The Washington Post describes the guiding philosophy of Barack Obama’s War on Terror or whatever it is now called. It consists of supporting “allies” with large amounts of money, technology and expert advice and drones to carry out low-key operations. The Post writes in an article entitled “U.S. deeply involved in secret Yemeni strikes” that Obama:
has embraced the notion that the most effective way to kill or capture members of al-Qaeda and its affiliates is to work closely with foreign partners, including those that have feeble democracies, shoddy human rights records and weak accountability over the vast sums of money Washington is giving them to win their continued participation in these efforts.
There is considerable potential downside to this strategy. The most obvious is that it involves the US on the side of rulers who may be hated by their populations. Lee Smith in his book The Strong Horse, argues that the “war on terror” — or whatever it is now called — was in many ways an externalization of the Arab/Muslim struggle to resolve their political future. Religious vs secular, democratic vs authoritarian, modern vs traditional. The Bush “freedom agenda” was an attempt to take one side of this debate in an effort to resolve the underlying differences.
The Obama administration has removed America from involvement in those issues and returns it to the traditional approach of dealing with regimes. In an interview with Michael Totten, Lee Smith argued the problem with this approach was that the regimes themselves were the source of terror. They provoked it, supported its currents and rode its waves. Smith said:
Arab anti-Americanism, as I point out in the book, did not begin with the Bush administration, but goes back to the very beginning of our presence in the region and becomes the pre-eminent channel for anti-colonial sentiment after the Suez Crisis of 1956. … Al Qaeda, Islamist terrorism, is a function of states. Yes, it is an ideological movement with its own history and sources and political ambitions that run counter to the current nation-state system of the Arabic-speaking Middle East; but it is a movement that is sustained by Middle Eastern regimes and their intelligence services who use terror organizations to advance their own strategic interests and deter other states from using terror organizations against them.
I can’t repeat this enough because the President needs to understand this. All of us need to understand it. The Bush administration understood it but the lesson seems to have evaporated into thin air with all the confusion and miscommunication that left some Americans with the belief that the White House was claiming Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. But this is not what the administration said, and we know for a fact that Saddam did work with Al Qaeda and with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ayman Zawahiri’s outfit that constitutes the core of the Bin Laden group. But we’re moving away from this understanding and it spells real danger for core American interests and citizens.
If you want to fight Islamist terror you have to go to the heart of the matter and that is Middle Eastern regimes, but this is not what we’re doing now. In fact, we are doing the opposite, counterinsurgency is the opposite of going to the source of the problem. COIN is a losing hand for us. No matter how good the US military gets at counterinsurgency it is never going to have the same sort of success as Arab regimes do. The Arabs can’t win wars, but Arab regimes have never lost to an insurgency, ever.
Just as Pakistani employed the Taliban to do its dirty work, there is the temptation to employ local regimes to do otherwise unpalatable things. What Middle Eastern regimes can inflict that America cannot is unlimited brutality. Smith continues. “Thank God that the Americans will never emulate the tactics of these regimes—the collective punishment, rape, torture and murder that Arab states typically employ to put down insurgencies, but if you don’t do it you will not defeat an Arab insurgency.” But it may be acceptable to let the allied regimes do it. That way the press won’t notice.
Washington still occasionally expresses its displeasure in ways that diplomats understand, but which Middle Eastern regime and populations, always ready to follow the “Strong Horse” do not. Smith says:
Ask people in the Obama administration about Syrian involvement in the Baghdad attacks and they tell you this is why we haven’t sent an ambassador back to Damascus yet. That’s how we punish states that kill our men and women in uniform and target the Arab civilians whose lives are under our protection as an occupying force—we withhold diplomats. Pretty stern stuff, no? Bashar al-Assad must be shaking in his boots.
Analysts can argue back and forth over whether any other course except COIN is possible. But it is fairly certain that the dual of Obama’s new “clean” policy will be a secret war conducted by foreign governments. Since America can no longer take custody of prisoners rendition is back on the menu. Since America no longer sends soldiers to fight al-Qaeda directly that task has been outsourced to Yemen, Pakistan and others. The result will inevitably be a two-track, split-level war on terror — or whatever you want to call it — with a possible political downside.
The democracy agenda is dead for the moment and perhaps worst of all, defunct in an incomprehensible way. The message in the Washington’s return to dealing with governments instead of pursuing an ideological agenda in the region might be intended to convey a desire to leave things to the indigenes. But it may unfortunately be perceived as a betrayal of everyone who dared to take a modernizing, secular and democratic outlook. What America does is often misunderstood and this last twist may be no exception. It remains to be seen whether the democracy agenda will ever be revived. It might, if the current strategy fails. And then maybe everyone, including Washington will remember exactly why they are doing it.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
Currently we give civilian rights to foreign terrorists at home and care not a whit about such niceties abroad.
At least under Bush COIN was employed in defence of democratic principles. What are the principles we are defending now?
OT,
Watching the SOTU, Winky, Blinky and Nod on the podium. “Community” banks? I suspect more cheese for insiders like Rezco and poverty pimps.
From the previous thread: I like the Tocque very much. Works fine for me in Firefox.
God I can’t watch any more of it. The dvr has to take one for the team.
Re: Secret wars and Islamic Jihad — aside from the perks Muslim regimes enjoy with their terror arsenals, terror is a real money maker. How many real dollars does Pakistan actually spend on supporting their terror ops? A few hundred million perhaps? As they ratchet up another installment of their now familiar terror cycle; begin with another deployment of their terror army in Afghanistan, Mumbai, Iraq, etc., followed by another incomplete “crackdown” and feckless “cooperation” with us, their hand shoots out at the other end of the Muslim Murder & Mayhem factory demanding several billion more in direct aid, and billions more in indirect aid (to “fight poverty” or more debt forgiveness, more IMF “development” funds, more! more! more! Islamic shakedowns).
With the price of oil skyrocketing, it’s unclear what we’re getting out of this charade any more. At least we used to get cheep oil, and OUR people didn’t have to die while Islam charmed its votaries. Now our finest die to enshrine Sharia and build more Mosques, and terror and mass Muslim emmigration join the the other black exports from their House of Death.
Morton Doodslag: Cut refiners some antitrust slack. Let them guarantee $80 to $90 a barrel
for all crude oil (or similar refineable substances) produced in the USA and contiguous states for the next 30 years.
Okay maybe only $60 to $70 a barrel but for 50 years.
We will be running a huge surplus in no time at all. Fire-sale the excessive refined products abroad at less cost than those other people can pump crude.
That will cripple Arab/Persian terror logistics better than any 1000 plane raid
ever did to Herr Schickelgruber.
Remember, their capabilities are based on cash, not on industrial output or any other kind of productive output.
Those undesirable regimes will have to either self-immolate or reform.
We will be able to keep gas under $4.00 a gallon and military casualties to more-than-acceptable levels.
As the handlers are rationals who simply hire irrationals, a grand towelheaded gotterdamerung is most improbable although some wannabe attempts can be expected. Quite possibly, one or more of those will hit home
and with a BIG bang. We can lose people but will not lose our capabilities, or our freedom.
Whatsa matter, Mort? Wanna live forever or sumpin?
For those without the Comic book touch, Secret Wars is a well-known Marvel Comics cross-over event. And just as silly.
The idea that a war can (and should) be fought in secret is as laughable as that of Muslims actually living in a Democracy. When they are in fact, Muslim, and thus incapable of it (due to Sharia and Polygamy, together making Democracy impossible). There is NO ZERO ZILCH NADA possibility of Muslims EVER being peaceable and “normal” participants in the rest of the world.
There is none because Polygamy makes young Muslim men with a bit of money (and thus concerns beyond mere day to day survival and avoiding starvation) a seething mass of anger over denial of family and love and marriage. There is no chance of democracy because Muslims to a man believe that God gave them a perfect, unchangeable system (Sharia) and that all laws made by men are both blasphemous and unworkable.
Muslims cannot be peaceable or handle democracy any more than a child of two can handle an AK-47.
The “Secret Wars” are bound to blow up in a supersized version of the attack on Danish Cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (note how a Somali Muslim man targeted him for an obscure cartoon that no Westerner would even care about or notice). Muslims are human but they are NOT LIKE US. Western men do not travel half the globe to kill an obscure Muslim cleric because he said something nasty about the Pope, or Robert Schuller.
We’ll see cities die, or close to it, and the Western response will be broadly: kill enough of them to make them stop fighting (Curtis LeMay) and keep them poor and starving (so they never fight again).
Clearly, the “Secret Wars” rely on the Superhero idea of a few empowered individuals being perfectly right all the time, with superpowers stopping the bad guys. The ability of this with Major Hassan and the Crotch Bomber was zero. Using a few Predator drones to slot a few AQ bad guys who get careless, or make too many enemies (and so are betrayed by their own) is not the answer.
Yes no Muslim regime has EVER lost an insurgency. EVER. But they DO lose wars all the time, that is the trade-off of Islam.
So no, Democracy promotion is off the table because Muslims are incapable of it. Killing masses of Muslims and keeping the rest semi-starving is likely the outcome when not if we lose a city or cities. Eventually (I think dithering to preserve PC over safety will lead to more cities dying — but at some point the Somalis with axes at the door HAVE to be dealt with, and not just shot/arrested, but Somalia itself which means pretty much ALL Somalis, metaphorically, targeted).
As Wretchard noted, there is no margin of safety anymore. Which means a “Roman” approach ala the Second Punic War.
Democracy promotion is off the table because Muslims are incapable of it.
That would be news to Ataturk. http://www.allaboutturkey.com/ataturk.htm
Breathtaking – I so don’t even know where to begin that I won’t even try – political fortunes can reverse as often as the tide, but now that Lord Zero has doubled-down on just about everything, it’s hard to envision a scenario where conservatives won’t make huge gains in 2010 and complete the termination of democrat control of the legislative and executive branches in 2012… I fear for our large port cities…
I’m guessing that HRC (where WAS she tonight?) will resign within the next year, and offer a primary challenge to Obama – never thought I’d ever be willing to consider that to be a possibility…
The dig at the silent SC sitting there on the front row was… I was gobsmacked.
Wow – what an astonishing SOTU – it must have left a crater somewhere.
We need to consider that we, at the Belmont Club, may very well have more intrinsic legitimacy to Middle Easterners than the regimes that govern them. If we give voice to the feelings of Middle Easterners better than even al-Qaeda can, we attain greater legitimacy than even the most respected imams who stay silent. Our freedom of speech is not only a great weapon on our own behalf, but can also mobilize Middle Easterners against not only their own tyrants but also against the so-called “Muslim Brotherhood”.
The “Muslim Brotherhood” so-called is essentially a big Muslim college fraternity. Chances are that the “Muslim Student Association” on your alma mater is a chapter. Al-Qaeda is just an offshoot of that college fraternity. Al-Qaeda is basically a bunch of Muslim frat boys who get their kicks out of murder, torture, and shooting off their mouths. These guys make the fictional “Omegas” look good in comparison.
George W. Bush got elected president of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity at Yale and joined Skull & Bones. Given his allegiance to fraternity tradition, did what came naturally for him. He hazed members of al-Qaeda. In contrast, Barack Obama is more like a student body president who came out of the International Center. A mean-spirited fraternity such as al-Qaeda will never take him seriously.
It is common in the press to assume that the religious barrier is all-powerful. It isn’t. Religion is important, even of paramount importance, but if one is sufficiently educated on religious psychology (and knowledge of Middle Eastern history and culture doesn’t hurt!), it isn’t difficult to figure out how to deal with Muslims. The most important thing to remember is that Muslims are people. As people, they have very human desires.
We ought to consider that, to Middle Easterners, we may have more intrinsic legitimacy as voices of American conscience than our president. It may sound hard to believe that what we say may be taken more seriously in Arab capitals than utterances from the White House, but that is quite possible. We need to stick to our guns and see this war through because if we do not waver in our determination to win, we will win. Our greatest problem isn’t winning, but defining victory.
As a rule, I always assume that our enemies are listening to us. And chances are, they do.
Way OT, perhaps.
Take a look at Breitbart’s Big Government, etc. He has laid a hint that the “Landrieu bugging” may be the ultimate slow con. He references a film to come. It would be sweet to see it all play out this way, so here’s hoping……..
Ataturk was not a Democrat. Far from it, he was an autocrat in the mode of say, Lee Kwan Yew, but without a Chinese populace. Turkey today is lurching into an Islamist state (one man, one vote, one time) that is close to Iran and styling itself after the Islamic Republic of Iran.
What we can say about Turkey after about 80+ years of military-civilian rule is that Ataturk was a failure. His people have rejected secularism and voted for the Islamists who are taking the nation on a path towards Iran’s.
Indeed, look at the Iranians. Educated, wealthy, with a healthy middle class. Who did they install after throwing off the Shah? The Ayatollah Khomeni. The “Green Revolution” is a joke. Oh yes, many decent people died for it. Sincerely believe that they somehow can be capable of ruling themselves decently (and remain Muslim). But nevertheless the Green Revolution is a joke. Because they’ll simply be another set of tyrants and monsters. Perhaps less corrupt to start, but just as Islamic and just as great a threat to the West (with nukes).
Why do Somali men take the trouble to travel half-way around the world to kill obscure Danish Cartoonists? Why do Muslims insist on living among Europeans and Americans, and then DEMAND Sharia and living as if they were in rural Pakistani villages?
Because they are Muslims. Its as simple as that. Belief in Sharia, a core non-negotiable Muslim belief, means Democracy is not possible. Polygamy means tension within alleviated only by attacking the Infidel without.
The idea that Muslims are capable of ruling themselves democratically and being a non-threat akin to say, Chileans, is as laughable as expecting Haitians to produce a high-tech industry.
Lets get real — no Muslim nation has even approached the democratic governance of say, Argentina. Itself a mess.
ANd they said “extraordinary rendition” was wrong.
@9 Alexis
“We ought to consider that, to Middle Easterners, we may have more intrinsic legitimacy as voices of American conscience than our president……Our greatest problem isn’t winning, but defining victory.”
Interesting, isn’t it, that Obama’s SOTU speech paid so much lip service to the spirit of Bush’s ME policy (without giving his predecessor any credit, of course), praising democracy, secularism, etc, while his administration is actually pursuing policies that support autocracy and Islamism? I too believe that this is noted in the Middle East, as is our own resistance
Source: Office of Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
Bill would require FBI, DOJ to consult before ‘Mirandizing’ terrorists
Washington, D.C. – House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) today joined with lead sponsor Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and other House Republicans to introduce legislation requiring the Justice Department (DOJ) to consult with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense before giving terrorists Miranda rights.
The Ensuring the Collection of Critical Intelligence Act of 2010 (H.R. 4503) requires DOJ to consult with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense before Mirandizing or charging a foreign terrorist as a criminal.
“The mishandling of the Christmas Day bomber underscores the need for better cooperation and communication among Department of Justice, Defense, and intelligence personnel,” said Rep. McKeon. “I’m confident we would be in a position to gather valuable information about al-Qaeda’s techniques and capabilities had FBI and DOJ agents been forced to communicate with our intelligence community prior to Mirandizing Abdulmutallab.”
—
Even Carter did not refer to Iran as
“The Islamic Republic of Iran”
Cold Comfort for the revolutionary freedom lovers.
I don’t know if I buy the argument that the only way to win an insurgency is to out-brutalize the insurgents. This is not how we won in Iraq. Maybe it works sometimes, but the press is omnipresent now and the moral position of the counterinsurgent, which is a real thing, not a fiction, would be rapidly undercut. See Abu Ghraib, which involved something akin to hazing and humiliation, not actual brutality. The photos from that incident did a lot to undercut US efforts in Iraq.
Did we win in the Sunni triangle and Anbar through brutality? I don’t use the term “win” lightly, but it is exactly what we did. In that case, we made extraordinary efforts to do exactly the opposite of become as brutal as the Arabs would like to. We created detailed methods of achieving positive ID, in order to reduce the number of civilians killed, we trained very hard on escalation of force for the same reason, we embedded trainers with local forces in order to prevent their committing atrocities or war crimes, we developed means of listening and responding to local grievances instead of giving lectures about how great America was that were tied to no concrete action to make their lives better. “Arabs can’t win wars but Arab regimes have never lost an insurgency, ever,” makes for a nice soundbite, but have they really never lost? If Smith’s argument is that the Arab world spawns terror groups because of the brutality of its governments, then it doesn’t stand to reason that they have never lost. It sounds more as though they have perpetually kicked the can down the road. If there is one thing that does differentiate the Arabs, it is short timeframes — the willingness to act in the moment, on emotion, while shunning prudence and forbearance. It is easy to burn a village or imprison a whole family. But there will be some who escape and who will remember, and they will come and find you, and if they think the US is complicit, they will try to fly planes into our buildings or worse . . . Warfare in the Arab world, like so many things, is based on total domination. But some will forever refuse to submit. Partnering with the locals is a far better strategy than arming them and letting them do whatever they want. The problem is that we have only barely developed the capabilities and understanding necessary to do this.
Counterinsurgency isn’t a cure-all but it’s necessary. And it still seems that there are few who really understand it.
In word-world political speech must touch every word in politics –so we have Clinton and Obama giving 90 minute speeches that last 900 minutes. Oh for a fifteen minute Truly Inspirational!
***
Doug, re the Magic Miranda, do you reckon any of Holder’s law firm partners –the law firm that has represented AQ/Yemen for years –called Holder and told him to shut that skivvybomber up and fast ?
Karzai also has been lobbying for support for a 500 million dollar reintegration programme to offer Taliban who are not Al-Qaeda jobs if they stop fighting. The conference will likely see fresh announcements on the initiative.
The plan has already gained support from countries including the US, Britain and Germany.
Karzai needs support on militant deal
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown also voiced support for the plan which he said could “detach” moderate Taliban from those who are “violently committed” to the movement’s hardline Islamic ideology.
“To weaken the Taliban, you divide them and you offer those people who are prepared to renounce violence… a way out. And that is something that we will do and something that president Karzai wants to do,” Brown said.
Karzai, meeting students with Brown at Downing Street, reiterated that such an offer would only be made to Taliban who are not members of the al-Qaeda network.
The plan is also reported to have gained support from Japan and the United States although US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, emphasised in London that al-Qaeda would have to be excluded.
“There is an American red line, and it is al-Qaeda. There cannot be any negotiation if they don’t renounce al-Qaeda because those people cannot be negotiated with,” he said.
The reconciliation push and UN’s removal of five Taliban from a sanctions list are seen as confidence-building measures for eventual peace talks, a diplomat said, with Karzai previously holding out the possibility of government posts for Taliban who lay down their weapons.
Good to see you back Luddy!
Feared you had decided to excercise your Miranda rights!
“Anything you say in support of Traditional American Values can be held against you!”
—
One undeniable feature of the Fruit of Kaboom pantybomb:
It is a Sure cure for constipation.
Literally Blows the Crap Out of You.
Doug, before you believe a word out of Holbrooke, please read up on him, starting with East Timor. This Enron board member and Kofi ‘oil-for-food’ Annan savior actually represents the nearest bag o swag, as near as i can tell –either that or the masonic conspiracy (see his Credite Suisse and UBS connections) or maybe –since he suspended the US military’s poppy interdiction program in Afghanistan, just the good old traditional mafia, evidently doing so well lately that Reuters can’t ignore it completely.
Anyhoo, watch what happens with Holbrooke 2012 –note that Hillary skipped SOTU –scheduling is the front story, the fake backstory you’re spose to bleeve is ‘Hill & Obam are contending over 2012′, while the real backstory is ‘Obama Rex wrecks, then hands off to Hill who will absorb the anti-O vote and keep Socialist America 2012-2020 rolling ‘forward’. –imho.
Anyhoo, his catagorical denial of AQ being signatory to a peace treaty –can anything be more transparently grandstanding –as if AQ has AQ branded on their forheads in eight-inch type –jeez, why can’t these people stop the BS and play straight ? Why? becuz there’s no graft and influence peddling in it.
(naw, no miranda omerta, i’ve been around –but as mongo santamaria or mongo –my handle no workee very well on PJM –rejects half the time –dunno why –starting to think its me gmail email addy getting tossed out)
In my view all tyrannies are doomed in the long run; and brutality, while seemingly advantageous, is going to fail in the end. I agree with Josh Manchester that “partnering with the locals is a far better strategy than arming them and letting them do whatever they want. The problem is that we have only barely developed the capabilities and understanding necessary to do this.”
I would have thought that the chief lesson Iraq was that it was possible to beat an enemy without using unlimited brutality. But I think the political system hasn’t really bought into it. It pocketed the achievements of the last administration, surreptitiously like Captain Renault taking home his casino winnings at Rick’s, but until recently a lot of Western intellectuals have argued that Anbar was a failure; that America was defeated in Iraq; that partnering with with the locals was tantamount to “buying them off” and that the West was better off withdrawing and responding with military assistance programs and UAVs. But as the President’s emphasis in the SOTU speech that “I promised to end the War in Iraq” suggests, Iraq is that rarest of things: an orphaned victory.
I think a lot of Lee’s arguments are driven by the sense of a lost opportunity; that for one moment the Arab democrats thought they were on the side of the Strong Horse. I remember those emotional instances when we were in a room with literally hundreds of Shia who when asked “how many of you approved of the toppling of Saddam Hussein by US forces” raised their hands. Maybe Iraq will be an even rarer kind of victory; one that only Arabs will understand and that, in secret.
At the risk of putting words in his mouth (I hope Lee chimes in here and sets me straight), I don’t think he is an advocate for the strategy of brutality so much as describing its attractions, at least to those who are seduced by its superficial appeal. It may be that many who thought Iraq was a defeat are now driven by their own belief that OIF was immoral into the policy of relying on Arab proxies and their brutal methods instead of painstaking partnering. The reductio ad absurdum of the proposition that “America can never defeat an insurgency or terrorism” is the necessary reliance on men you can never command, or even cajole, but deal with through channels.
I still have on my desk a sample of craft product that a Europeanized Shia woman made as a business. Its gay colors and happy slogans contrast sharply with the ethos of the Hezbollah, in whose world she lives and will probably be doomed to live in to the end of her days. Maybe the democracy agenda was a dream too good to last. The First Cavalry comes to rescue only a very few in history. As for the rest, freedom must be bought the old way: by sacrifice and effort in a culture where brutality is unrestrained. The Arabs and the Muslims must free themselves; as maybe Americans must do periodically, in their own inscrutable and particular ways.
Iran, Vietnam in the 50′s, The Bay of Pigs, the Congo, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, Nicaragra, Columbia, et. al.
For 60 years the rallying cry of the Left has been opposition to our covert operations around the world.
And today, with Cold War won and long over, and the biggest leftist ever in the White House and a radicalized Democratic Party in charge of the Congress, they suddenly discover the virtues of such activity.
When the USSR existed such covert operations allowed opposition to Communist takeover attempts while avoiding a direct confrontation between two nuclear-armed superpowers.
Today such covert efforts enable the Left to avoid a direct confrontation with itself over its own view of the world.
They still plan to dance atop that hilltop, dressed in national costumes and handing out Cokes to everyone for free.
But the next hilltop over it is not an old Coke commercial that’s playing but the new film, Predator Versus Alien Philosophies.
RWE: that last bit of yours was brilliant! Like a nice brandy, sharp and then warming…
I’m all for letting the rest of the world earn their own freedoms. We’re going to have to again, our own selves and should be focusing on that first, we can be the friends of liberty once our own is secured.
Nyquist (in January 2009) channels Buchanan:
The official position of the United States in its “war against terror” is not imperialist. It is something worse. In fact, we need a new word to describe it – and a new set of understandings to see our way out of it. If you read President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, you will discover its foundation. According to President Bush, “We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
The president’s statement is logically correct, but strategically nonsensical. While the “expansion of freedom” is desirable for America, it is prohibitively costly and beyond our capabilities. It antagonizes every despot on the planet, and causes them to join with our enemies. In the Middle East, Bush’s policy of spreading democracy has a destabilizing effect. It promises nothing less than revolutions and civil wars. This, in turn, could disrupt oil supplies – promising ruin to the developed world. If the West suffers economic collapse due to chaos in the Persian Gulf, democracy may not survive anywhere. In that event, the attempt to spread democracy could actually destroy democracy.
As to whether Bush’s policy signifies “imperialism,” it clearly does not fit the definition – though it comes very close. Bush is not advocating “the extension of control, dominion or empire….” He is advocating the extension of popular control through “democratic” institutions. In accomplishing this “popular control” the use of American ground forces becomes necessary in order to suppress non-democratic elements. Now that this is supposedly accomplished in Iraq, the American forces are set to leave. Once again, this is not imperialism. In fact, it is liberalism run amok.
Wow that Lee Smith interview was terrific. The only problem with his theory is that it may be the case that COIN is chosen as a strategy, whatever its faults, not because the USA cannot confront the state intelligence services of Syria, Iran and the rest, but because it cannot confront the true sponsor, Russia and its SVR and GRU, so that toppling every crappy regime in the Middle East and South Asia would expose us to absolutely colossal political attacks, allowing the SVR/GRU to outfit entire terrorist *armies* rather than networks. Russia has already publicly positioned itself as the ultimate international guarantor of Hezbollah and HAMAS, for example, not to mention the obvious sponsor of Iran; how difficult would it be to justify itself as the new anti-American power in toto, simply aiding and arming the anti-imperialist struggle against the Americans and Zionists? Just as they have done since (at least) 1956, as Lee Smith himself points out but fails to develop? Has he never heard of the close relationship between Yevgeni Primakov and Saddam Hussein, for example? Until we figure out a way to bring this relationship out in the open – say after a successful “revolution” in Iran – this problem will continue to eat our lunch domestically and internationally, a global American retreat will be one “loose nuke” in NYC away.
I actually think this problem is understood in the Pentagon, Langley, and even Foggy Bottom. COIN is a holding pattern, just as TARP is a holding pattern. The leaders are flummoxed. The predators are licking their chops. And of course everything is so much easier for them with the Cominform’s useful idiot on the American throne.
Seems whenever we (a free people) take the easy path, things end badly. On this topic we again have a choice between adult and forthright behavior (taking responsibility and acting according to our principles) or the behaviors of a (rich and spoiled) child. With Mr. Bush I could hold my head high and know that I would largely make the same decisions and be able to sleep with consequences (most often between bad and worse choices).
Now, not so much. Elections can’t come too soon.
… yes, I believe every citizen in a democracy is responsible for what its government does, a curse not seen in less free states.. This is one of the reasons I would like a minimum of government, doing only those things a government must do, v. can do (even when others do whatever so very poorly, free-will & markets, et al..).. So I can sleep easier..
Dan @ #23 gets it.
“If you want to fight Islamist terror you have to go to the heart of the matter and that is Middle Eastern regimes”
NO, Middle Eastern ‘rogue’ regimes are NOT the “heart of the matter”, at least not for the West. They are merely another layer of the ‘onion’ that is Islamic Terrorism.
Russia is actively enabling Islamic terrorism and directly promoting nuclear proliferation among unstable third-world nations, from Iran to Venezuela.
China is covertly enabling Islamic terrorism by blocking any effective international actions/sanctions against the rogue nations in the UN.
They are using Islamic terrorism as a covert strategy of aggression against the West, most specifically the US and their goal is, most immediately, a reduction in US regional influence. They also anticipate the possible closing off of US access to Middle Eastern oil, by a nuclear-armed Iran seizing the Strait of Hormuz . Which, incidentally would amount to an economic act of war. The prce of oil would skyrocket and the economic effects would be devastating to the US and West.
Long term, the goal is a successful Islamic terrorist attack(s), using WMD’s against US cities to force the US into a new policy of retreat and isolationism. Should Obama and the democrats succeed in turning the US into Europe-lite; that moves them just that much closer to a domestic conversion of the US into a communist nation.
Anyone who thinks that either Putin’s ‘covert’ KGB leadership or China’s overt Communist leadership prioritizes economic values over their communist ideology is engaged in willful denial. Men such as they value power above all else.
Many other nations, such as France, Canada, etc. are blocking UN sanctions by promoting a ‘strategy’ of appeasement.
Limiting the discussion of Islamic terrorism to Al Qaeda, other terrorist networks, radical Imams and rogue nations, all of which are components of Islamic terrorism… without acknowledging the geo-political factors; nations who out of ideological opposition to the West, support and enable the continuance of Islamic terrorism’s infrastructure, dooms the discussion to irrelevance.
“I can’t repeat this enough because the
PresidentCongress needs to understand this. All of us need to understand it.”maybe Obama’s strange air of triumphalism is along the lines of, the USA from say 1945 – 2005 was so far out in front of the rest of the world as far as the wealth generation, the magnetic ‘time-is-on-our-side’ ideology, the fun pop culture, the generations-ahead tech & mil tech, and so forth, that our mere being has more or less amounted to an accidental subversion attack on the rulers of the big rivals, and now that we’re sufficiently ‘creed over deed’ self-compromised (having displaced free market rigor, virtue, and merit with second and third and old world crony capitalism and cults of personality and cargo) PEACE might break out because nobody has a worthy opponent anymore?
***
GB/25; clearly you’ve noted the smoking hole in the middle of a capital city is in faraway New York and not closer-in Moscow or Beijing.
Wretchard — Why are tyrannies doomed in the long run? Look at the Muslim world, when has it EVER been ruled by one tyrant after another. The tyrant and dynasty may change, but not the tyranny. Tyranny is the default human mode of organization. We are drawn to it. Desire it. Come to it almost every time, unless by a lucky accident we can break free and for a short time maintain (relative) freedom. The course of Human History shows tyranny for about 90% of the time for 90% of the people.
Iraq’s lesson is that America will not and cannot sustain more than say, 500 casualties. And that we are not able or willing to do anything between “nuke them all” and supine surrender. It is NOT “brutality” vs. “niceness” and all that. It is instead the lack of America’s will to fight in the open, against enemies, and topple hostile regimes. Iraq’s current regime is better than Saddam’s (though still Muslim) and the people there are better off. More importantly, the oil is flowing and a strategic threat to US securing of the Gulf Oil Lanes and fields is removed, and an example made.
But the US political system consensus is that the price was too high, we won’t pay it again, and when not if the US is hit with thousands-millions of US dead our response will be to “nuke them all.” Since the use of proxy forces pretty much guarantees failure and the sort of accommodation that Pakistan has made with Jihadis.
Tyranny is doomed in the long run because it is not a condition of nature. When we say that we are endowed with inalienable rights it is not just a figure of speech, but a literal truth, in my belief. Man is free. And he derives that freedom from the fact that he is. That can never be rescinded because reality and not tyrants rule. They cannot long maintain their hold over a chaotic system no matter how much brutality they apply. Think of it this way: the future hasn’t happened yet no matter how much people try to control the past.
The fact that tyrants keep trying isn’t proof that tyranny works. It’s proof that tyrants don’t give up. History is littered with failed attempts. In evolution as much as software starups most experiments are doomed to flop. But the characteristic of a society that is free is that it understands that man has liberty within the bounds that nature, or if you prefer, the Creator, has set. It puts the sources of freedom and authority in the right places. And because it gets it correctly it will ultimately succeed. And just as nature produced billions of monstrosities before it created a creature who could think, history will produce tyrannies in the thousands for every bright spark it throws up. But it is the bright spark that matters. As Naseem Taleb once wrote, it is the exception that carries the most information.
That’s just another way of restating that old saw: that a government of the people, for the people and by the people shall never perish from the face of the earth. Freedom will win.
#28,
Sorry, Wretchard but I can not fully agree, your comment is filled with wishful thinking, though paradoxically, I do agree that Freedom shall win.
Tyranny is part of the human condition and certainly part of nature. If not, then how do you account for the alpha male?
Inalienable rights are a presumption that rests upon a central premise; that they are granted to mankind by a beneficent divinity. One that created the operational laws or reality within which we have our existence. I accept that premise but no one can prove it.
Men are only as free as either their personal strength and resources make them or as the social consensus within which they live allows. Were we in China, we would all be in jail or dead, and what then of our “inalienable” rights?
Freedom certainly can be rescinded, just look to the Wiemar republic and the rise of the Nazi party. If it can happen in one country, why not in another? And if it can happen in any country, why not in all countries?
As for tyrants inability to rule over ‘chaotic systems’, I must dispute that assertion upon two levels; a society may temporarily experience chaos but it is not a ‘chaotic system’ because human beings naturally self-organize themselves into social groups. Tyrants often use chaotic periods to seize control but many people embrace the order that the tyrant imposes, because order is highly valued by humanity.
History is filled with tyrants and their tyrannical heirs who ruled for many, many generations. In such a regime, brutality certainly has its place but ensuring that key groups have a vested interest in supporting the regime is critical. As example, Saddam ruled quite effectively and key to that rule was providing the minority Sunni population with a vested interest in the status quo. He lost power as the result of outside interference not because his tyranny lacked sustainability.
The fact that tyrants keep trying or more accurately, keep emerging is proof that the human race keeps producing psychopaths and sociopaths, their success is proof that selfishness and greed and domination is part of the human condition and that appeasement and compliance is valued more highly as a survival tactic than fighting for freedom..
A society that is free is one that has accepted the premise that my ‘rights’ stop where yours begin and vice versa. All else is but details.
All this said, I do agree that it is “the bright spark that carries the most information” and that ultimately, cooperation among equals, triumphs over competition between those who seek total domination.
That brutal competition is as responsible for tyranny’s failure as any other factor because in such a tyrannical system there is no built-in-margin for learning from one’s mistakes. Fail a Saddam and, you’re quickly 6 feet under… is not a formula for building a truly professional organization and sociopath’s and psychopath’s psychological dysfunction do not make for successful long-term decision making.
I contend, that in the end, it is and will be tyranny’s dysfunction that is as much responsible for its failure, as the inherent superiority of Freedom.
w/28; can’t help but note your closing from the Gettysburg Address was spoken in commemoration of a cemetery for a dozen thousand farm boys become citizen soldiers who died testing (in Lincoln’s words elsewhere in th GA) whether those words could be made to be true.
#27,
“Tyranny is the default human mode of organization. We are drawn to it. Desire it.”
Not so. Or at least not for the many who reject tyranny. Good and evil exist in every man and a native-American allegory provides useful commentary; “a white and a dark wolf exist in every man, which wolf we feed determines the course of our lives.”
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.” Abraham Lincoln
“Chester” – Josh Manchester:
I would like to express my often-repeated opposition to hazing, both on college campuses and in American-controlled prisons. This is a stance that has historically made me unpopular with several commentators at the Belmont Club.
I think we need a different approach from both the fraternity president and the postmodern slacker. We need the equivalent of a strong university chancellor – even a good dean of arts and sciences would do – and a good “dean of students” would be nice too. The key is to have someone with “faculty” credentials who can turn people throughout the world against a bunch of Saudi frat boys.
There is one thing I strongly like about George W Bush – he fights. Although I don’t agree with many of the things he has done, his willingness to fight against our enemies is important. Unfortunately, George W Bush took an “Uncle Sam can take care of this for you” attitude that has left too many Americans thinking that winning this war hasn’t been their responsibility. If there is any silver lining to our present situation, it is that we are discovering how there are times when the people must lead and our leaders must follow.
Perhaps we can lead.
I don’t think the superiority of freedom arises from merely moral grounds. It arises from practical grounds. Freedom is a better way to live simply because it is not subject to any arbitrary constraint. It has more potential. Artificial constraints create a suboptimal solution.
Lincoln conjectured the truth of this but the proof of it would be its ultimate victory. “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war.”
Of course the proof was incomplete. We can extend the idea though to say that history is great experiment to see whether a society conceived and dedicated to freedom can long endure. It will pass through many battle fields and be defeated on many of them. But over the long run, in deep time, it will succeed more often than not.
George Orwell believed it was possible to plant a boot in a human face forever. Our own redoubtable Buddy Larsen thinks or believes it is unlikely that any secret police can outlast the solar system. Two conjectures, and I think that in this case Buddy Larsen is right and George Orwell is wrong.
For those of us who live, not in deep time, but in human time the choices are clear. How do we want to live the short years we have on earth? Although logic says I should be agnostic about whether freedom or tyranny wins in the long run, I realize that one can’t sit on the fence in real life. So we make our wagers. Our lives are a round of ammunition with a shelf-life whether fired or not. I think we should aim high. We have nothing to lose.
w/33; that frame of mind demands finding one’s own acceptable answer to ‘so, what’s the worst that can happen?’ it’s really the ‘to be or not to be?’ question. It’s what you can talk a person down off the ledge with: “So, if life is that unimportant, why bother to end it?” Like the great Czech film title “the unbearable lightness of being”. People like orwell –or you, wretchard –who try to shine a light in the dark, are first and foremost embodiments of hope, because regardless they may write of depression, danger and darkness, the writing is itself an act of life –something despair can’t do. “Homage to Catalonia” Si!, homage to catatonia No!
tyranny is the more common form of social organization because (1) hierarchy is natural, and (2) power tends to be centripital. these facts ramify one another. the solution is an enforceable separation of powers structure, where the enforcing mechanism is juridical and procedural rather than violent. unfortunately there is no structure but that it is administered by men, who are creatures of (1) and (2). thus the brevity of republics throughout the record. one cannot count on the grace of a general washington prevailing for too long. but we have made a stupendous run of it – perhaps there is something to the criticism that accretions of power reflect curable and correctible habits and traditions bequeathed from the olden times. there is something in me that ultimately doubts it, unfortunately. but i sympathize with your positions, gentlemen. there is no need to confuse the soviet model with tyranny as such, though. it is enough that human venality is just below the surface, notably in those people whose personalities and circumstances impel them toward sovereignty of one form or another.
it has to be that way tho –the human venality just below the surface is our free will. to me, that’s the mystery of mystries –how such a gene ever sparked.
About the only proxy wars the US was involved with that haven’t ended up with US-trained, most definitely not endorsed by the US, death squads begin a campaign against their own citizens was probably Colombia. But even there a lot of the money was either stolen or used to kill enemies. Real and imaginary. If you give away money through good intentions then prepare to have the recipient behave according what this money will allow him to do. And as such then there will have to be trainers, logistical support and clandestine troops involved to acheive any realistic goals. But that involvement seems an anthema to Pres Obama and Brezhinsky who figure that cash and technology will turn the tide.