"HOW THE BORG SPENDS 36 HOURS IN TEXAS" by Michael Brenner Ph. D.

The combined security/Intelligence communities held a high-powered public conference at the University of Texas in Austin last week.  This has become a regular event blessed by Chancellor (Admiral) William McRaven who previously commanded headed JSOM. (“I'm not a political guy.”)  The line-up of heavy hitters was impressive:  Clapper, McLaughlin, Hadley, Breedlove. Zelikow, Negroponte, Eliot Cohen, General Norton Schwartz (former Chief of staff, Air Force), Joshua Bolten (Bush Chief of Staff), John Helgerson (CIA Inspector General), Kurt Campbell.  Its purpose, though, remains obscure. Outreach to the American public is one standard explanation for this type of shindig. Communication in this instance, though, was one-way. The panels included only true believers in a hard-line, aggressive approach to a very long security agenda. The speakers roster was similarly stacked. Token participants from outside the “community’ who had figured in previous meetings were nowhere in sight. So what the public gets is instruction rather than exchange or communication.

The choice of Texas is particularly odd since there are very few locals who need conversion. At last year's event, John Brennan's litany of grievances against all those who, like the Senate Intelligence Committee, who were trying to rein in the CIA, NSA, et al elicited a standing ovation from the entire audience (minus one). The level of enthusiasm was what one might expect had he announced the decimation of the last Comanche band or the State Supreme Court's decision to void all land grants to Mexicans from the King of Spain. In 2015, the Islamic State, Russia, China and - not least- domestic enemies provided the amphetamine-like rush. Same this year.

This effusive welcome is not surprising. After all, Texas is where the Governor (Abbott) called out the State Guard to defend the citizenry from the threat of abuse by U.S. army units engaged in a training exercise one county North of Austin. He voiced sympathy for their claimed fears about possible rapine, robbery and wreckage.  So did almost all other elected officials.

In other words, the event had elements of an Evangelical rally - even though the crowd leaned toward the elderly albeit with a considerable sprinkling of the college aged and Generation ‘Xs.’  Still, it was illuminating to hear the Word straight from the apostles.  Understandably, in those congenial conditions restraint or ellipse are dispensed with in outbursts of self-satisfied candor.

Perhaps a better metaphor is a gathering of senior prelates in Rome sometime in the early 17^th Century. For America’s foreign policy Establishment has a “near enemy” and a “far enemy.”  The former includes those forces who would curb the robust exertion of power at home and abroad – either through misguided legal constraints or a scaling back of its audacious goals. The aroused opposition to draconian surveillance and associated illegalities had been a threat to the Establishment’s authority and legitimacy.

The “near enemy” is the priority – of course. For it poses a manifest, or latent threat, to the essence of the Establishment: it’s bureaucratic control, its lavish financing, its political clout and – above all – its position as cynosure of the creed, defender of the Faith from heresy, and spiritual guide to the nation in pursuing its external relations. The “far enemy” is the world “out there.”  That space can be divided into four categories: those places where conversion is complete and governments can be expected to bow to American suzerainty: Western Europe, Japan, etc; those places where active proselytization is well underway: Eastern Europe, South Asia; those places occupied by hostile forces which threaten directly or otherwise endanger the Establishment’s supremacy or general well-being; and, finally, those ambiguous zones where threats potentially could spawn. Category III is where the “Evil One” resides – in his many manifestations: e.g. Russia, Iran, North Korea, Islamic terrorists. The “Evil One” is omni-present – even when not visible as was the case in Austin. Category IV embraces two concerns: a) nests where minor vipers may lurk – Latin American “reformers,” African gangster cabals, Mexican drug cartels – but not Afghan ones; and b) China.   It is the equivalent of nascent Islam to Christian Europe of the Dark Ages or – perhaps more closely - the Ottomans to Renaissance Europe. What to do – confront, coopt, co-exist?  The Establishment’s movers-and-shakers instinctively lean toward confrontation.  Their practical sense leans them toward vigilant accommodation. They fret but they don’t think creatively.

The Austin conclave was remarkable in two respects: its calm self-confidence; and its unquestioning belief that the American Establishment had a Providential mission to oversee the affairs of the globe. Truth is immanent in US foreign policy. America’s motives pure. Its means measured. The paramount responsibility of those who lead is to scour the world to find and identify threats – and then to devise strategies for eliminating them. Periodically, they must also ensure that the American people fully understand why and what is being done on their behalf.

When it comes to policy advocacy, the two recurrent words are “should” and “must” – as in New York Times editorials. “We should strengthen our military presence in Syria to counter Russian influence.” “Putin must stop his aggression in the Baltics and Balkans” – Hadley. (Geography evidently is not a strength of this crowd).

Embedded in this rhetoric is a pair of core propositions. Like pillars of a faith, they do not require explicit restatement.  The overriding purpose of American foreign policy is to achieve absolute security for the United States. In the long run, that means Americanizing the world. In the shorter term, that means strenuous, unrelenting efforts to smite our enemies and to preempt latent threats.

  *    It is legitimate, even imperative, for the threatened democratic world, led by Washington,   to use its power to forestall assaults on them.
   *   Traditional concepts of state sovereignty do not constitute an
        acceptable legal or political barrier to efforts at imposing that
        solution.
   *   The United States, therefore, is not a ‘global Leviathan’ that
         advances its selfish interests at the expense of others.  It is, rather,
         the benign producer of public goods.
   *   The privilege of partial exception from the international norms,
        including the right to act unilaterally, is earned by an historical
        record of selfless performance.

The worthies on the Austin panel spent no time on a retrospective critique of the policies and action that have flowed from this world-view. The objective record may show that the country has invested enormously in serial failure relieved only by the modest success of dispersing Classic al-Qaeda and dislodging the Taliban –
 temporarily.  The global struggle goes on against enemies real and imagined without any appreciable change in strategic thinking.  Its sole convincing victory has been mastery of the American public mind. Yet, there is no reappraisal of core premises. The tragic Iraq fiasco got one mention: “we need to better identify what factors in the equation we have inadequate Intelligence about, like WMDS” –Clapper.

The resilience of Faith in strategic doctrine as some sort of Holy Writ is evident in the Establishment’s approach to Syria. Speakers evinced an undifferentiated and unqualified consensus on America purposes there. American priorities emerged clearly:

In this mess, we still can discern American priorities on which there seems to exist some tacit consensus. As noted in an earlier post:

1. The paramount objective is to thwart Russia's efforts to exercise influence and to establish its position in Syria.
   

2. Get rid of Assad. We appear to have committed ourselves to the Israelis, the Turks, and the Saudis on this. Their wish is our command.
   

3. Marginalize and weaken Iran by breaking the Shi’ite Crescent.
   

4. Wear down and slowly fragment ISIS. Success on this score can cover failure on all others in domestic opinion.
   

5. Ensure a permanent American physical presence in Iraq, i.e. achieve what we failed to achieve in 2008.
   

6. Facilitate a de facto partition of Iraq with bits of Syria attached to the Iraqi bits. Hold this out as the lure for the Kurds to act as our infantry.
   

7. Facilitate some kind of Sunni entity in Anbar and eastern Syria. How can we prevent it being destabilized by attacks from ISIS remnants? How can we prevent it falling under the sway of al-Qaeda? Good subjects for the Obama Foundation's first major study project. 
   

8. al-Nusra in Syria proper? Hope that the Turks can "domestic" al-Nusra. Incentive? Obscure.
   ​

 No one made mention of Washington’s tacit alliance with al-Qaeda in Syria. No one made mention of pressuring Turkey and the KSA to cease and desist supporting jihadi elements, no mention was made of Israel, no mention was made of post-Assad Syria. The words “should” or “must” in regard to other parties were absent from all discussion of Syria. These establishment figures have spent so much time in blind alleys that they seem unable to tell night from day.

The foreign Policy Establishment is not big on introspection or self-reflection – it sparks fear of experiencing an acute agoraphobia attack.

Every Soul is captive

Of its own Deeds

                 Qur’an  74:38

Comments

[LeaNder]

Very, very good. This could serve as a definition of one central aspect of the Borg.

and now I'll ponder for the rest of the day, if I watch tonight's debate, at 3 a.m for me, as some type of entertainment.

[Pinwheel]

We side with al-Qaeda against a sovereign state and wipe our ass with international law. All of these maneuvers are being forced upon us by our numerous enemies, of course. If they have a national police state then ours must go them one better. The "honey do" list is worthy of a great power in full stride. I feel better now knowing all these loose ends will soon be neatly tied.

[Matthew]

Neocons always confuse "opportunity" with "threat." When our opponents are weak, the Neo-Cons inflate the threat.

BTW, I saw King Abdullah of Jordan's "60 Minutes" interview last night. We always treat Jordan like an old flame who waits to get to get drunk-dialed at 2 a.m. Since we're giving Israel $38 billion, we can't afford to give Jordan decent equipment?

[b]

Mr. Brenner,

I wonder how you manage to sit through such a conference. Intellectual idiots at best, sell-outs at worst. No wonder U.S. foreign policy is a hysteric mess.

[michael brenner]

Detective and spy novels on my lap