civilians) without nuclear warheads.

At the same time, it is now revealed that the Iranians are building a second uranium enrichment plant, one that could be used to further enrich the product of the Natanz plant to a level usable in a fission weapon.  They claim that it, too, is to support their nuclear electric program.

How gullible do they think we are?

This place, near Qom, was concealed, is hardened, not reported to the IAEA, is built within an IRGC base, and is too small to be useful for producing fuel for an electric program. 

Following "Lang's Rules of Analysis," - The Duck Rule, - The Sherlock Rule or - Occam's Razor one must be led to the conclusion that the Iranians intend to produce nuclear warheads and probably for their missiles.

How long will that take?  It will take quite a long time.  The engineering and industrial obstacles to be overcome are considerable, but the evidence points to an intention to achieve a "force de frappe" capability that will change the strategic balance by holding foreign cities at risk.

Do the Iranians not understand that they are creating a situation in which it is likely that they will be attacked before they achieve that capability?  Do they really not understand that bellicose statements like the one attributed to Salami above only hasten the day?  pl

National Journal Bllog - 28 September, 2009

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/09/the-israelipalestinian-conflic.php#1364962

They had a lean and hungry look.

Andrew Bacevich has an oped piece in today's Post that closely parallels my own views on what to do about Afghanistan and the takfiri jihadi threat generally. 

Senators Jim Webb and Jon Kyl debated this point on "Meet the Press" today.  Webb argued for presidential freedom of action in deciding policy and Kyl argued that Obama should do what the generals want him to do.

I listened to the talking heads on Fox News Sunday and was struck by Senator Kit Bond's apparent support of the putative resistance of at least some flag officers to the authority of the president of the United States.  Bond spoke strongly in favor of having Generals McChrystal and Petraeus explain to Congress what their opinion is (as opposed to the opinion of the president/commander in chief) as to what the policy and strategy of the United States should be.

This is actually an incitement to mutiny.

Why?

The Congress has certain functions with regard to the armed forces of the United States.  They are delineated in the Constitution and have to do with organization, funding, acquisition of equipment and supplies and the establishment of a military legal system, that kind of thing.  The powers of Congress with regard to war policy and strategy do not exist.  The Congress has no authority at all with regard to operations.  The Congress can refuse to declare war, but when was a declaration of war last thought necessary?

The armed forces are commanded by the president.  Mullen, McChrystal and Petraeus and everyone else in the armed forces are the military subordinates of the president and not of anyone in the Congress nor of the Congress collectively.  Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner and their friends in the Civil War Congress created a "Joint Committee on the War" in order to use the testimony of various Union Army generals against Lincoln.  What a disaster that was!  What an inducement to the poltical vanities and ambitions of the brass!

In demanding the testimony of the generals independent of the establishment of policy by the president, the Congress is encouraging the generals and admirals to publicly oppose the independence of action of their constitutional commander.  What a foolish thing to do.

People like Senator Bond are implying by their statements that McChrystal should be treated as an equal by the commander in chief and that the president should defer to the opnion of this general or any other general.  Have we given up believing in the principle of civilian control of the military?

Obama might change his mind with regard to strategy?  Emerson said that "Consistency is a virtue of small minds."  

He was right.  pl

Hear no evil, See no evil and ...

"The defense official denied any tension between the military leadership and the White House over the pace of decision-making on Afghanistan.

"There is no sense of unease here with regard to the president's review of strategy," the official said.

Admiral Mullen and the rest of the joint chiefs of staff agreed there was a need to examine the mission six months after Obama unveiled a strategy focused on improving security and economic development, the official said.

But the top officers recognize that counter-insurgency campaigns are "dynamic" and that there is "a very fine line between success and failure," he said."  AFP

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

Mullen, Petraeus and McChrystal met at Ramstein Air Base.  What was this about?  Did Gates send Mullen to deliver the appropriate reminder about who it is that commands their obedience?

Was that the message actually delivered?  We will see.  pl

The Angst of the Legions...

"We had been told, on leaving our native soil, that we were to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many of our citizens settled overseas, so many years of our presence, so many benefits brought by us to populations in need of our assistance and civilization. We were able to verify that this was true, and because it was true, we did not hesitate to shed our quota of blood, to sacrifice our youth and our hopes. We regretted nothing, but whereas we over here are inspired by their frame of mind, I am told that in Rome factions and conspiracies are rife, that treachery flourishes, and that many people in their uncertainty and confusion lend a ready ear to the dire temptations of relinquishment and vilify our action. I cannot believe that all this true, and yet recent wars have shown how pernicious such a state of mind could be and to where it could lead. Make haste to reassure me, I beg you, and tell me that our fellow citizens understand us, support us and protect us as we protect the glory of the Empire. If it should be otherwise, if we should leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the anger of the legions."

From a letter supposedly written by one Marcus Flavinius, a centurion in the second cohort of the 2nd Augusta Legion serving overseas, to his cousin, Tertullus, in Rome, quoted in the Prologue of Jean Larteguy's novel, "The Centurions."

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

Perhaps there was such a letter, perhaps.  It is odd that Marcus Flavinius did not have three names.  I suspect that this is apocrypha.  There is another such letter supposedly written from Dacia by another Roman soldier.  In it, the writer complains that every time his unit learns how to perform its mission, the mission is changed or they are re-organized or whatever it is that fits the subject of the Army schools class in which it is quoted.

I am concerned that the legions and their commanders are becoming more politically active and resistent to civilian authority than is good for them or the country.

McChrystal's estimate is a case in point:

- This paper presents the president with only one option on a "take it or leave it" basis.  I realize that Stanley M. is a subordinate theater commander and a full general but he is still the president's subordinate and he serves at the pleasure of the president/commander in chief.  In all the Army schools that I attended (Infantry Officer Basic Course to the US Army War College), it was more or less customary to present the commander with several options in the way of "courses of action."  If you do not do that then you are clearly seeking to limit the freedom of action of the commander.  This is insubordinate in spirit.

- There is considerable log-rolling going on to bring Stanley and Dave back from their commands to Washington so that they can talk it up around town.  When Petraeus testified before Congress on behalf of the AEI/Keene Iraq strategy he was justifying GW Bush's policy.  That was bad enough in that it made him a player in the political process, but in this case the Republicans and the AEI crowd clearly want these two gentlemen back here so that they can be used to undercut the possibility of an independent policy decision by their constitutional civilian commander.  The Republicans seem to have forgotten that the wheel of history is turning and that soon they will have a Republican president in the White House whose authority may be challenged on the basis of the precedent they seek.

- It has been blogged (not by me) that people on Stanley M's staff claim that he has the thought that he might ask to be relieved if not given what he wants.  I do not know if that is true.  If it is, and he follows through on that hoping for an "Old Soldiers never die..." moment, then he ought to be retired in his permanent grade.

- Andrea Mitchell reportedly said on Friday that one of the redacted secret parts of the Stanley M. estimate says that 500,000 troops will be needed in Afghanistan over the next five years to achieve success in a counterinsurgency campaign.  That appears to means that some combination of US/NATO troops and Afghan troops amounting to half a million would be required.   Does that mean that whatever portion of that half million is not supplied by the Afghans must be supplied by the US and NATO.  Someone should ask Stanley M. what he expects will be the peak "in country" strength for US/NATO forces.

The legions and their commanders are not exactly angry yet, but they wll be.  pl

Olmert the peacemaker?

"While prime minister, Olmert also held peace talks with the Palestinians and indirect talks with Syria.

Since leaving office, Olmert has said he offered the Palestinians a deal that would have seen Israel cede about 93.5 percent of the West Bank, along with Israeli territory to make up for the 6.5 percent of the West Bank land that Israel would retain. He also proposed international administration of east Jerusalem's most sensitive holy sites.

The Palestinians sought more West Bank land and demanded Palestinian sovereignty over a disputed hilltop compound that is home to Islam's third-holiest site, according to officials familiar with the talks. Palestinians say the proposals were under discussion when the talks were upended by the Gaza war and by Olmert's downfall. Negotiations have been frozen since Olmert left office."  Yahoonews

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

I would like to see a list of the sites they were discussing.  "International Administration?"  What, the UN? The "hilltop" so strangely mentioned is the Temple Mount or the Haram al-Sharif, the site of; the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, the two temples (Solomon and Herod), the palace of the crusader kings, headquarters of the Templars, etc.  It would seem to me that international rather than Palestinian control of such a place would be better.  The Palestinians seem to have demonstrated once again that they have never seen a deal that they could not refuse. 

The charges against Olmert seem rather "small bore" business.  The suspicion arises that Olmert's venture into the hazardous world of the negotiators may have had something to do with his present legal problems.

And then, there was the Gaza War.  Was Olmert the driving force behind that operation or was it a convenient way to de-rail negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas?  pl

 

Clever, these Iranians ---

"U.S. officials said Thursday that an Iranian offer to allow the country's nuclear experts to meet with American and other scientists was not enough to ease concerns about that country's nuclear program.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the proposal in an interview with Washington Post and Newsweek journalists on Wednesday, calling it a confidence-building measure.

But a State Department official said further measures were needed to provide assurances that Iran was not trying to produce nuclear weapons. Iran insists it is simply trying to generate energy.

"I don't think just talking to scientists opens up their nuclear program," said the U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity to be more candid.

The official added that there was "a real sense of urgency" in the U.S. government about Iran's nuclear program.

"We really hope they come armed with some serious proposals on Oct. 1," he said, referring to a scheduled meeting between a senior Iranian diplomat and counterparts from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. It will be the first formal U.S.-Iranian meeting since President Obama took office.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the administration had not received any offer from Iran to provide access to its nuclear experts. He said he did not want to prejudge how the U.S. government would respond.

"There are no details on this. I think we'd have a lot of questions about it," he said. "

Washpost

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

Outwitted again!!  Damnation!!  How do these Iranians do it?  They have sent their little creep of a president to New York to speak among all the other Kennedy Assasination theorists and then they wheel out an offer of a "deceptive" chance to talk to their atomic scientists.  To top that they offer to buy uranium from us.  How demonic!  They know we want to sell! Sell! Sell!

We will probably find a way to thwart this plot.  pl

The Struggle for American Policy Continues

"They reached no consensus, so three or four more such meetings are being scheduled. “There are a lot of competing views,” said one official who, like others in this article, requested anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations.

Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells,primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

The Americans would accelerate training of Afghan forces and provide support as they took the lead against the Taliban. But the emphasis would shift to Pakistan."  NY Times.

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

Biden's reported position is fairly close to what I have been advocating, except that I think that there are people inimical to US interests within Afghanistan whether or not they could be called "Al-Qa'ida."   They should continue to be dealt with from several bases within Afghanistan using forces available from a much reduced US contingent as well as "allies" available from a "rent an Afghan" program analogous to the "Sons of Iraq."

Reliance on the use of unmanned bomber aircraft should be cut back a lot.  The targeting task seems to be beyond our skill level.

Training of Afghan forces should continue.

I would not oppose the noble idea of a COIN war in Afghanistgan if I did not think it likely to fail from a lack of long term political will.  If we go down that road, the American people will quit on the war in a few years.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

The Clinton - Warner Interview

"MARGARET WARNER: So is a real change in strategy, at least an alternative, which is not trying to build up or, or create capacity in a strong central government, but going to a different model. Doing a more classic counter-terrorism campaign, attacking al-Qaida leaders and having fewer combat forces on the ground? Are you actually reassessing whether counterinsurgency is the way to go here?

HILLARY CLINTON: You know I think it's fair to say, Margaret, that we have an open mind to any argument that is made. Now I'm sure each of us is entering into this process with our own points of view and our own base of understanding what will or will not work. And what General McChrystal has done is to provide his assessment. We will get assessments from others as well. And then we will hash it out in the National Security Council team and then we will present our best recommendations to the president. But at the end of the day it's the president's decision and I think what we heard the president saying yesterday is look, you're going to have to convince me that whatever decision, is it classic counter-insurgency with additional troops? Is it counter-insurgency at the same troop level? Is it a different mix of troops? Is it a counter terrorism strategy?"  Newshour

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

It would seem from this that in spite of all the "logrolling" from assorted COINish generals, COINish literati, neoconish wonks and congressional Republicans, there still is an active process in the White House for policy deliberation.

In other words, the game is not over yet.  pl

 

FB Ali on the Good Soldier Stanley.

Stanley McChrystal, in my estimate, is not a political general, as Petraeus undoubtedly is. He appears to be a fine soldier, a great fighting man, but not overly intelligent. It was a mistake to appoint him to a position where he had a role in making policy instead of just implementing it.

It would not surprise me if this was a clever maneouvre by Gen Petraeus: getting McChrystal put in the Afghanistan command, with his first task to recommend the policy for that war, and suitable advisers made available to him to draft that policy.

Somewhere down the line McChrystal was sold on COIN (probably as the recipe that turned the Iraq war around, even though it did nothing of the sort); he is that intense type who commit themselves totally to things once they are convinced. Thus, Petraeus's preferred policy is put forward by McChrystal, a general who would probably quit if it wasn't adopted, while the former sits back and waits to see which would be the best way to jump at the right moment.

I have read the Commander's Summary of McChrystal's 30 August report. The apt term to describe it is: Bullshit! It is obvious that some clever people have sold good soldier Stanley a bill of goods. There is so much nonsense in it that it is difficult to decide what to point out.

A few examples will suffice. The aim given by Obama to Petraeus and McChrystal is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda (AQ). But AQ is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. So, what is the US doing fighting a war in Afghanistan against the Taliban? The answer given is: if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban, Afghanistan COULD again become a base for AQ. Sez who? Why? What basis is there for this critical justification of the war in Afghanistan? None is given (because the clever people spinning this web know that if they tried to suggest any, they'd be shot to pieces; far better to slip this through as a flat statement). COIN is going to be implemented by the US/NATO troops along with increasing numbers of Afghan soldiers and police. But the aim of COIN is going to be to protect the people from both attacks by the Taliban and oppression by government forces! Who's doing the oppressing and who is doing the protecting? Are the Afghan forces going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

The supportive views of the Afghan people are represented in the report by a quote from Gen Wardak, the Afghan Defence Minister! The billions of dollars that the report wants poured into the Afghan army are going to be funnelled through this gentleman's ministry; it does not seem to have struck straight-shooter Stanley that there may be some cause for bias there. The success of the COIN strategy being proposed will ultimately depend on handing over the secured areas to the Afghan army and police. The critical issue of whether they could measure up to this task, and when, or at all, are left untouched. To get a good look at these forces and their prospects, see:

 http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175116/ann_jones_us_or_them_in_afghanistan_

This is a con on Obama and McChrystal by all those who want the war to go on and on, and the billions and billions of dollars to keep flowing. Good soldier McChrystal has fallen for it. Will Obama?  

FB Ali

Only two Friedman Units until defeat?

Download Assessment_Redacted_092109  (McChrystal's Assesment)

 

Per Af-Pak stuff, from a policy point of view we might ask just how the President is supposed to judge the McCh. plan. In what strategic context? From what national security interests? etc.

1. It is interesting that General Powell had face time with the President. It would be more interesting to know the advice Powell may have given in recent days.

2. It is interesting that the President himself is now talking about Al-Qaeda as the core of the original mission in Afghanistan. McCh. recently said AQ not much of a problem there and now presents his opinion about escallation against the Taliban.

3. It is interesting that the President is now talking about the lack of a clear strategy. McCh. has NOT presented a clear strategy but merely the glitzy opinion of a COIN-obsessed general.

4. Before a final decision on McCh.'s COIN-obsessed opinion, I would advise the President to order fresh National Intelligence Estimates immediately on Afghanistan and Pakistan with respect to Af-Pak matters, and on Israel with respect to Israel generally and Iran situation. I would also ask the intelligence community for an assessment of the current threat environment and how various Af-Pak options such as McCh.'s COIN extravaganza would impact on short, medium, and long term US national security. I would also task the intelligence community to assess the economic consequences of an escallation as called for by McCh. on the US economy. We had a couple of decades of stagflation after Johnson's Vietnam escallation I seem to recall.I would at the same time ask the Secretary of State for an assessment with respect to the present US diplomatic situation and our broad national interests. And an assessment of the Russian, Chinese, and Indian positions with respect to Af-Pak. And Europe? And Japan? Just what is the international diplomatic context at this time?

5. I note the following in an article in the LA Times today: "For eight years, the CIA's main priorities in Afghanistan were to hunt for Al Qaeda, manage relationships with warlords -- doling out inducements that included cash and, in some cases, Viagra -- and rebuild the Afghan spy service. The difficulty of that task was underscored this month by the assassination of the service's No. 2 official. But the agency's role is likely to shift under McChrystal, who has placed a greater emphasis on protecting civilians and rooting out government graft."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-intel20-2009sep20,0,6061626,full.story

Could one posit the slippery McChrystal/COIN bunch in the future attempting to push blame for an inevitable failure of the McCh. plan, if implemented, on "intelligence failures"?   Clifford Kiracofe

 

An interesting Monday

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," U.S. and NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in the document, according to the Post.

Bob Woodward of the Post -- who wrote the article -- called it "a striking thing for a general to say to the secretary of defense and the commander-in-chief."

McChrystal "really takes his finger and puts it in their eye, 'Deliver or this won't work,'" Woodward told CNN's "American Morning" on Monday. "He says if they don't endorse this full counterinsurgency strategy, don't even give me the troops because it won't work."  CNN.com

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

As several of you have noted Zbig has pointed out an obvious  truth in the Daily Beast.  An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would most likely involve overflght of Iraq.  Iraq has no air force but the US does and is obligated by its agreements with Iraq to defend the country's airspace.  The Iraqi government would certainly not accept Israeli overflights on the way to Natanz or anywhere else.  If the United States did not prevent Israeli use of Iraqi airspace the whole of the Islamic World would hold the US equally responsible for the attacks.  And then there are also the issues of recovery of aircraft with battle damage, search and rescue operations, etc.  In fact, most Americans don't have a clue about any of this.  If it happens, it will be a big surprise to the general public, most of whom would have a hard time finding either Iraq or Israel on a map.

And now we have reportage in the Washington Post on the substance of General McChrystal's analysis if the situation in his command's area of responsibility.  This classified document was artfully leaked by those who wish to "bulldoze" Obama and Gates into accepting an unlimited commitment to a nation building counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.  McChrystal can not be faulted for having an opinion and for being honest enough to express that opinion, but he is walking close to the edge of the cliff if he begins to attempt to dictate the mission of his own command.  Macarthur could explain that to him if he were still around.  pl

 

Open Thread Today - 19 September

  What is this?  pl

Who is correct on Iran?

"U.S. and European counterproliferation experts believe that Iran's centrifuge program has already produced enough low-enriched uranium, an essential precursor to the production of bomb-grade material, to provide feedstock to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb. However, that is an arduous and technically complicated process. Many U.S. and European experts say that Iran is still experiencing technical problems with centrifuges it would use to produce bomb-grade uranium, which could delay any Iranian bomb program for years.

An Obama administration official says that top policymakers are being told that there is no significant disagreement among U.S. intelligence agencies and experts about the latest assessments regarding Iran's nuclear effort. That may encourage the White House's efforts to continue to try to engage Iran in diplomatic dialogue, including discussion of Iran's nuclear ambitions."  Newsweek

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

Dan Rather, the prize asset of HDtv, was on the Joe and Mika show today pushing his new "special" on the subject of Iran.  When asked the right programmed question, Rather solemnly pronounced that he has reached the conclusion that Iran is proceeding methodically toward deliverable nuclear weapons and opined that they could assemble a weapon "any time."  He said that he had been talking to "some people" who had convinced him that this is the truth.

Is it?

Who are these people to whom he spoke?  Did the owner of HDtv get him this access to these sources of information?  Are they American?  What does David Albright have to say about this?  What does Kyran Mish have to say about it?

It should be no secret now that a massive political warfare campaign is underway that is intended to push the United States into war with Iran. 

The truth matters, not the truthiness of Rather's production concerning Iran's capabilities and intentions, but the actual truth.  pl

 

Addison Graves Wilson, Sr. (Joe for some reason)

I am on record as a supporter of Barack Obama the politician as saying that Wilson needed to do a greater penance than his half-hearted apology for insulting the president. 

On the other hand, I can only ask why it is necessary to attack the South as a whole because this man Wilson is an ill mannered fool.

He belongs to the "Sons of Confederate Veterans" (SCV) and therefore must be an evil person?  The SCV seeks to memorialize their ancestors for the good that was in them.  What a thought, that there could have been good in them!  Incidentally the SCV is seeking to recruit African-American members whose ancestors (black or white) served with the South (soldiers or not).  Ah, but that is merely an evasion...

The "Southern Poverty Law Center," formerly "Klan Watch" told Matthews, lord of "Hardball," that  the SCV has been ruled by extremists these last five years? (I don't know what happened to Matthews at Chapel Hill but it must have been awful)  After Katrina he advocated the reimposition of direct federal rule in the South (to finish the job left undone by the first two rounds of Reconstruction).

What if Wilson were from Ohio, Oklahoma, Indiana or Kansas?  What?  There are no racists in these places?  If that were so, would there be this broadcast attack on a whole people? 

My ancestors who served with the Armies of the Potomac and the Cumberland would probably cheer Matthews on.  I am disgusted.  pl

January will bring the curtain down in Iraq.

"Iraq also is entering a crucial year. National elections in January could determine whether Iraq moves away from the sectarian divisions that triggered a virtual civil war in 2006 and whether its fledgling democratic system survives or gives way to a new authoritarianism. In the seven months after the election, the United States is due to reduce its forces by more than 60 percent. If the country is not stable, al-Qaeda and Iraq's neighbors will be quick to exploit the vacuum.

The question is whether the Obama administration is paying more attention than the rest of the country. Some of its own supporters are worried: Kenneth Pollack, an expert at the Brookings Institution, says that the administration is not using its leverage with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on matters crucial to the success of the elections. One is whether Iraq will allow voting for its parliament by district; many of its parties favor a system of national slates that could reinforce sectarian divisions. Another is whether Mr. Maliki will promote the staging of a referendum on the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. Such a vote could help the prime minister win reelection -- and force a precipitous American withdrawal."  Washpost

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

Everything I have heard about the referendum isssue indicates that there will be such a referendum.  The outcome of that vote seems certain.  In the Kurdish north the referendum will not ask for our withdrawal.  Everywhere else it will do so and thus will end the continuing neocon fantasy about Iraq.

We should accelerate logistical planning for withdrawal and prepare to deal diplomatically with the Iraq that we have created.

The current neocon whining about Iraq repeats the forty year old whine about Vietnam.  In those days it was said that the power and influence of the United States would stand or fall on the issue of victory or defeat in Southeast Asia.  That was not true then and it is not true now.  This is mere rationalization by those who yearn for a unipolar world.

The United States must look to its economy, and not continue to pursue foreign adventure.  Leave the takfiri jihadis to the tender mercies of those who are good at dealing with people like them and look to the economy!!!    pl

The news from Afghanistan - FB Ali

The current election imbroglio in Afghanistan is so obviously a self-inflicted wound that it raises some intriguing questions. After all, any savvy 16-year old urchin in the bazaars of Kabul could have confidently predicted what would happen in the election to ensure a comfortable win for the incumbent, Hamid Karzai. So, what made US policy makers decide to attempt holding a genuinely “free and fair” election? Sheer lunacy? Or did someone pull off a clever ploy to scuttle the war?

Whatever the cause, the effects of this situation are quite clear. However the election drama (low comedy, really) plays out, at the end Karzai will still be President. But a Karzai who is now absolutely clear that he has outlived his usefulness to the US, and who can be expected to act accordingly. He will either use the US-NATO military effort to improve his bargaining position and then do a deal with the Taliban, or he (and his family) will redouble their wealth accumulation so as to be ready to make a quick exit at a suitable moment. In either case, with relations between the Afghan government and the foreign forces deteriorating, the war is going to go badly (surge or no surge). Western publics, already doubtful about the whole enterprise, will become increasingly disenchanted; at some point politicians will have to take note. NATO countries will start dropping off first, and then, in the not too distant future, the US Congress will pull the plug.

The attempt to hold a genuine election in Afghanistan was so obviously a sabotaging of the war policy that one is tempted to ask: was it deliberately advocated to achieve just that? Perhaps by some European policy-makers keen to get out without seeming to abandon the US? By the UN? Or, maybe, by some Obama supporter in the US policy-making structure, anxious to prevent the administration from being sucked into a Vietnam-like quagmire?

The depressing truth is most likely to be that this was a serious policy initiative of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. This worthy Policy Czar has not shown much understanding of the area he is supposed to look after, nor has he displayed any marked evidence of intellect. His strength seems to lie in bulldozing his way through problems, and it is quite possible that, having failed in earlier attempts to sideline Hamid Karzai, he believed that such an election would be a way of getting rid of this difficult player. For Mr Holbrooke the most apt comment on this whole affair would have to be something akin to this doggerel verse from the 19^th century:

What, what, what,
What’s the news from Swat?

Sad news, bad news. 

FB Ali

"Counterinsurgency Operations: Strategy versus Tactics" Adam Silverman

Col. (ret) W. Patrick Lang, Dr. Will, Mr. Greenwald, Professor Cole, Abu Muqawama, and many others have been writing about the Obama Administration's new policies in Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal's orders intended to reduce the number of Afghan casualties and collateral damage, whether there should be a debate over current and future operations in Afghanistan, and whether or not the US should just pull out of Afghanistan.  Within these discussions runs a thread that is not always made explicit: should we be pursuing a Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan or using COIN as a tactic and why would one be better than the other.  The former would seem to lead to a full scale, open ended, nation building project, while the latter would allow for focused development, reconstruction, and reconciliation, done over a fixed time table, from the bottom up in Afghanistan.

In an 11 July post Col. Lang wrote that COIN has three basic elements:

 

"Political warfare designed to eliminate the symbolic causes of revolt,  economic development that provides incomes sufficiently large for the masses so that they are not inclined to risk the hazards of support for insurgents, and counter-guerrilla operations."

 

These three elements can be pursued either as a strategy or as tactics that are part of another strategy. Moreover, these elements, as well as the COIN doctrine, are themselves conceptually backstopped by the principles of working from the bottom up, empowering the lowest levels, and nonlethal operations create better results than lethal ones. 

 

"U.S. Accepts Offer From Tehran for Broad Talks" Glenn Kessler

"The United States has decided to ignore Iran's refusal to discuss its nuclear program and instead accept a vague Iranian plan for talks on security issues as the opening gambit to draw Tehran into real negotiation.

The effort to "test" Iran's intentions, announced on Friday, came after Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said his country is skeptical of the need for new sanctions on Iran, giving the Americans little choice but to treat seriously Iran's latest offer.

Iran this week ruled out talks on its program, instead offering a five-page plan that it said would lay the groundwork for peace and stability in the region. The document, first posted Thursday on the Web site of ProPublica news service, made no reference to international demands that Iran suspend its efforts to enrich uranium, but did mention ending proliferation in nuclear weapons as well as a broad offer of dialogue." Kessler

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

I see that Mottaki, the foreign minister of Iran has modifed the tone of Ahmadinajad's belligerent insistence on the sanctity of the Iranian nuclear program.  Mottaki says that it may become possible in the course of these discussions to talk about all that, maybe.  My guess would be that the program will be discussed.  At the same time, Vahidi, the defense minister is saying that they do not want to build a nuclear weapon and never did.

The Israelis, of course, are determined to convince the US that the Iranians are not telling the truth.  Perhaps they are right.  This may be the way to find out.

If the Iranians are as smart as they think they are, they will find a way to make it impossible for a State Department spokesman to say that they are "unresponsive."

Strike up the band! 

pl

Send me a message.

If you have some time on your hands, please go through my scribblings and utterances here or elsewhere and tell me what are the worst things I have said or written about GW Bush or even that wretch Cheney.

I am sure that I said that I thought GW was unintelligent, deluded and foolish, but I don't recall having said that he was dishonest or a thief.  I am sensitive about such attack's upon a person's character.  If I did that, let me know, please.  pl

Preston Brooks, Joe Wilson and the Palmetto State

Mr. Wilson of South Carolina is representative of a long line of hotheads from that place. 

Preston Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner nearly to death with a cane on the floor of the US Senate while a friend held other senators at bay with a pistol.  Brooks was also from South Carolina.  The reaction in South Carolina was mixed, "joy and jubilation."  Well wishers from across the state sent Brooks new and better canes to replace the one he broke over Sumner's head.  What was Sumner's offense?  He had made a foolish and insulting speech.

A few years later South Carolina led the South out of the Union because Lincon had been elected president on the basis of a majority in the Electoral College but only a plurality in the country wide popular vote. Virginia eventually and reluctantly followed rather than fight the rest of the South.  Hundreds of thousands of deaths were suffered and a there was a hundred years of economic blight in the South.

Last night Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted "you lie!" at the president of the United States during his address to the Congress on health care issues.

For shame, sir!  For shame!  You apologized?  There should be some greater penance than that.

If we can not be civil even as we disagree, then we are nothing but a mob.

pl

Obama's "socialist" school speech. - the text

"Arlington, Virginia
September 8, 2009
 

The President: Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you all could join us today. 

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning.   

Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."

So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I’m here because I want to talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new school year. 

General Krulak's Letter to George Will

Someone was kind enought to send me this.  I don't know General Krulak so I can't absolutely vouch for its authenticity.  pl

 

Download Krulak_letter2

Download Krulak_letter2

 

The second copy is a .pdf file.  The first is .rtf.

"What Torture Never Told Us " Ali Soufan

"Supporters of the enhanced interrogation techniques have jumped from claim to claim about their usefulness. They have asserted, for example, that harsh treatment led Mr. Mohammed to reveal the plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles. But that plot was thwarted in 2002, and Mr. Mohammed was not arrested until 2003. Recently, interviews with unnamed sources led The Washington Post to report that harsh techniques turned Mr. Mohammed into an intelligence “asset.”

This latest claim will come as news to Mr. Mohammed’s prosecutors, to his fellow detainees (whom he instructed, at his arraignment, not to cooperate with the United States) and indeed to Mr. Mohammed himself. He told the International Committee of the Red Cross that “I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear.”

The inspector general’s report was written precisely becausemany of the C.I.A. operatives complained about what they were being ordered to do. The inspector general then conducted an internal audit of the entire program. In his report, he questions the effectiveness of the harsh techniques that were authorized. And he slams the use of “unauthorized, improvised, inhumane and undocumented detention and interrogation techniques.” This is probably why the enhanced interrogation program was shelved in 2005.

Meanwhile, the professionals in the field are relieved that an ineffective, unreliable, unnecessary and destructive program — one that may have given Al Qaeda a second wind and damaged our country’s reputation — is finished."  Ali Soufan

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

I have said from the beginning of the post 9/11 prisoner interrogation saga that seduction and trickery work a lot better than physical abuse and intimidation.  How hard is that to understand?  I remember saying that on the Newshour in response to a question about how to talk to the prisoner, Saddam Hussein.  My friend, Amatzia Baram, was sitting next to me and went one step farther by insisting that the interrogators should be beautiful women.  Now, that was creative!

The whole process of apprehending possible terrorists or terrorist supporters has been flawed from the beginning and largely run on the basis of Cheney's 1% solution.  (One wonders where he got that---)

There are a substantial number of people held by the US who are very dangerous men, men who can not be safely released.  The reason is clear.  They are warriors in their cause and they will return to the fight.  What to do with them in the context of evidence ruined by their early treatment as though they were prisoners of war (who were not designated as prisoners of war) is a huge problem.  To think that these men could be held indefinitely without trial and without designating them as prisoners of war was a big mistake.  They inevitably gained access to US federal courts and the cases against them then became sbject to US "rules of evidence," with Miranda warnings, access to counsel, right to confront their accusers, etc.

Even more egregious are the cases of the many detainees who appear to be merely the victims of circumstance.  Brother in law hostility,  young people running away from home (to Afghanistan of all places), Pakistani government desire to show cooperation with the US after 9/11 (often by handing over foreigners), futile searches for employment from places even poorer than Pakistan or Afghanistan, all these "paths" led to Bagram, Kandahar and Guantanamo.   More than that I can not say.

Now there is a lengthy process of Habeas Corpus hearings underway in the federal courts to determine whether or not some of these people should ever have been held at Guantanamo by the United States, held for five or six years.   Some of these hearings have been decided in favor of the prisoners, but the Justice and Defense departments are still holding prisoners whom they were ordered to release by the federal courts.  They are still holding them under the same conditions as before the rulings that determinied that they should never have been imprisoned.   Their justification is that they may yet appeal the courts' decisions.

Mr. Jefferson wrote that he feared for his country when he reflected that God is just.  He meant Virginia, but the lesson is clear.  pl

 

Open thread today

Does anyone know of a good unclassified paper on the various "Taliban" groups?  pl

USAID is funding the Taliban - sort of...

"It is the open secret no one wants to talk about, the unwelcome truth that most prefer to hide. In Afghanistan, one of the richest sources of Taliban funding is the foreign assistance coming into the country.

Virtually every major project includes a healthy cut for the insurgents. Call it protection money, call it extortion, or, as the Taliban themselves prefer to term it, “spoils of war,” the fact remains that international donors, primarily the United States, are to a large extent financing their own enemy." 

“Everyone knows this is going on,” said one U.S. Embassy official, speaking privately. Mckenzie

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

Someone commented in these sacred pages a few days ago to the effect that it was not reasonable to expect the American People to accept the folkways of foreigners just because they were their folkways.  No?  Well, here is a "folkway" that will probably be rather hard to "swallow."

This reminds me of the way the Comanche and Kiowa used to go to Ft. Sill, Oklahoma in the 19th Century and ask for ammunition so that they could continue their war against "The Texans" (a non-American people in the eyes of the Indians) in the next fighting season.  Ammunition, reservation beef, and other supplies were what they wanted.  One of the Kiowa chiefs, Kicking Bird, I think, once demanded to be issued the Indian Wars campaign medal with the appropriate seasonal clasp.  He said that without his men the war could not be held. 

It's all a matter of perspective. 

I am not surprised.  I suggest that it will be impossible to halt this practise.  They will find a way to do it.  I understand that the Taliban are "hitting up" local Afghan businessmen and saying that it is "zakat."  Lovely.

I further suggest that we find a way to turn the practise to our advantage.  Can't figure that out?  Work on it.  pl

 

The International terrorists are America's enemies, not the local rebels...

"...the problem with the critics' argument is that, while the strategy they oppose has yet to be tried, the alternatives they suggest already have been -- and they led to failure in both Afghanistan and Iraq. For years, U.S. commanders in both countries focused on killing insurgents and minimizing the numbers and exposure of U.S. troops rather than pacifying the country. The result was that violence in both countries steadily grew, until a counterinsurgency strategy was applied to Iraq in 2007."  Washpost editorial.

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

The interests of the reigning generals, the neocons and the Brothers of the Order of  Counterinsurgency at CNAS are coming together now.  The mechanisms for propagation of the faith in COIN as a vehicle for the program of the AEI crowd are widespread.  Among them are internal blockage of access to blogs like this one by the armed forces, exclusion from the main stream media of dissenting voices and the editorial page of the Washington Post. 

In its lead editorial today, the Washington Post distorts the history of what happened in Iraq.  It claims that the security situation in Iraq was improved by the adoption of "a counterinsurgency strategy."  This implies that "pacifying the country" did the trick in Iraq.  Where did that happen?  What was the mechanism?  20,000 more US troops and a lot of walls dividing up neighborhoods in Baghdad, was that what did the trick?  Was it a marked improvement in governance by the Baghdad government?

NO.

What did the trick was that the US adopted the strategy of  "renting" enough Sunni Arab insurgents to isolate the international Sunni terrorists associated with al-qa'ida These same "rented" former insurgents were then used to destroy the terrorists.  This effort was a supplement to the work that McChrystal's former counter-terrorist comando command was already doing.  This was a modern application of very old and traditional "divide and conquer" methods that have been in use since time immemorial in that part of the world.  It had nothing to do with application of the mystical magic of COIN style "pacification."

The Post's editorial is evidence of a continuing establishment inability to deal with the nasty realities of war in the backwoods and deserts of the Islamic World.  pl

The Broken "Hinge" in McChrystal's Paper

"...it represents a hard look at the challenges involved in implementing Obama's strategy for Afghanistan. The administration has narrowly defined its goal as defeating al-Qaeda and other extremist groups and denying them sanctuary, but that in turn requires a sweeping counterinsurgency campaign aimed at protecting the Afghan population, establishing good governance and rebuilding the economy."  Washpost

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

George will has spoken and he is heard.  There can never be enough friends on a battlefield.

My only problem with his thinking on this is that he believes that you can conduct effective counter-terrorism operations from offshore.  No, you can not do that on the scale required in Afghanistan.  Without a base area onshore you will never be able to obtain the people based intelligence you would need for targeting counter-terrorist operations, the distances will be too great for effective and frequent onshore operations against Al-Qa'ida, and the availability of aerial fire and evacuation support for such operations will be severely limited by the same long distances.  In such a situation you would remain dependent on the same armed drones and strike aircraft with which we have been killing many non-combatants.  As I have written earlier, the conduct of effective counter-terrorism would require a sizable lodgement or redoubt in the Kabul/Bagram area.  Other than that...

That is a minor matter compared to the error outlined in red and blue above concerning the nature of McChrystal's report.  Assuming that the Post has gotten this right, it must be said that the logic of thinking that it follows from the goal of preventing Al-Qa'ida's use of Afghanistan as a base that one must rebuild and create a new Afghanistan in a massive and probably unending COIN campaign is totally flawed.

The president's announced goals are essentially negative, "defeating al-Qa'ida and..."

The goals of COIN are essentially positive, i.e., "build a better Afghanistan."

How did this happen?  How did McChrystal and his "brain trust" get this so wrong?  Ah, it is COIN's "Siren Song" with its soothing aura of progressive benevolence and pseudo-intellectual philosophy.

Once again, the costs inherent in COIN are not worth paying if one does not own the place being fought over. 

The president should reject the assumptions underlying the McChrystal Report.  Clemenceau was right.  Generals should not be allowed to set the agenda for war.  pl