The Confidence of the One

Readers will probably not be surprised to learn that the administration’s new counterterrorism model is the campaign against al-Shabab.  Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post says that “President Obama has cited the battle against al-Shabab militants in Somalia as a model of success for his relatively low-investment, light-footprint approach to counterterrorism.” Jaffe adds “this week’s massacre of 148 people at Garissa University College, the deadliest terrorist attack on Kenyan soil in two decades, demonstrates the limits of the administration’s approach and the difficulty of producing lasting victories over resilient enemies.”

It may reassure the reader to learn that the former administration template for success was Yemen. The Washington Post article recalls that “only last fall, Obama was touting his counterterrorism strategy in the region as one that ‘we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.’”  How did it fall apart just when it attained perfection, like some house of cards collapsing under the final fillip?

The Moving Finger continues to guide Obama’s pen, teleprompter and phone in what he believes is a direction of progress. Speaking of his controversial framework deal with Iran with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times the president expressed a serene confidence that despite raucous warnings to the contrary, Tehran could easily be handled. ‘Iran cannot fight us,’ he said. And even America is sucker-punched he believed it could easily shrug off the blow.

We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that’s the thing … people don’t seem to understand,” the president said. “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. … You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.

After all if America beat the Soviet Union, why should it worry about Iran?  Of course Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama may be two different quantities, a subject to which we will return later. But expressing her indignation at the doubters, Diane Feinstein told reporters, “I wish that he [Netanyahu] would contain himself, because he has put out no real alternative,” Feinstein said on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.'”

Just sit back and watch. David Rothkop of Foreign Policy  has been watching and impertinently suggested name for Obama’s new Middle Eastern doctrine:  “Operation Charlie Foxtrot”. It is brutally descriptive. He writes, “the entire Middle East is at war right now, and the Obama administration’s strategic incoherence is aiding and abetting the chaos.”

The situation in the region is unprecedented. For the first time since the World Wars, virtually every country from Libya to Afghanistan is involved in a military conflict. (Oman seems to be the exception.) The degree of chaos, uncertainty, and complexity among the twisted and often contradictory alliances and enmities is mind-boggling. America and its allies are fighting alongside Iran to combat the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria but in Yemen, the United States and many of those same regional partners are collaborating to push back Iranian-backed Houthi forces. …

The indignant comments of American Gen. Lloyd Austin this week denouncing the idea that he might ever command troops that would fight alongside Shiite militias after their treatment of Americans during the Iraq War were moving. But they rang hollow given that they hung on a semantic deception. The world knows that America is providing air support for Iranian-led, Shiite-militia-backed, Iraqi-supported forces in the war against IS in that country. They know that for all the talk of America’s coalition, Iran is gaining more influence in Baghdad because they are willing to put boots on the ground. That is why it is not Austin but Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani who is celebrated as a hero in and around the Shiite and even in the Kurdish regions of Iraq. Do not think this reality, denials aside, has not fed the growing and acute distrust of the Obama administration among some of our most vital allies in the Gulf, in Egypt, and elsewhere.

But such misgivings did not seem to worry the White House. In fact, the Associated Press said that administration officials announced they were on the verge of a “forever agreement” with Tehran. “The White House deployed Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz – a nuclear physicist – to offer a scientific defense of a deal that Moniz said would block all Iranian pathways to a nuclear weapon. He described the emerging deal as a ‘forever agreement,’ disputing skeptics who contend it would merely delay Iran’s progress toward a bomb.”

“Forever” may be the length of time American citizens trapped in Yemen may have to wait for succor. The Guardian reports that “Americans in Yemen fear they have been left behind as bombing escalates. Despite having three navy ships in nearby waters, US has not evacuated civilians from Yemen, many of whom have travelled to port city of Aden seeking rescue, US citizens trying desperately to leave war-torn Yemen fear they have been left to their fate by their own government as fighting escalates between rebel fighters and Washington’s allies.”

By contrast, “China, India, Pakistan and Somalia have sent ships and planes to evacuate their citizens trapped in Yemen” according to the International Business Times. These countries may harbor doubts over Obama’s new models, Saudi Arabia’s military efforts in Yemen (which the administration is supporting) among them.  Things do not appear to be going well. A few days ago, the Kingdom asked for warships, planes and soldiers from Pakistan, which will reluctantly comply with its benefactors in Riyadh, despite the risks to themselves. The New York Times reports:

“Saudi Arabia has asked for combat planes, warships and soldiers,” Asif said, without specifying where Saudi wanted them deployed.

Arif Rafiq, a Washington-based adjunct scholar with the Middle East Institute, said earlier Pakistan was hoping to satisfy Saudi expectations at a “minimal” level.

“They’re unlikely to be part of any meaningful action inside Yemen,” he told Reuters. “Maybe they will reinforce the border.”

Sharif owes the Saudis. Endemic tax dodging means Pakistan needs regular injections of foreign cash to avoid economic meltdown. Last year, the Saudis gave Pakistan $1.5 billion. Saudi Arabia also sheltered Sharif after he was overthrown in a 1999 military coup.

But joining the Saudi-led coalition could inflame a sectarian conflict at home where about a fifth of the population is Shi’ite and attacks on Shi’ites are increasing, further destabilizing the nuclear-armed nation of 180 million people.

Pakistani intervention would probably also anger Shi’ite power Iran, which shares a long and porous border in a region roiling with its own separatist insurgency.

The risks to Pakistan may include being on the losing side.  The Saudis, according to the press, have inflicted widespread damage on Yemeni civilians but the rebels are still advancing.  They are alienating their friends without defeating their actual enemies. Barak Barfi in the National Interest believes that Saudi Arabia’s Arab Alliance is a paper tiger, or rather a rent-an-army, which will soon be worn down, scattered and defeated by the more professional Iranian backed forces.

From Lebanon to Syria via the Palestinians, Iranians proxies have defeated groups backed by the Saudis. The preferred Saudi strategy of showering surrogates with cash has been no match for the Iranians, who prize combat prowess. Iranian proxies are seasoned in guerrilla warfare. Groups such as Hizballah, which have fought Israel to a standstill, have much to offer the Houthis….

Yet, in past conflicts with the Houthis, the Saudis fared poorly. In 2009-2010, the Saudis launched an air campaign against them that resulted in more than a hundred casualties and dozens of prisoners of war. This time, to shore up their military shortcomings, the Saudis assembled a ten-nation coalition, with Egypt as its head. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has pledged to send ground troops to aid the Saudi air campaign. Though Egypt has the most powerful Arab military force, that is a low bar in a region where an Arab-led army has not defeated a non-Arab army since the 9th century.

Whether you believe the prediction or not, Barfi’s point is that competence matters;  that Saudi money and apparent power alone are not enough to beat Iran.  A gun may be of the finest, yet still need a man to aim it. This is the possible flaw in Obama’s argument that he can lead with his chin against America’s enemies and laugh off their best shots.   Obama may lose to the foe despite his advantages because of his incompetence. While the president may vaunt America’s strength it is equally apparent that by almost any measure, that strength has been declining ever since he set foot in office.

He is like an aristocrat who inherited a great fortune and done nothing but lose money at cards since he assumed the title, spending his hours presenting the high presence when not busy at golf. Now, even as he boasts of his still considerable wealth, Obama appears to remain carelessly indifferent to the foes who have driven him out of Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.  He is going to play against the same people who beat him in the past, yet without taking any special precautions, is confident of victory this time.

Why?  Perhaps Friedman should have asked the president, “besides America strength, which you did not create, from where else do you derive your confidence? Is there some success you’re not telling us about?”  We will be assured that these successes exist in abundance in some secret archive, though  under seal together with his school records.  We’ll have to take it on faith, What Jaffe called “the limits of the administration’s approach” are after all the limits of Obama’s mind.  And the limits of that mind are a closely guarded secret.

There is preserved in the Naples Museum a fragment of the Alexander Mosaic which depicts the dramatic defeat of the Persian Darius at the hands of Alexander in Gaugamela. Entering the battlefield Alexander was heavily outnumbered, his forces at the very end of their supply line facing a mighty Persian army which had months to prepare the field, and which had even built lanes for its mighty war-chariots.

The outcome should have been forgone. But Alexander had one critical advantage over Darius. He knew his business.  Alexander was one of history’s great commanders.  Darius, by contrast did not even rise to the level of mediocrity.

If one considers the conditions and starting position from which Alexander launched his attack on the vastly superior Persian empire, the question of how Alexander achieved victory over the mighty Persian army arises again and again. This victory came as such a surprise to the self-confident Persians that Darius, for example, had brought members of his family with him to Issus, including his heavily-pregnant wife, who then fell into the hands of Alexander.

The mosaic provides us with an answer to this question, representing not just an artistic masterpiece, but also an historical insight into the chain of events leading to Alexander’s victory.

The middle of the picture is compositionally and morally dominated” (Curtius) by Darius (1). Eyes widened in horror, he looks to the left, as a kinsman of his bodyguard is pierced by Alexander’s spear (2). The dying man’s right hand is still gripping the deadly weapon, as though he wished to pull it out of his body, but his body is already collapsing onto the bloody corpse of his black horse. The sympathetic but uselessly-extended right hand and the uncomprehending stare of Darius are directed towards the fatally struck man, who has thrown himself between him and the oncoming Alexander. The gaze and gesture of Darius are however also directed towards the approaching Alexander (3). The Persian king is not himself fighting, and is therefore already the passive victim of the general horror.

In contrast, the Macedonian king is actively directing the battle. From astride his Bucephalus (4), he strikes the enemy through the body with his spear, without so much as a glance at his victim. His widened eye is trained on Darius; even the Gorgon on his breastplate turns her view sideways to the horrified enemy, as if she wanted to increase the suggestive power of this eye.

If Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria are any guide, Obama’s “model” nuclear agreement may be a similar bust.  Even the fact that he never ceases to talk about the glittering possibilities of that “once in a lifetime deal” with Iran is vaguely disturbing, reminiscent of those people who are almost stock characters who prattle on about some “sure thing” — a gold mine, undervalued stock, perpetual motion machine or some Nigerian bank transfer — they learned about down at the corner, eagerly pawning their property and borrowing all the money they can to make the Big Bet.  These are people who in reality about to be taken to the cleaners, cheated, or rolled in the ditch when they leave the building.  It is, as I have written elsewhere, almost too painful to watch.

For a fool and his money are soon parted. Iran has waited nearly 2,400 years to get their revenge against the West for Gaugamela. Maybe Obama will give them their chance, as the men who remember the Alamut go up against the man who has forgotten the Alamo.

Recently purchased by readers:
How to Make Money Selling Stocks Short
Pharaoh’s Boat, With poetic language and striking illustrations, Weitzman tells the story of how one of the greatest boats of ancient Egypt came to be built—and built again.
How to Make Money in Stocks: A Winning System in Good Times and Bad, Fourth Edition

Possibly worth buying:
Hungry Planet: What the World Eats
Thunder Below!, The USS *Barb* Revolutionizes Submarine Warfare in World War II [Kindle Edition]
The Last Refuge, Yemen, al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia
Understanding Iran, Everything You Need to Know, From Persia to the Islamic Republic, From Cyrus to Ahmadinejad
ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror
Darius in the Shadow of Alexander
The Ismaili Assassins, describes a unique way of waging war and shows how assassination and fifth-column infiltration became the key weapon for the Ismailis.

Did you know that you can purchase some of these books and pamphlets by Richard Fernandez and share them with you friends? They will receive a link in their email and it will automatically give them access to a Kindle reader on their smartphone, computer or even as a web-readable document.
The War of the Words for $3.99, Understanding the crisis of the early 21st century in terms of information corruption in the financial, security and political spheres
Rebranding Christianity for $3.99, or why the truth shall make you free
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99, reflections on terrorism and the nuclear age
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99, why government should get small
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99. Fiction. A flight into peril, flashbacks to underground action.
Storm Over the South China Sea $0.99, how China is restarting history in the Pacific
Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the Belmont Club