America, Desperately Seeking An Enemy by Publius Tacitus

Life used to be simple. At least that is the nostalgic nonsense that fills the aging brain pans of those of us over the age of 55. Back in the Good Old days we had the clear enemy of international communism to battle. We used that bullshit bugaboo to justify wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Central America, South America and Afghanistan. As long as we had the implacable foe of international communism poised to take over the world, intent on taking away our choices of ice cream and certain to demand that we worship the memory of Vladimir Lenin, we could justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars on building a massive military and intelligence bureaucracy and equipping them with expensive machines of death and communication. 

When the Soviet Union crumbled under the weight of its slavish devotion to Marxian utopian precepts we thought we witnessed the dawn of a new era. And we did. The only problem--we could not sustain our economy without coming up with a new enemy that would justify the continued spending of hundreds of billions of dollars on technologically sophisticated and grotesquely expense crap that, in the event of a real conventional war, would be impossible to replace in a timely manner and would bankrupt our nation.

We, the United States, drifted from 1992 until 11 September 2001 trying to identify the new enemy. During that 8 year hiatus U.S. defense spending ticked down, both as an absolute number and as a percentage of GDP. There were some isolated international terrorist attacks but nothing so extraordinary to rally the country. Instead, there were weak efforts to build worry about China and to promote missile defense as the latest, greatest technology needed to keep America safe.

The coordinated attacks on 9-11 in 2001 changed all of that and the spending binge was on. Very few challenged the conventional wisdom that more military spending would be an effective remedy for battling a motley collection of radical Islamists who did not have armor, artillery, armies, navies, ballistic missiles nor an air force. That uncomfortable fact did not slow us for a minute in throwing new billions at the military, the defense bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies.

And what did that spending spree earn us? Nothing. Instead of quelling terrorism, terrorism spread. Inspired in large measure by George W. Bush's ill-considered and feckless invasion of Iraq. We disarmed the minority Sunni Baathists, imprisoned and shamed thousands and then were surprised to learn that pissed off people have a tendency to fight back.

But that was not enough for us. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton thought it a dandy idea to back the European play (a thinly veiled effort to gain control of Libyan oil) to oust Libya's quirky, crazy despot, Muammar Qaddafi. That turned out swell. Libya became a new site for civil war as tribes and religious minorities battled each other for control of Libya's oil and natural gas wealth. The United States, with the enthusiastic backing of the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, decided to light a fire in Syria and rid the world of a secular strong man in favor of an unwieldy collection of Sunni Islamic radicals. All of this in the name of trying to contain Iran whose power and influence in the region had grown because we, the United States, got rid of Tehran's nemesis, Saddam Hussein, and replaced him with semi-pliant Shia Iraqis who happened to have close ties with the mullahs and the IRGC in Iran. 

Rather than accept blame for our own stupidity, we decided it better to finger Syria's Assad for that faux pas. We helped start and then sustain the secular war that began shredding Syria in 2010.

Before all of this got started, Bill Clinton reneged on promises to Russia to not expand NATO to Russia's western frontier. George W. Bush and Barack Obama continued that policy and spent more money on building up NATO and threatening Russia. Of course, when Russia pushed back against the U.S betrayal on NATO and refused to support U.S. military adventures in the Middle East, the American foreign and national security policy elite began beating the drum portraying Russia as a grave and growing threat.

And you know what the prescription for that is? More cow bell. I mean, more defense spending. Few of the so-called experts want to take the time to point out that Moscow spends 1/10th of what Washington does in building up military capabilities. Virtually no one in America is willing to acknowledge our responsibility for stirring up unrest in Ukraine or carrying out aggressive military exercises on the land and sea borders of Russia. And, instead of publicly welcoming Russia coming to the aid of Syria in fighting off the very kind of radical Islamists who attacked us on 9-11, we condemned them and then doubled down by arming those Islamic extremists.

Now we have Donald Trump and he is genuinely flummoxed. He does not know whether to wipe his nose or scratch his ass. His early attempts to talk sense about Russia earned him a public flogging by the Washington foreign policy establishment who not only accused him of surrendering to communism (ignoring the fact the communists in Russia were vanquished in 1991) but mounted a coordinated disinformation operation that insisted that Russia intervened in the 2016 election on behalf of Trump and that Trump and his team colluded with them in this effort. Not one shred of proof to support this nonsensical claim but the most of the elite and the punditry embraced it as truth and happily spread the lie over TV, the blogs and the archaic pages of major newspapers.

Trump continues to say in one  breath that he is not interested in embroiling the United States in another foreign war and then, with a bellicosity that is borderline cartoonish, threatens North Korea and Iran with doom and destruction. As I noted in my previous piece on Iran, this kind of sword rattling makes no sense with respect to Iran. We are the ones who have been funding terrorists and destabilizing the Middle East, not the Iranians.

I am amused by Trump trying to take credit for the collapse of ISIS. It is cute. But the U.S. contribution to this effort pales in comparison to the resources and forces put to the effort by Russia. It is Russia, not Iran, that has led the way in bolstering Syria's ability to fighting the foreign-backed Islamists who were intent on unseating Assad.  

Are we now ready to do the right thing in Syria and Iraq? I doubt it. The Neo-Con crowd have done a good job of persuading a lot of Americans that the Kurds are our natural allies. Now that the Iraqi Government, which we also claim to back, is pushing to re-take control of Kurdish controlled parts of Iraq, the chorus is singing with gusto the tune that we must come to their rescue. That means military intervention on our part. While Trump has pooh-poohed that suggestion so far, the chorus is adding a new phrase--i.e., "The Iranian backed regime in Iraq." 

Yes sir. We have to fight those dastardly Iranians who are trying to crush the democratic aspirations of the Kurds. If that argument starts to resonate with Trump then his current refusal to get involved is likely to be reversed. Interesting times folks. Very interesting times.

Comments

[Linda]

Sad but true

[outthere]

Thank you for this excellent summary.
I wish to question one sentence, where you say:
"when Russia pushed back against the U.S betrayal on NATO and refused to support U.S. military adventures in the Middle East"
In fact Russia supplied extensive help to USA occupation of Afghanistan, allowing use of Russian train routes, and also air bases for supplies. Details here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_logistics_in_the_Afghan_War#Northern_Distribution_Network
Also worth noting that Russia did not veto UN Resolution 1973 (2011)- the Libya "no fly-zone resolution" - which resolution was greatly exceeded by USA/NATO under S/S Hillary Clinton and President Obama.
Of course your statement is true of many other circumstances where Russia did not help USA military adventures in mideast.

[Peter AU]

Outthere' it is worth reading the transcript of Putin's recent speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club.
He covered much of what you question.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55882

I have read the Reuters version and the actual speech

[Pacifica Advocate]

Great summary. It's unfortunate that you skipped over Yugoslavia, though.

[jld]

Well, that's "the way of the homo sapiens" since times eternal...
http://www.unz.com/freed/the-military-instinct/

[Seamus Padraig]

Generally speaking, I very much agree with Publius here. Just one minor point:

"The only problem--we could not sustain our economy without coming up with a new enemy that would justify the continued spending of hundreds of billions of dollars on technologically sophisticated and grotesquely expense crap that, in the event of a real conventional war, would be impossible to replace in a timely manner and would bankrupt our nation."

Well, no, we don't actually HAVE to spend all that money on arms in order to keep the economy going; we could just as well spend it on something else. Keynes used to joke that all you had to do to stimulate the economy was to pay people to dig ditches then fill them up again!

All of these bloated budgets, and all of our aggressive, "forward-leaning" (as Cheney would say) operations are in support of a desire for global-domination. (Call it the 'new world order,' or whatever you like.)

[blowback]

"comparison to the resources and forces put to the effort by Russia"

The resources - I read recently it's still being funded out of the Red Army's training budget in roubles.

The forces - less than a hundred aircraft at any time and a few thousand PMCs and advisers.

What should worry certain people is how efficient and effective it is - words which rarely go together.

There was a recent report that the average annual cost of a member of the Russian military was about $64,000 which is less than a tenth of what it costs to field a single member of the US military (alleged to be $2,100,000 per soldier in Afghanistan).

[JohnsonR]

Re the US looking for enemies, here's McMaster yesterday on North Korea:

""He's not going to accept this regime threatening the United States with nuclear weapons," McMaster said. "There are those who would say, well, why not accept and deter. Well, accept and deter is unacceptable.""
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/us-preparing-for-north-koreas-final-step/ar-AAtK9Xp?li=AA9SkIr&ocid=ientp

The reality is that McMaster and the US will have to accept again that countries it doesn't like can have nuclear weapons (as it did previously for the Soviet Union and China, of course), and that it has no special god-given right to be secure unlike every other country in the world. If the US tries to enforce its imaginary right, then it will be directly responsible for all the hundreds of thousands and more of innocent deaths a war of aggression it initiates in Korea will cause.

Make no mistake, an attack on North Korea to enforce a non-existent self-invented unique right of the US to feel safe is still a war of aggression, no matter how many excuses the US tries to make for it.

Not "the exceptional nation". Just another country, that happens to have been very powerful for a long time.

[Adrestia]

Few of the so-called experts want to take the time to point out that Moscow spends 1/10th of what Washington does in building up military capabilities.

What always surprises me is the difference between Russia (Warsaw Pact) and NATO equipment and infrastructure. We (the west) seem to need an awful lot of extra stuff. You can still see that in countries such as Poland which still have mixed WP and NATO bases (with regard to origins).

IMO it is also a mindset.
Why use a tractor to tow an aircraft when you can use a truck?
Why not build an engine that can use several (or all) kinds of fuel available? It will wear out the engine much faster, but in wartime that may not be an issue.

One of the main problems when 'visiting' Russian bases is/was that you could end up unintended in the middle because there were no fences (anymore). The locals (and military) are very fond of creating shorter routes (eg to pick mushrooms in the forest) and don't value well-maintained fences that much.

[Anna]

Propornot has spoken:
PropOrNot ID Service @propornot: “You don’t need to know anything abt classified US anything, cuz if you knew, regimes at war w us.” https://www.rt.com/usa/407256-propornot-tweet-buzzfeed-foia-syria-rebels/
The citizenry is supposed to follow, no Qs asked.

[turcopolier]

All

I must say that this piece contains a massive flaw in that it dismisses the threat to the West and liberal values that was presented by the spread of Communism both before and after WW@. PT is not old enough to remember that threat as experienced by those who met the challenges it presented. In those countries where communism survives as the ruling principle tyranny is inflicted on the people whether or not economic development has occurred because of the abandonment of communist economic principles. Western Europe was save from this experience by the Marshall Plan and the NATO alliance. No amount of revisionist history can change that. pl

[Bill H]

pl: Yes, that first paragraph grated on me quite a bit. I thought it got better rather quickly, though.

[Eric Newhill]

I was going to note that this article seems heavy on the economic determinism - albeit in a crony capitalist kind of way - and ignores ideology, but I think Col Lang just somewhat made that point in his comment to "All".

One aspect of the Burns VN series that struck me was the persistent theme of the politicians keeping the war going (and even escalating) because they perceived that they would appear weak and if they withdrew troops and the North then prevailed. As loud as the anti-war crowd was, there was still a base that didn't want America to "lose". IMO, something similar is still operating in DC whether we are talking about jihadis or Russians. Actually, I think it is play even more generally. Americans, by and large, want a kick ass military. They want to be the biggest and baddest. No candidate for POTUS could be elected on a platform of cutting the military and becoming and isolationist non-military power in the world. This is something that is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. IMO, the American people are as much to blame for all the military spending and ambient bellicosity as are the pols and military industrial complex + the ideology of the foreign policy borg.

As far as NoKo goes, I will remain the sole voice of dissent, apparently, in this space. I do not believe we can accept or tolerate a nuclear armed NoKo. I do not believe that KJU can be trusted with such devastating power. Many want to attribute rational and benign motives to him. That is mere mind reading and bad mind reading at that. It is also colored by anti-American cynicism. Just b/c the US was dishonest about Iraq WMD and Saddam's intentions, doesn't mean they are also wrong about NoKo. Responsible countries do not threaten others with nuclear obliteration on an almost daily basis and they don't shoot missiles over other countries' territory. I don't care that Trump also said this or that or made this or that threat. The US is a major world power that is integrally connected to all other developed nations. Despite rhetoric, the US isn't going to deliberately start a nuclear conflagration. We have a proven track record in that regard. KJU is an isolated tin horn dictator and cult leader. Such people are known to commit to various suicide pact situations. Screw KJU. Too many past admins let him continue merrily down the road of nuclear armament. Some one has to stop the little monster. Trump has the balls to do it before it's too late.

[kooshy]

Sounds like Mr. Netanyahu is not happy with what took place in Kirkuk, johnny come latelies never would admit to strategic blunders they make. Too bad

"Netanyahu lobbies world powers to stem Iraqi Kurd setbacks
"https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-kurds-israel/netanyahu-lobbies-world-powers-to-stem-iraqi-kurd-setbacks-idUKKBN1CP18P

[kooshy]

PT, I agree with all the history you revealed, but I can't understand why you don't use the same tone and respect for Iran as you have for Russia. With due respect Iran started fighting islamic extremist allies of US before US and Russia combined. Starting with Afghanistan. If you really mean to reveal real history and truth you should set aside personal dislikes and say it as it happened. George Ball and Zbig both US official are responsible for islamic extremism Iran ended up fighting and is fighting more seriously than US what these US officials planned 40 years ago. Iran started fighting american made ideology of islamic extremism before Russia or any of US allies. Back in 70's when I was still in high school in Iran, we were hearing rumors in between Iranian intellectuals and older politicians that "Americans are trying to build a green belt( green being the color of islam) around the middle east to protect it against communism, after the brits had left in 1971. That green belt turned out to be the extremist sunni wahabi belt since it was financed with saudi petrodollar. Iranians are fighting that belt you made, more than you think or respect.

[Oilman2]

@ pl...

So the true countries to keep an eye on are China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and the Norks?

The US toe to toe with China equals our economy collapsing - they win that one even if they suffer in tandem with us, because we have gutted our manufacturing sector. It is a lose-lose situation with our economies nearly symbiotic.

Vietnam is not an issue, nor is Laos or Cuba.

The leaves the DPRK, which would cost SK hundreds of thousands of deaths if that were touched off.

Containment is impossible with the internet and globally connected economies. We cannot afford that any longer and it doesn't work - just as sanctions have failed to work on Russia and Iran.

I disagree, in that all of these countries, while communist, are trying to work within the world markets today - thus while their governments are communist, their economies are not. The old Soviet model is dead. The new China model is actually changing, as they are trying to attract foreign investment into their country - which is simply not what traditional communist countries do.

The modern communist state is forced to work within a global economic market and compete. The old communist models did not, instead turning into themselves and trying to do everything on their own, within their borders. Thus even in communist states, there is quite a lot of similarity to every other country. My last trip to Vietnam was in 2013, and it was nothing like it was in 1992 - much more open, no travel restrictions or phone restrictions and you could buy almost anything you wanted without government interference or censorship.

I was in China in 2014, and I couldn't even go there when I was a young man - which is a huge difference. I went wherever I wanted to, and nobody was asking for my passport or my papers. I took taxis where I needed to go or the train, without anyone with me except my Canadian born travel buddy, who spoke Mandarin because his parents were immigrants. I flew across the country and did not have to show my passport other than to buy my ticket - that is more lax than the US!

The only country that even resembles the old communist countries is the DPRK - it seems to be the last bastion of full-bore, hardcore communism.

I am 62, so while I didn't fight in Vietnam, I was around during the times you are reflecting on. I don't think we are looking at the same type of regimes today, simply due to internet communications, cell phones and the globally interconnected economy.

The USA has the largest prison population on the planet - so while we do not have a hard tyrrany, we do have some internal problems with crying out to the rest of the world how "free" we are. Just the madness of traveling with the DHS rules makes us appear and feel much less free than many other parts of the world.

I do not want communism either, but those countries that have communist governments are not the same today as the the communist governments of my youth. I say this from going to many of these places myself, not from reading some book. If their people are ok enough with their own government not to throw off the yoke, then why do we need to assume we should?

[Babak Makkinejad]

Perhaps because Russia is strategically invulnerable to the United States and that makes all the difference in the world.

[DianaLC]

I always wonder if the U.S.'s opposition to other nations' desire to have nuclear weapons is, in fact, because of its guilt over having finalized the development of nuclear weapons.

I know all the arguments about how those two bombs ended WWII and , thus, saved lives (except, of course those of the people who were killed by them).

But, really, I do wonder about this possibility of feeling some guilt--and the possibility that our hubris makes us believe we are the only ones who can have them and know when it would be "right" to use them.

[FourthAndLong]

Here's a humorous thought experiment on a "what if Trump had been President instead of Reagan?" at:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-reagan-trump-u-s-s-r-winter-dream

Concluding para:

At that moment, by an oblique association, I imagined what it might have been like if, through some insane fluke of history, Trump, instead of Reagan, had been the American President back when I was a very young man in Leningrad. That, of course, was wild conjecture—a dystopian-slapstick kind of tale. For one thing, Trump most certainly would not have vowed to destroy us, the Soviet Union. Rather, he would repeatedly be calling Brezhnev and Andropov strong leaders and praising their intelligence and their brutal decisiveness in confronting the slightest manifestations of ideological dissent. At infrequent White House press conferences, he would be citing Brezhnev and Andropov’s ninety-nine-per-cent approval ratings among Soviet citizens. “You think we’re so innocent?” he would be saying sardonically, in retort to Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather. “You think we never invaded and occupied other countries, even bigger ones than Afghanistan, or downed some random passenger planes? You think we don’t have thousands of political prisoners in . . . what’s that word you just said, ‘gulag’? Give me a break, will ya? And listen, I think when Andropov calls me brilliant, I’ll take the compliment, O.K.?”

[shepherd]

Re: evidence of Russian meddling. You probably lump together evidence, like Facebook’s admission of Russian ad buying, as a conspiracy of the Borg. After all, isn’t Silicon Valley a hotbed of liberalism? Yes, but you can’t use that to explain this away.

Fake accounts are a HUGE problem on tech platforms, independent of Russia. They significantly undermine the clarity of data, the value of ad buys (which constitute the revenue), and the integrity of the service being provided. Such things has led Chase, P&G, and others to significantly cut back on their spending on these platforms. Facebook and Google haven’t helped, because they are quite opaque about their data around their users and have been caught using funny math in their analytics, as well.

The fact that Google, Twitter, and Facebook have admitted Russian fake accounts and ad buys is significant. They had long denied such things, but the evidence was likely becoming overwhelming to the point that they’d perjure themselves if they withheld it any longer.

Not everything they do reflects their politics. This admission is not good for them in a business sense. As a result of it, there’s a bipartisan bill to regulate political activity on social networks, which is the obvious and expected result. It has long been the position of such networks that the free exchange of ideas—any ideas—is an undeniable force for good. This is actually a self-serving argument. The truth is they don’t like to admit that they are showing significant numbers of ads to bots and fake accounts. They don’t want the headache of determining who is in or out, or regulating ad buys. They don’t want to reveal what their numbers really look like. But now they’re going to get dragged into that stuff whether they like it or not. Russia is a nightmare scenario, because it calls them on their BS and can significantly shift public opinion against them.

Could this have affected the outcome of the election? No one can say that. Tying an ad or a tweet to a vote is impossible. But that’s maybe not the goal anyway.

[DianaLC]

And I wonder if all those young professors and their brainwashed students who so willingly followed Bernie and his idea of a socialist utopia really do understand the problems and the actual injustices that communism and socialism inflict upon the citizens. How could they understand since history is not taught much any more? (It is, after all, lies told by old dead white guys. Or so we are told.)

I am thankful that my great-grandparents and their children escaped Russia at the end of Czar Nicholas' reign and just as the Bolsheviks were starting to come down from the cities into the farming communities of the Volga and of the steppes above the Black Sea that my ancestors had built up so that Russia was actually exporting lots of food. Those farmers were not wealthy, except by the standards of the miserable poor in the cities. They were the people who were called Kulaks. One of my great aunts, who didn't get out, ended up living the rest of her life miserably in Siberia.

So, indeed, we do need to continue the fight against communism and socialism. But, perhaps the fight should be focused on the fight for the minds and hearts of our own young people.

[DianaLC]

"Rocket man" does seem to b much like the little spoiled bully who runs amok and then must be kicked out of the daycare center for hurting other children.

KJU is really frightening to me. I would simply like a well-executed plan to go in and take him out, along with, perhaps, some of his biggest toadies.

[outthere]

I fear zionism far more than communism, it is a far bigger threat to our planet.

quote
In the summer of 2004, a large collection of documents allegedly from a covert Iranian nuclear weapons research program was suddenly obtained by Germany’s foreign intelligence agency. Those documents became the sole alleged evidence that such a program existed. But this writer found more than one telltale sign of fraud in the papers, and a former senior German foreign office official told me on the record in March 2013 that the source who passed on the documents was a member of the Mujihadeen e-Khalq (MEK), the armed Iranian opposition group. The MEK has allegedly worked with Israel’s Mossad for some time.

Neither the Bush administration nor the Trump administration viewed the alleged danger of nuclear proliferation by Iran as the priority problem per se; it was rather an issue to be exploited to weaken the Islamic regime and ultimately achieve regime change. Hilary Mann Leverett, the NSC coordinator in the Persian Gulf from 2001-03, told this writer in a 2013 interview that Wurmser and other Cheney advisors were convinced that the student protests of 1999 indicated that Iranians were ready to overthrow the Islamic Republic. In his statement last week, Trump blamed Obama for having lifted nuclear sanctions on Iran “just before what would have been the total collapse of the Iranian regime.”
endquote
Trump Trashes Iran Deal to Satisfy Netanyahu
U.S-Iran policy is closer to Israel than it has been in years.
By Gareth Porter • October 20, 2017

[outthere]

Bacevich:
quote
To keep insisting upon America’s supposed indispensability—a loaded term that McCain pointedly inserted into his speech—is to become willfully blind to reality.

What makes the present age different? For starters, it’s a multipolar world. The whole post-Cold War conceit of America presiding over the planet as the sole superpower has turned out to be a cruel illusion. So too with the conviction, taken for granted in the wake of Operation Desert Storm back in 1991, that unassailable armed might constitutes America’s trump card.

The grotesque misuse of U.S. military power since then, and especially in the wake of 9/11, finds the United States today mired in multiple conflicts that with the passing of time have become ever more disconnected from any identifiable U.S. interests. Tell me again what those Green Berets were doing in Niger when they were recently ambushed and killed? What exactly is the rationale for the Pentagon conducting air strikes in tiny, pathetic Yemen? How is it that U.S. trained and equipped Iraqi forces are skirmishing with the U.S. trained and equipped Kurdish Peshmerga? By what measure, if any, can it be argued that U.S. military activities in the Persian Gulf for lo these many years have contributed to regional peace and stability? And in which decade of which century can we expect U.S. forces to complete their mission in Afghanistan?

I’m all for Senator McCain laying into President Trump. But let’s be honest about what’s going on here. On the one side, there’s the guy who manifestly knows nothing. On the other, there’s the guy who quite clearly has learned nothing.

Yet strip away the rhetoric and what we have are dueling forms of ignorance, with each party imprisoned by his own illusions. Trump thinks that having run the Trump Organization he can run the world. McCain thinks that running the world is what God or Providence summons the mystical enterprise known as America to do.

That pretty much describes the present-day debate over basic national security policy: It’s egomania pitted against platitudes, individual vainglory versus vainglory on a national scale. Neither side has much regard for evidence.

Trump blasphemes. McCain hews to the Old Time Religion. Is there no third way?
endquote
more here:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/iran-deal-netanyahu-israel-donald-trumps-likudist-campaign-against-iran/

[ISL]

Well, initially, Iran did not fight very well in Syria and was unable to turn the tide. That required the professionalism of the Russian military.

In the process, the SAA has become probably the most professional army in the middle east (not including those that are not middle eastern - aka the US and Russia)while the Israeli's have gotten fat and lazy) - Hezbollah being the main competition.

What I would be most interested in is whether there has been a significant improvement in the Iranian Army's (IRGC) professionalism thanks to the participation in the R+6. I suspect it has.

The discussion at SST of the irregular Russian volunteers in Eastern Ukraine in opposition to the Ukrainian military, was extremely educational in the field of Military Science - something NOT acquired by purchasing expensive tools - aka Saudi Arabia - or being stood up by a foreign gov't (aka Iraqi Army).