Sic Semper Tyrannis

VIPS Letter to the President on Israel and Iran

 "We believe that comments by senior American officials, you included, reflect misplaced trust in Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu.

Actually, the phrasing itself can be revealing, as when CIA Director Panetta implied cavalierly that Washington leaves it up to the Israelis to decide whether and when to attack Iran, and how much “room” to give to the diplomatic effort.

On June 27, Panetta casually told ABC’s Jake Tapper, “I think they are willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically … as opposed to changing them militarily.”

Similarly, the tone you struck referring to Netanyahu and yourself in your July 7 interview with Israeli TV was distinctly out of tune with decades of unfortunate history with Israeli leaders. 

“Neither of us try to surprise each other,” you said, “and that approach is one that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to.” You may wish to ask Vice President Biden to remind you of the kind of surprises he has encountered in Israel.

Blindsiding has long been an arrow in Israel’s quiver. During the emerging Middle East crisis in the spring of 1967, some of us witnessed closely a flood of Israeli surprises and deception, as Netanyahu’s predecessors feigned fear of an imminent Arab attack as justification for starting a war to seize and occupy Arab territories."  VIPS

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

I am no longer a member of VIPS but chose to sign this at their suggestion.  pl

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/080310c.html

"The Peace of Dives" Habakkuk

 Back in 1903 Kipling wrote his poem 'The Peace of Dives'. Despairing of the warlike propensities of mankind, the Lord releases Dives from Hell, to see if he can do any better than 'Saint and Seer and Prophet' in curbing them. And Dives succeeds triumphantly, binding human beings together in webs of interdependence, so that their greeds and fears, instead of impelling them to fight one another, make them avoid doing so, so creating a peace which Satan, try as he may, cannot disrupt.(See http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_dives.htm.) It was, of course, a spectacularly inapt anticipation. But then, in a real sense, it ought to have been true -- as it turned out, practically everyone in Europe had an immense common interest in avoiding the kind of major war which erupted a decade after the poem was written.After the retreat and collapse of Soviet power, there was a great deal of euphoric talk about the 'democratic peace', resting on the highly dubious proposition that democracies are inherently peace-loving. A more reasonable optimism might have been that, at least among major powers, a kind of 'peace of Dives' might take hold.It was always highly unlikely that either Russia or China would become Western-style democracies, in the forseeable future, if at all. But the greeds and fears of the new capitalist elites in those countries do not obviously impel them towards an enthusiasm for military conflict.It would, obviously, not be sensible for American policymakers to assume that such a 'peace of Dives' will take hold. But it would seem sensible to try to steer in that direction.This is not an argument for neglecting prudent defence preparedness -- the old joke applies, that it takes two to make a murder, a murderer and a murderee. But the requirement not to lead others into temptation through weakness needs to be balanced with that of avoiding getting into highly militarised confrontations which may develop a logic of their own. Putting the point another way, if 'deterrence' and indeed 'compellence' are part of a prudent statecraft, so too is 'appeasement'.In this connection, a peculiarly fatuous comment by Daniel Gouré is worthy of note. Arguing that it is 'simply silly' to suggest that 'the world is a relatively peaceful place or will become so in the next several decades', he comments that 'according to recent press reports, NATO has begun once again to plan for the defense of its members against potential Russian aggression.'It does indeed seem that leading American policymakers still want to treat the 2008 Georgian War as a case of 'Russian aggression'. In Tbilisi last month, Hilary Clinton described the Russian military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia as 'invasion and occupation'.In fact, these areas only became part of Georgia after the Soviet break-up as a result of arbitrary decisions by Stalin, and their inhabitants had no more wish to be part of Georgia than the Kosovo Albanians had to be part of Serbia.It would have been possible for the United States, after the 2004 'rose revolution', to have encouraged the new President, Mikhail Saakashvili, to have attempted to woo the two regions, giving them reasons to believe they would have a better future in Georgia than in association with Russia. Instead, wittingly or unwittingly, they pursued a course which was bound to encourage him in his clearly manifest intention to reincorporate them into Georgia by force.The diplomat most clearly associated with this catastrophic policy -- Matthew Bryza -- is now the Obama Administration's choice for the key ambassadorship in Azerbaijan. His wife, Zeyno Baran, was the author of a notable article in Newsweek in 2007 anticipating a military coup in her native country, Turkey -- seemingly with complacency, if not indeed enthusiasm.

Habakkuk

National Journal Blog - 2 August, 2010

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2010/08/us-military-power-preeminence.php#1610453

Aghanistan: Death Knell for COIN?

 "The Obama administration and leading Democrats are dialing back expectations for the Afghanistan war, saying that their goal is to root out terrorists, not engage in a major nation-building project.

"Nobody thinks that Afghanistan is going to be a model Jeffersonian democracy," Mr. Obama said during an interview broadcast on CBS' "Sunday Morning" program.

"What we're looking to do is difficult, very difficult, but it's a fairly modest goal, which is, don't allow terrorists to operate from this region; don't allow them to create big training camps and to plan attacks against theU.S. homeland with impunity."

Mr. Obama said his goals for Afghanistan can be accomplished."  Washington Times

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

Yes.  If Obama gives up the Neocon inspired COIN nation building, then the "modest goal" of keeping the really nasty and aggressive jihadis off balance can be achieved with the methods proposed here often and tediously.  These are basically the traditional "economy of  force" methods;  Intelligence, SOF, using different groups against each other, etc.

The really bad news here is for the "COIN community"   They have had a good run for ten years but the old nag (COIN) has the same defects that it always had.  

1- It takes a long, long time.

2-  It is very, very expensive

3- The subjects of the benevolent intentions of the COINistas may view the project as unwarranted interference in their lives and folkways.  They may fight this "interference."

4 - COIN, if it is to have any chance at all must be applied with greater skills than are usually present in a large effort.

Bottom Line:  John Nagl and all his COINy crew should start thinking about some new devotion.  pl 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/1/modest-goal-set-for-war/?page=1

"Sunset" the Bush tax cuts.

 "In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.

"They do not," said Greenspan.

"I'm very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money and the problem that we have gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money," he said. "And at the end of the day that proves disastrous. My view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here.""   HP

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

IMO opinion, the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to "sunset" into memory.  Why?  The massive loss of revenue to the US Government from these tax cuts is something the US economy cannot afford.  It amounts to trillions of dollars.  If that income is added to the savings from the kind of cuts in defense expenditures that I have suggested the fiscal situation will be much different and a lot more hopeful.  pl 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/01/alan-greenspan-extending_n_666549.html

Max Blumenthal's camera

 http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/07/the-summer-camp-of-destruction-israeli-high-schoolers-join-in-the-destruction-of-a-bedouin-town/