Romney supporters and Thompson supporters who switched to Romney are now decrying the current state of the GOP and clamoring that there are now true conservatives left. The have either not heard of Ron Paul or have drunk to deeply of the spin that Ron Paul is not a real conservative because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He is not anti-War, no president has been or ever can be. He is not eve opposed to the war against terrorism or the war in Afghanistan. He is just opposed to the war in Iraq.
And so, despite the misconception of some conservatives, there is still Ron Paul who is 100% conservative on all issues including going after bin Laden and his network in Afghanistan and the rest of the world. He has only refused to adopt the revised notion of interventionism as compatible with conservatism. The one that Bush claimed to support when he was inaugurated. The same notion that told us to oppose Clinton’s war against Serbia, which as a by-product helped foster the growth of radical Islam in the Balkans.
Remember how Reagan responded to the terrorist bombing of our embassy in Lebanon? He withdrew the troops and as a result, attacks against Americans stopped. The next round of terrorist attacks against the U.S. didn’t renew until someone had the bright idea of permanently deploying troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. For some strange reason, all of the troops were withdrawn after the 9/11 attacks from the very country where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. That is because we know that our military bases there did nothing to stop terrorism.
Terrorism can’t be stopped with conventional military forces. Putting our troops on the ground in Iraq just makes them targets. The next terrorist attack against the U.S. is being plotted inside of safe, stable countries and inside of private houses. The only way to fight them is through intelligence gathering and special forces to identify and destroy them quietly. A permanent military occupation of every country in Asia does nothing but drain the treasury and make our troops targets for anyone with a gun.
Ron Paul has never blamed America and has always supported going after those who have attacked us. He has only questioned the current tactics we are employing and for this he has been smeared as a coward and unpatriotic. If you want to send a message to the GOP that we are sick of watered-down conservatism, vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Otherwise your vote will either be considered support for McCain’s ameliorating moderation or the an affirmation of the “progressive” movement’s desire to control every aspect of our economic and social lives.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Iraq? What Iraq?
Dem voters no longer fight battle of Iraq
As predicted, the dems are no longer worried about Iraq. We should hardly be surprised since the front-runner, Clinton, is just a culpable as any neo-con for this tragedy that has no end in sight. However, since it will be more of a burden to Clinton than to any of her Republican challengers, the issue has gone away. Or at least it has gone away from the Iowa campaign and among top democratic insiders. They know the issue will bite them in the fall of 2008 if Hillary is their candidate.
The question though is why Obama is pursuing the strategy he is pursuing. His advocating an invasion of Pakistan to show that he is tough on...well tough enough to declare war for no reason...seems to be for the sake of looking like he is not afraid to declare war or use force...however poorly formulated the policy or tragic the results. It shows he is looking toward the fall of 2008 and that this is not just a test run. That may be why he is not exploiting the one issue that would allow him to trounce Hillary among the anti-war left. But perhaps he already has these votes and doesn't need to remind voters of the fact.
Hillary has been suffering in the polls lately, but her numbers are still strong. If the majority of democratic voters had any integrity (you remember, the ones opposed to the war and who wanted to impeach Bush 15 minutes after he took office) they would be savaging Hillary for her vote and abandoning her in droves. But just like politics in the GOP, personality trumps issues and principles. Granted, every candidate makes sure to massage the voter bases soft spots on the way to making the kill, but few, if any, have actually results to show. Most do the exact opposite of what they say because it has helped to ensure their re-election. Democrats move the right, Republicans to the left. The side that wins usually gets the opposite of what they were promised.
This is why I am almost tempted to vote for Hillary. I have agreed with almost nothing she has said on the campaign trail. On the other hand, I know in my heart that her sole goal in life is power through becoming president. That means that she will say anything to get elected and by saying anything we mean no-holes-barred "lying". So if someone says the opposite of what you agree with constantly and you know they are in all likelihood either lying about their beliefs or lying about what they are going to do, then chances are they will be almost exactly what you want.
In my own opinion, Hillary's personal goal for power trumps whatever her beliefs may be and she will sell out her party's base just as quickly as the democratic Congress has done in this past session. The same mentality existed with Nixon. This is probably why lawyers should be banned from the presidency.
As predicted, the dems are no longer worried about Iraq. We should hardly be surprised since the front-runner, Clinton, is just a culpable as any neo-con for this tragedy that has no end in sight. However, since it will be more of a burden to Clinton than to any of her Republican challengers, the issue has gone away. Or at least it has gone away from the Iowa campaign and among top democratic insiders. They know the issue will bite them in the fall of 2008 if Hillary is their candidate.
The question though is why Obama is pursuing the strategy he is pursuing. His advocating an invasion of Pakistan to show that he is tough on...well tough enough to declare war for no reason...seems to be for the sake of looking like he is not afraid to declare war or use force...however poorly formulated the policy or tragic the results. It shows he is looking toward the fall of 2008 and that this is not just a test run. That may be why he is not exploiting the one issue that would allow him to trounce Hillary among the anti-war left. But perhaps he already has these votes and doesn't need to remind voters of the fact.
Hillary has been suffering in the polls lately, but her numbers are still strong. If the majority of democratic voters had any integrity (you remember, the ones opposed to the war and who wanted to impeach Bush 15 minutes after he took office) they would be savaging Hillary for her vote and abandoning her in droves. But just like politics in the GOP, personality trumps issues and principles. Granted, every candidate makes sure to massage the voter bases soft spots on the way to making the kill, but few, if any, have actually results to show. Most do the exact opposite of what they say because it has helped to ensure their re-election. Democrats move the right, Republicans to the left. The side that wins usually gets the opposite of what they were promised.
This is why I am almost tempted to vote for Hillary. I have agreed with almost nothing she has said on the campaign trail. On the other hand, I know in my heart that her sole goal in life is power through becoming president. That means that she will say anything to get elected and by saying anything we mean no-holes-barred "lying". So if someone says the opposite of what you agree with constantly and you know they are in all likelihood either lying about their beliefs or lying about what they are going to do, then chances are they will be almost exactly what you want.
In my own opinion, Hillary's personal goal for power trumps whatever her beliefs may be and she will sell out her party's base just as quickly as the democratic Congress has done in this past session. The same mentality existed with Nixon. This is probably why lawyers should be banned from the presidency.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Sicilian Expedition
The Sicilian Expedition
In many ways, the Iraq war has now become the American version of Athen's Sicilian Expedition. There are, of course, many superficial similarities, but some day I will get into the deeper aspects and see if the average Athenian's view of the Sicilian expedition and why it was necessary bears any resemblance to the modern American's view of the war in Iraq.
The main idea though is that we have an empire that just emerged from a major war using a minor and unconnected causus belli to declare war on a smaller, but relatively powerful independent nation. The empire, with the full backing of its people, sends out a huge military expedition that essentially comprises the bulk of their military. Due to the far flung nature of the enterprise, the associated expenses are also a major drain on the finances of the empire.
Because the original goal of the planners of the expedition was different than the publicly announced goal, and because the planners were more interested in their own glory than any final goal, the war was plagued with uncertainty at the highest levels. This uncertainty led to confusion and contradiction in executing the war which resulted in several reversals even though the empire's military forces were superior in every way when compared to the rest of the world at that time. Frequently the civilian leaders ignored the assessments of the war from the commanders in the field.
In the end, the war dragged on for several years without accomplishment until the empire withdrew its forces. Because it was so badly depleted both militarily and economically, the empire's allies and tributaries, seething with resentment for decades, began to rebel. The empire's traditional enemies took their weakness as an invitation to renew hostilities to the point where the empire could no longer defend its own allies (leading to further defections) and was so weak that it could not defend its own territories. The resulting economic and political crises that followed saw the end of democracy in the empire and a quick succession of ruinous governments that could not prevent (and in some cases hastened) the fall of the empire.
It should be remembered that after the end of the second Peloponnesian War, Athens fades from greatness in history forever.
In many ways, the Iraq war has now become the American version of Athen's Sicilian Expedition. There are, of course, many superficial similarities, but some day I will get into the deeper aspects and see if the average Athenian's view of the Sicilian expedition and why it was necessary bears any resemblance to the modern American's view of the war in Iraq.
The main idea though is that we have an empire that just emerged from a major war using a minor and unconnected causus belli to declare war on a smaller, but relatively powerful independent nation. The empire, with the full backing of its people, sends out a huge military expedition that essentially comprises the bulk of their military. Due to the far flung nature of the enterprise, the associated expenses are also a major drain on the finances of the empire.
Because the original goal of the planners of the expedition was different than the publicly announced goal, and because the planners were more interested in their own glory than any final goal, the war was plagued with uncertainty at the highest levels. This uncertainty led to confusion and contradiction in executing the war which resulted in several reversals even though the empire's military forces were superior in every way when compared to the rest of the world at that time. Frequently the civilian leaders ignored the assessments of the war from the commanders in the field.
In the end, the war dragged on for several years without accomplishment until the empire withdrew its forces. Because it was so badly depleted both militarily and economically, the empire's allies and tributaries, seething with resentment for decades, began to rebel. The empire's traditional enemies took their weakness as an invitation to renew hostilities to the point where the empire could no longer defend its own allies (leading to further defections) and was so weak that it could not defend its own territories. The resulting economic and political crises that followed saw the end of democracy in the empire and a quick succession of ruinous governments that could not prevent (and in some cases hastened) the fall of the empire.
It should be remembered that after the end of the second Peloponnesian War, Athens fades from greatness in history forever.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Warfare
Warfare is the most horrendous and counter-productive of all human endeavors. It is the decision to destroy (on the other side) and sacrifice (on one's own side) life, liberty, and property on a large scale. A defensive war, one waged against a person or country involuntarily is one matter. The decision to voluntarily undertake a war is another altogether. As an aside, proponents of voluntary wars constantly attempt to make the latter look like the former and even in democracies find many who are all too willing to suspend their disbelief and reason when their patriotism is called upon or into question.
In any event, a voluntary war should never be undertaken lightly by a democracy. Before making the decision to undertake a war, a democracy should make sure that it is capable of sticking to several principles throughout the course of the war:
1. The enemy must be clearly defined.
2. The goal must be total victory.
3. The details of a victory must be clear and achievable.
We have failed both in Iraq and Afghanistan on these counts and will likely do the same in future wars.
In Afghanistan, our fundamental failure was limiting our resolve to achieve victory by not clearly defining our enemy and seeking their defeat. The Taliban are back with a vengeance because we thought our goal was democracy in a land where none has ever existed. Our goal should have been the annihilation of the Taliban - no exceptions. That was the only way to achieve victory in Afghanistan and now that opportunity is long gone. That is why the resolve to enter the war must be 100% before it is undertaken. When wars are undertaken under less than true pretenses or with unclear and unrealistic goals, it often has an effect of lowering the resolve of those in charge of the war.
The Taliban waged a war of annihilation against the non-Taliban ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Thinking they would abandon those goals because some magnanimous foreign power attacked them was shear lunacy. We should have been prepared to go village by village and essentially execute their soldiers. That is why war should never be undertaken lightly. Once the decision is made, the resolve must be total to commit the seemingly worst acts of humanity. But that is how wars are won.
War should only be entered into voluntarily under the most extreme circumstances and should only be fought with the most extreme ferocity once that decision has been made.
The Iraq war needs a whole essay. Not only was the war undertaken with fake pretenses, the mission has changed from month to month. Our only clearly defined enemy was one person who is now dead. In the meantime a million new enemies have sprung up, leaving us without absolutely nothing to achieve as far as remaining in Iraq goes.
In any event, a voluntary war should never be undertaken lightly by a democracy. Before making the decision to undertake a war, a democracy should make sure that it is capable of sticking to several principles throughout the course of the war:
1. The enemy must be clearly defined.
2. The goal must be total victory.
3. The details of a victory must be clear and achievable.
We have failed both in Iraq and Afghanistan on these counts and will likely do the same in future wars.
In Afghanistan, our fundamental failure was limiting our resolve to achieve victory by not clearly defining our enemy and seeking their defeat. The Taliban are back with a vengeance because we thought our goal was democracy in a land where none has ever existed. Our goal should have been the annihilation of the Taliban - no exceptions. That was the only way to achieve victory in Afghanistan and now that opportunity is long gone. That is why the resolve to enter the war must be 100% before it is undertaken. When wars are undertaken under less than true pretenses or with unclear and unrealistic goals, it often has an effect of lowering the resolve of those in charge of the war.
The Taliban waged a war of annihilation against the non-Taliban ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Thinking they would abandon those goals because some magnanimous foreign power attacked them was shear lunacy. We should have been prepared to go village by village and essentially execute their soldiers. That is why war should never be undertaken lightly. Once the decision is made, the resolve must be total to commit the seemingly worst acts of humanity. But that is how wars are won.
War should only be entered into voluntarily under the most extreme circumstances and should only be fought with the most extreme ferocity once that decision has been made.
The Iraq war needs a whole essay. Not only was the war undertaken with fake pretenses, the mission has changed from month to month. Our only clearly defined enemy was one person who is now dead. In the meantime a million new enemies have sprung up, leaving us without absolutely nothing to achieve as far as remaining in Iraq goes.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Cal Thomas drinks the cool-aid again
None dare call it ‘victory’
A follow-up from Krauthammer's column:
Correlation Does Not Equal Causation
Also, two months of semi-good news in a 4.5 year war do not constitute solid statistical evidence of a trend. Only the neo-cons could call 35 deaths in a war that didn't need to be fought "good news". What if the deaths stopped altogether? How does that help us against Al Quaeda and terrorism? All of this "progress" is simply quelling a power struggle between Iraqis who want to control Iraq. It has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
When Cal Thomas is quoting the pages of the New York Times claiming that they have finally come around to seeing things his way and the way of the Bush administration, watch out. I don't have any stats to prove it, but I have been noticing that the press is reporting anti-war news ever since it became apparent that it is a strong negative for the presumed democratic front-runner - Clinton. Cindy Sheehan? She is a nut case now to the press - especially after she started attacking Hillary.
The New York Times editorial board will kick itself if it's anti-war rhetoric leads to another GOP victory because they front runner was just as involved in the invasion as any neo-con. That is why they are toning it down. If the war is successful, it becomes a non-issue. If the war continues to be a big issue, the average voter will trust Giuliani or Romney or Thompson over Clinton any day of the week since they always trust the GOP over the dems in matters of foreign policy. Things can always change, but only a fool would ignore past trends when formulating a strategy in this area.
This is, by the way, all perception. 2007 has actually been the WORST year for U.S. casualties. More of our partners have pulled out - including soon Australia after John Howard's recent defeat. We are no closer to finding bin Laden, and our so-called ally Musharraf has basically turned into a Saddam Hussein by jailing all opposition political figures, disbanding the Pakistani Supreme Court and filling it himself so that they can rule his reign "constitutional". The only difference is he has nukes and he hasn't started killing his people en masse yet. Look for that on the horizon whether he "wins" or loses the next election.
A follow-up from Krauthammer's column:
Correlation Does Not Equal Causation
Also, two months of semi-good news in a 4.5 year war do not constitute solid statistical evidence of a trend. Only the neo-cons could call 35 deaths in a war that didn't need to be fought "good news". What if the deaths stopped altogether? How does that help us against Al Quaeda and terrorism? All of this "progress" is simply quelling a power struggle between Iraqis who want to control Iraq. It has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
When Cal Thomas is quoting the pages of the New York Times claiming that they have finally come around to seeing things his way and the way of the Bush administration, watch out. I don't have any stats to prove it, but I have been noticing that the press is reporting anti-war news ever since it became apparent that it is a strong negative for the presumed democratic front-runner - Clinton. Cindy Sheehan? She is a nut case now to the press - especially after she started attacking Hillary.
The New York Times editorial board will kick itself if it's anti-war rhetoric leads to another GOP victory because they front runner was just as involved in the invasion as any neo-con. That is why they are toning it down. If the war is successful, it becomes a non-issue. If the war continues to be a big issue, the average voter will trust Giuliani or Romney or Thompson over Clinton any day of the week since they always trust the GOP over the dems in matters of foreign policy. Things can always change, but only a fool would ignore past trends when formulating a strategy in this area.
This is, by the way, all perception. 2007 has actually been the WORST year for U.S. casualties. More of our partners have pulled out - including soon Australia after John Howard's recent defeat. We are no closer to finding bin Laden, and our so-called ally Musharraf has basically turned into a Saddam Hussein by jailing all opposition political figures, disbanding the Pakistani Supreme Court and filling it himself so that they can rule his reign "constitutional". The only difference is he has nukes and he hasn't started killing his people en masse yet. Look for that on the horizon whether he "wins" or loses the next election.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Armenian Genocide Resolution - part III
Pelosi's Armenian gambit
And, of course, leave it to Krauthammer to cut through the issue, lay it out clearly, and make the points that everyone needs to know to understand this issue.
He also clearly points out how quite a few members of Congress not only have a tin ear but are astoundingly clueless when it comes to grasping not only current U.S. foreign policy, but also history and the entire purpose of even having a foreign policy. Remember these people make decisions about how billions of our money gets shipped abroad to despot A or to insurgent B who may one day become despot B.
Do we really think the U.S Congress is capable of handling any critical thinking in intricate matters like this when most seem to base their opinions solely on what their constituents say in opinion polls? That, by the way, is the answer to the third question. Pelosi was pandering for donations and to pass some "feel-good" legislation. She probably figured the controversy would give her more publicity and make her seem tough.
All it proves is how badly she and most of Congress on both sides of the aisle do not understand foreign policy. This also once again clearly demonstrates why the U.S. really should be out of these types of regional struggles on the other side of the planet altogether. Congress of course doesn't care since it is not their money and foreign policy is just another issue to generate talking points for the next campaign.
As we now know, the Democrats have no intention of pulling out of Iraq even if they take the White House. This is because their feigned opposition to the war was solely for the purpose of increasing their numbers in Congress in 2006. At least some of the more strident anti-war dems have figured out that they have been sold out. The rest of them will return to the sheep fold as it is explained why a 180 degree turn isn't really that dramatic and was actually the right thing all along. War is peace.
"Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away..."
And, of course, leave it to Krauthammer to cut through the issue, lay it out clearly, and make the points that everyone needs to know to understand this issue.
He also clearly points out how quite a few members of Congress not only have a tin ear but are astoundingly clueless when it comes to grasping not only current U.S. foreign policy, but also history and the entire purpose of even having a foreign policy. Remember these people make decisions about how billions of our money gets shipped abroad to despot A or to insurgent B who may one day become despot B.
Do we really think the U.S Congress is capable of handling any critical thinking in intricate matters like this when most seem to base their opinions solely on what their constituents say in opinion polls? That, by the way, is the answer to the third question. Pelosi was pandering for donations and to pass some "feel-good" legislation. She probably figured the controversy would give her more publicity and make her seem tough.
All it proves is how badly she and most of Congress on both sides of the aisle do not understand foreign policy. This also once again clearly demonstrates why the U.S. really should be out of these types of regional struggles on the other side of the planet altogether. Congress of course doesn't care since it is not their money and foreign policy is just another issue to generate talking points for the next campaign.
As we now know, the Democrats have no intention of pulling out of Iraq even if they take the White House. This is because their feigned opposition to the war was solely for the purpose of increasing their numbers in Congress in 2006. At least some of the more strident anti-war dems have figured out that they have been sold out. The rest of them will return to the sheep fold as it is explained why a 180 degree turn isn't really that dramatic and was actually the right thing all along. War is peace.
"Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away..."
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Armenian Genocide Resolution - part II
Cal Thomas on the Armenian Genocide resolution
A well-reasoned article as to why passing the resolution is a bad idea in terms of current U.S. foreign policy. This is no doubt the same reasoning that both parties have decided is correct as to why the U.S. Congress should not pass the resolution.
Now read the article again and ask yourself why are we so concerned about the internal affairs of Turkey? Why are we worried about a country who has only proven itself to be a semi-democracy? Turkey is a democracy basically until the Muslim fundamentalists win election in which case, they are always immediately overthrown by a military coup. Doesn't that really make this more of a military dictatorship? One which, by the way, is the direct descendant of the secular Turkish military who carried out the Genocide.
Read the article again. I will try to boil down the big and convoluted picture. We are worried that a rebellious group who is using terrorist tactics to liberate a compatriot ethnic enclave operating out of a foreign nation that we are now occupying as the only stable military force available in order to create a peaceful democracy in that foreign nation might be attacked inside that foreign nation by an long-time ally in a war that ended 20 years ago that is a nominal democracy as a result of a resolution from Congress condemning events that took place 92 years ago and that are still the subject of much controversy and speculation which might in turn result in that long-time ally voting invading that foreign nation and electing a fundamentalist government as it has routinely done in the past when it has had the chance to act as a full democracy, which it isn't. All of this is of course being done in the context of spreading democracy in the region, which of course we don't really support fully for Turkey because it would lead to the creation of a state that supports fundamentalist Islam which would undermine our long-term attempts to stabilize (and interfere) in the region.
Is any of this really authorized by the Constitution? Isn't this the antithesis of avoiding the "entangling alliances" that George Washington warned about before he left office? Haven't we been burned enough by intervening in wars that aren't really our wars to begin with?
In the end, of course, the U.S. government will continue to give away as much or our money as possible to everyone involved on every side of this conflict and say that it somehow makes our country safer to be not only the world's policeman, but also the world's nanny and janitor.
A well-reasoned article as to why passing the resolution is a bad idea in terms of current U.S. foreign policy. This is no doubt the same reasoning that both parties have decided is correct as to why the U.S. Congress should not pass the resolution.
Now read the article again and ask yourself why are we so concerned about the internal affairs of Turkey? Why are we worried about a country who has only proven itself to be a semi-democracy? Turkey is a democracy basically until the Muslim fundamentalists win election in which case, they are always immediately overthrown by a military coup. Doesn't that really make this more of a military dictatorship? One which, by the way, is the direct descendant of the secular Turkish military who carried out the Genocide.
Read the article again. I will try to boil down the big and convoluted picture. We are worried that a rebellious group who is using terrorist tactics to liberate a compatriot ethnic enclave operating out of a foreign nation that we are now occupying as the only stable military force available in order to create a peaceful democracy in that foreign nation might be attacked inside that foreign nation by an long-time ally in a war that ended 20 years ago that is a nominal democracy as a result of a resolution from Congress condemning events that took place 92 years ago and that are still the subject of much controversy and speculation which might in turn result in that long-time ally voting invading that foreign nation and electing a fundamentalist government as it has routinely done in the past when it has had the chance to act as a full democracy, which it isn't. All of this is of course being done in the context of spreading democracy in the region, which of course we don't really support fully for Turkey because it would lead to the creation of a state that supports fundamentalist Islam which would undermine our long-term attempts to stabilize (and interfere) in the region.
Is any of this really authorized by the Constitution? Isn't this the antithesis of avoiding the "entangling alliances" that George Washington warned about before he left office? Haven't we been burned enough by intervening in wars that aren't really our wars to begin with?
In the end, of course, the U.S. government will continue to give away as much or our money as possible to everyone involved on every side of this conflict and say that it somehow makes our country safer to be not only the world's policeman, but also the world's nanny and janitor.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Armenian Genocide Resolution
Pat Buchanan on Armenian Genocide Resolution
I have few Armenian friends and have heard a few second-hand stories about how various people survived the genocide in 1915. So, of course I believe it was a real event and as significant as the Holocaust. But I'm not sure if I'm missing Buchanan's point here. He has typically been against the expansion of the role of the U.S. military in the world, but he doesn't make that point here. He mostly condemns the democrats for pushing this resolution at a very critical time for what is likely nothing more than pandering for donations.
I agree with him that Turkey has been a very good ally to the U.S. and that the democrats are demonstrating their tin ear for world diplomacy (not that the neo-cons have fared much better in this decade). But if he is suggesting that we should continue to help out Turkey and reward them as allies, that seems to counter his usual sentiments arguing against the war in Iraq and the expansion of the U.S. military to every corner of the world now that the Cold War has ended.
Here are my points for what they are worth:
I have few Armenian friends and have heard a few second-hand stories about how various people survived the genocide in 1915. So, of course I believe it was a real event and as significant as the Holocaust. But I'm not sure if I'm missing Buchanan's point here. He has typically been against the expansion of the role of the U.S. military in the world, but he doesn't make that point here. He mostly condemns the democrats for pushing this resolution at a very critical time for what is likely nothing more than pandering for donations.
I agree with him that Turkey has been a very good ally to the U.S. and that the democrats are demonstrating their tin ear for world diplomacy (not that the neo-cons have fared much better in this decade). But if he is suggesting that we should continue to help out Turkey and reward them as allies, that seems to counter his usual sentiments arguing against the war in Iraq and the expansion of the U.S. military to every corner of the world now that the Cold War has ended.
Here are my points for what they are worth:
- I'm not a big fan of government doing anything it isn't expressly authorized to do. The passage of a measure like this, while the subject is obviously serious, strikes me as being about as useless as national broccoli awareness week or the 10,000 other resolutions passed by Congress. If the Armenian Genocide becomes an important issue in one context or another that involves the federal government, then by all means talk about it. Resolutions of this type which don't serve any purpose strike me as the worst sort of pandering. We should make sure it's in the history books, but what role the federal government should play in that is likely none.
- I agree with Pat that this is likely going to cause us a lot of trouble with Turkey when we really can't afford it. Ironically, perhaps, the Kurds were also implicated in helping the Turks carry out the Genocide. They should probably also be included in any resolution. Even if they are not, they are likely to feel the negative consequences of it's passage when Turkey invades northern Iraq.
- As long as we are a world of nation-states, I accept whole-heartedly the notion that national borders should be drawn along current ethnic and cultural lines for historic ethnic groups (multi-cultural nations such as the U.S. excepted). As such, I think that there should be a Kurdistan and that the northeast quadrant of Turkey should go to Armenia while the southeast should go to an independent Kurdistan.
- That being said, if you look at an ethnic map of the Middle East, you will see that Iraq, Turkey, and especially Iran, are such hodge-podges of different ethnic groups that it's any wonder they should be single nations at all. The fact that we are now being steadily drawn into a conflict that resulted from the failure to create an independent Kurdistan in 1921 just goes along with my overall thesis that the U.S. just needs to stop intervening in the world, period, unless our safety is directly (directly) threatened. Otherwise, we wind up with the current mess we are in with Iraq and the likely messes that will arise with Turkey and Iran in the next six months to a year.
- I would be more than happy to lose Turkey as an ally if it also meant we would be gone from intervening in the Middle East for good.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Three or Four Easy Pieces instead of an Uneasy Peace
The Partitioning of Iraq
Jim Pinkerton: Iraq War storyline has three parts
So the story is not necessarily that the Surge is working, but a de facto partitioning of Iraq has been steadily taking place and that as a result of this loosening of central authority, some of the strife between insurgents (especially the Sunnis) and the central government has disappeared. A Shi'ite civil war of sorts appears to be taking place in southern Iraq, but no one really cares.
In short, partitioning is happening whether anyone wants it or not. I believe this was the best solution to begin with and think that Pinkerton and Krauthammer do not understand why this is a much better outcome than any hope for a strong central AND democratic government. Iraq is simply not ready for that and likely never will be since it is not a nation-state and can only become a nation-state through direct coercion - the antithesis of democracy.
Hoping for democracy and a strong central government in Iraq is sort of like making a college graduate a jet pilot without any training. He might have all of the intelligence in the world, but nothing short of real training and real experience will make him capable of handling a complex and powerful machine correctly. Iraq needs to go through the same process that every other thriving democracy on the planet has undergone in order to evolve to representative government controlled by a written constitution. This has always been a multi-generational process, so don't hope for any magic in this area any time soon.
Jim Pinkerton: Iraq War storyline has three parts
So the story is not necessarily that the Surge is working, but a de facto partitioning of Iraq has been steadily taking place and that as a result of this loosening of central authority, some of the strife between insurgents (especially the Sunnis) and the central government has disappeared. A Shi'ite civil war of sorts appears to be taking place in southern Iraq, but no one really cares.
In short, partitioning is happening whether anyone wants it or not. I believe this was the best solution to begin with and think that Pinkerton and Krauthammer do not understand why this is a much better outcome than any hope for a strong central AND democratic government. Iraq is simply not ready for that and likely never will be since it is not a nation-state and can only become a nation-state through direct coercion - the antithesis of democracy.
Hoping for democracy and a strong central government in Iraq is sort of like making a college graduate a jet pilot without any training. He might have all of the intelligence in the world, but nothing short of real training and real experience will make him capable of handling a complex and powerful machine correctly. Iraq needs to go through the same process that every other thriving democracy on the planet has undergone in order to evolve to representative government controlled by a written constitution. This has always been a multi-generational process, so don't hope for any magic in this area any time soon.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Avoiding Accountability
Retreat of the anti-war Democrats
Another good one from Pat Buchanan who, like me, was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. He is once again highlighting the hypocrisy of the democrats on this issue, who have spent much of the past several years criticizing being "misled" into voting for the war and then criticizing the way Bush has handled the war.
Now that they are in power in Congress they continue to prove that they are truly the party without ideas. This is because their basis for any vote continues to come from whatever they think will keep them in office. They voted for the war not because Bush "lied" to them (they had the same information available from which to draw their own conclusions), but because they were afraid that if the war succeeded they wouldn't be able to take credit or that their lack of support might be used to portray them negatively. So much for having principles.
Now that the democrats finally have power and have the ability to end the war or put more pressure to bring the troops back, they are still stuck with the idea of criticizing being their #1 aim and goal. Being a critic is easy because you can never fail. If they actually made decisions based on what they believe (or what they said they believed last year) then they could change current U.S. policy on the issue. Instead, they have decided that it is much safer to criticize and pretend they have no control over the situation rather than carry out their promises and risk the consequences.
They even attempted to undermine General Petraeus' credibility before his report was released this week in order to keep up the criticism without actually offering any ideas. The point isn't whether things are going good or bad to them, the point is that no matter what happens Bush's policies are wrong. One day, they may come up with their own. In the meantime they will sit back and claim that all of the wasted lives and money are Bush's fault entirely and that they are merely reluctant passengers along for the ride. It would be interesting if we could one of the dems on the spot and have them elaborate a detailed strategy, implement it, and see what happens. That is, of course, impossible, but an interesting thought.
Another good one from Pat Buchanan who, like me, was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. He is once again highlighting the hypocrisy of the democrats on this issue, who have spent much of the past several years criticizing being "misled" into voting for the war and then criticizing the way Bush has handled the war.
Now that they are in power in Congress they continue to prove that they are truly the party without ideas. This is because their basis for any vote continues to come from whatever they think will keep them in office. They voted for the war not because Bush "lied" to them (they had the same information available from which to draw their own conclusions), but because they were afraid that if the war succeeded they wouldn't be able to take credit or that their lack of support might be used to portray them negatively. So much for having principles.
Now that the democrats finally have power and have the ability to end the war or put more pressure to bring the troops back, they are still stuck with the idea of criticizing being their #1 aim and goal. Being a critic is easy because you can never fail. If they actually made decisions based on what they believe (or what they said they believed last year) then they could change current U.S. policy on the issue. Instead, they have decided that it is much safer to criticize and pretend they have no control over the situation rather than carry out their promises and risk the consequences.
They even attempted to undermine General Petraeus' credibility before his report was released this week in order to keep up the criticism without actually offering any ideas. The point isn't whether things are going good or bad to them, the point is that no matter what happens Bush's policies are wrong. One day, they may come up with their own. In the meantime they will sit back and claim that all of the wasted lives and money are Bush's fault entirely and that they are merely reluctant passengers along for the ride. It would be interesting if we could one of the dems on the spot and have them elaborate a detailed strategy, implement it, and see what happens. That is, of course, impossible, but an interesting thought.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Success and the Surge
The ultimate problem in Iraq is that no matter how successful our military might be at eliminating any insurgency or terrorism on the ground, there will never be a political solution that revolves around a strong central government. The various political factions will never be willing to compromise on any major issues or stick to their word on any agreement. This is one of the main reasons our troops are having some much difficulty on the ground in the first place.
We should either federalize Iraq into distinct units now or let them do it on their own through a civil war. Either way our troops should be coming home before the end of this year. Otherwise we will just be wasting more lives and more money for a lost cause. Iraq is not ready for national democracy, nor will it ever be because it is not a nation-state. It is post-WW I compromise based on administrative divisions in the Ottoman empire. They either need to split up or go through the same civil war process that every other democracy on earth has gone through at one time or another in order to evolve into a true democracy.
Although any nation or province in the world is vulnerable to attack or civil war, I don’t think the Kurdish areas have anything to fear from their fellow Arab Iraqis for the same reason they are being left alone now. They were slaughtered in the early 90s (and periodically in the 80s) so that Hussein could keep strong control over the region. That could happen theoretically in Iraq if another military warlord decides he wants to take over the whole country again. But for now, they have quasi-independence and everyone seems to leave them alone. The U.S. leaving will not likely change that dynamic since we don’t seem to have much control or influence over it in the first place.
The Sunni Arabs, with whom the Kurds are intermixed in several areas have gotten along with their fellow Sunnis with few problems (and likely would not alienate the Kurds out of fear of Shiite domination). The Shiites don’t hold them responsible in any way for Hussein’s atrocities against them either. I could see the day when a Shiite dictator decides to dominate the entire country again, but I suspect that the Kurds are now armed to the teeth and would do a good job resisting any attack from any existing army or militia that exists now. They will also have plenty of time to create a real army to resist any subsequent dictatorship that may arise that does have the command of a modern army.
One of the reasons Slovenia was able to declare independence from Yugoslavia with few repercussions is because the nation was almost 100% Slovene with few Serbs. Yugoslavia left after a 10-day war with them because Slovenia was fully armed and would have given the Yugoslav army a real bloody nose if they had continued to stay. Right now, there really is no strong army in Iraq under anyone’s command (other than the U.S. army). All of the militias are basically armed thugs and would be slaughtered if they attempted to invade someone’s home territory with no logistical backing, command structure, air support, or armored vehicles. Having control and order in Iraq is all about having the support of the local population.
Any civil war will likely leave the Kurds largely untouched. The thing that the Kurds do have to fear is potential invasion from Turkey, Iran, and Syria, all of which have large Kurdish enclaves that those countries try to maintain strict control over. Recently Turkey massed a large number of troops at the northern border of Iraq to supposedly quell rebel activity in southeastern Turkey. A few months ago Charles Krauthammer prosed moving U.S. troops into the Kurdish area, let the civil war takes in course, and then move back in to mop up and cooperate with everyone left once they had come to their senses. That may not be a bad idea.
We should either federalize Iraq into distinct units now or let them do it on their own through a civil war. Either way our troops should be coming home before the end of this year. Otherwise we will just be wasting more lives and more money for a lost cause. Iraq is not ready for national democracy, nor will it ever be because it is not a nation-state. It is post-WW I compromise based on administrative divisions in the Ottoman empire. They either need to split up or go through the same civil war process that every other democracy on earth has gone through at one time or another in order to evolve into a true democracy.
Although any nation or province in the world is vulnerable to attack or civil war, I don’t think the Kurdish areas have anything to fear from their fellow Arab Iraqis for the same reason they are being left alone now. They were slaughtered in the early 90s (and periodically in the 80s) so that Hussein could keep strong control over the region. That could happen theoretically in Iraq if another military warlord decides he wants to take over the whole country again. But for now, they have quasi-independence and everyone seems to leave them alone. The U.S. leaving will not likely change that dynamic since we don’t seem to have much control or influence over it in the first place.
The Sunni Arabs, with whom the Kurds are intermixed in several areas have gotten along with their fellow Sunnis with few problems (and likely would not alienate the Kurds out of fear of Shiite domination). The Shiites don’t hold them responsible in any way for Hussein’s atrocities against them either. I could see the day when a Shiite dictator decides to dominate the entire country again, but I suspect that the Kurds are now armed to the teeth and would do a good job resisting any attack from any existing army or militia that exists now. They will also have plenty of time to create a real army to resist any subsequent dictatorship that may arise that does have the command of a modern army.
One of the reasons Slovenia was able to declare independence from Yugoslavia with few repercussions is because the nation was almost 100% Slovene with few Serbs. Yugoslavia left after a 10-day war with them because Slovenia was fully armed and would have given the Yugoslav army a real bloody nose if they had continued to stay. Right now, there really is no strong army in Iraq under anyone’s command (other than the U.S. army). All of the militias are basically armed thugs and would be slaughtered if they attempted to invade someone’s home territory with no logistical backing, command structure, air support, or armored vehicles. Having control and order in Iraq is all about having the support of the local population.
Any civil war will likely leave the Kurds largely untouched. The thing that the Kurds do have to fear is potential invasion from Turkey, Iran, and Syria, all of which have large Kurdish enclaves that those countries try to maintain strict control over. Recently Turkey massed a large number of troops at the northern border of Iraq to supposedly quell rebel activity in southeastern Turkey. A few months ago Charles Krauthammer prosed moving U.S. troops into the Kurdish area, let the civil war takes in course, and then move back in to mop up and cooperate with everyone left once they had come to their senses. That may not be a bad idea.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Pinkerton's tongue in cheek on Iraq
Pinkerton: Where's Saddam when you need him?
A good piece although it has some of the history wrong (or at least mischaracterizes a few things). It does, however, effectively state some things that should be obvious to everyone but isn't:
Don't waste your breath telling me we are there to fight terrorism.
A good piece although it has some of the history wrong (or at least mischaracterizes a few things). It does, however, effectively state some things that should be obvious to everyone but isn't:
- Our war with Iraq has made Iran's position relatively stronger in the region.
- Any success of the American military will only be temporary and will never result in a political solution
- No Iraqi government will be viewed as legitimate by the Iraqis until we are gone (at which time the country will degenerate into chaos)
- A country like Iraq, with its underlying ethnic, political, and religious tensions, can only be held together by a ruthless military strongman like Saddam Hussein
Don't waste your breath telling me we are there to fight terrorism.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Iraq again - of course
This was a headline story on the BBC TV news this morning, but seems to have been buried by CNN, the BBC, and Fox.
BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Iraq's largest Sunni political bloc announced it was withdrawing from the coalition government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, because of his failure to meet their demands.
The Iraqi Accord Front, which has 44 members of parliament, threatened last week to remove its six ministers from the cabinet.
The front has been critical of legislative stalemates and the failure to achieve national reconciliation.
Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi -- a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the most powerful group in the Accord Front -- and five other Sunni ministers said they would submit their resignations Wednesday.
One of the goals for Iraq's government is national reconciliation, but that has been an elusive vision in the fractious government. Under the Saddam Hussein regime, the Sunni minority held sway, with Kurds and Shiites marginalized. (Posted 6:14 a.m.)
The list of demands - which I can't find now - actually sounded reasonable. To me, this is just another indication that a united Iraq or an Iraq under a strong centralized government is a flawed premise. Despite whatever supposed positive results "The Surge" is having, this will not result in anything permanent.
Think about it this way. Even if Iraq were in a state of total peace would they be able to arrive at a political solution? The answer, based on today's actions is an emphatic no.
BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Iraq's largest Sunni political bloc announced it was withdrawing from the coalition government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, because of his failure to meet their demands.
The Iraqi Accord Front, which has 44 members of parliament, threatened last week to remove its six ministers from the cabinet.
The front has been critical of legislative stalemates and the failure to achieve national reconciliation.
Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi -- a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the most powerful group in the Accord Front -- and five other Sunni ministers said they would submit their resignations Wednesday.
One of the goals for Iraq's government is national reconciliation, but that has been an elusive vision in the fractious government. Under the Saddam Hussein regime, the Sunni minority held sway, with Kurds and Shiites marginalized. (Posted 6:14 a.m.)
The list of demands - which I can't find now - actually sounded reasonable. To me, this is just another indication that a united Iraq or an Iraq under a strong centralized government is a flawed premise. Despite whatever supposed positive results "The Surge" is having, this will not result in anything permanent.
Think about it this way. Even if Iraq were in a state of total peace would they be able to arrive at a political solution? The answer, based on today's actions is an emphatic no.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Turkey and the PKK
Plan to help Turkey hit Kurds shows Bush hasn't learned
My initial reaction to this article is to agree that us being actively involved in helping Turkey deal with Kurdish incursions into its territory (real or imagined) is a bad idea. The bigger question in my mind is why we are even involved with Turkey at all. The Cold War is over and even if Russia becomes a problem for the world again, Turkey will not likely play any vital role for us in any way.
They are a "moderate" Muslim country with a secular tradition of democracy and one of the few Muslim countries to recognize Israel. But every time they have an election, the people seem to pick religion-based, anti-American parties. It happened again earlier this month. The army then has to step in to restore "democracy" by removing any elected officials who don't tow the military line. This is obviously not a true democracy and if it ever becomes one it will likely be staunchly anti-American.
And beyond those few redeeming factors, what is the point of us getting any more deeply involved in their historic problems - especially in taking their side against one of our few success stories in Iraq - the Kurds? What good is a relationship with Turkey for us? Is I recall they were nothing but an obstacle to our invasion of Iraq. I disagreed with the invasion myself, but what good is an ally if they refuse to help us in an area where they can offer some of the best assistance?
Let's take a look from another angle though. Let's assume they are giving us something really valuable as our ally that is hidden from public view. Do we really want to make a deal with the Devil? Turkey, like Japan, has trouble coming to terms with admitting its own crimes against humanity. The Armenian genocide comes to mind here. It is, I believe, still officially banned from text books and has lead to more than a few deaths and death threats against public officials who say Turkey should admit to its role in the killings. We can also look to the "ethnic cleansing" of Greeks from mainland Turkey after WW I as well as from northern Cypress, not to mention the invasion of northern Cypress to supposedly protect the minority Turks.
Interestingly, while Turkey has no problem carving out a separate ethnic enclave for Turks out of a sovereign nation, they do have trouble with their own minority populations carving out a sovereign state for themselves. In this case the primary minorities being the Kurds in the southeast and Armenians in the northeast. Turkey has done a fairly good job of colonizing these areas with Turks to try and defeat any claims for ethnic autonomy, but this is just as a phony as it sounds.
My final question though is why we still have this strong relationship or feel this need to cater to Turkey. Is it solely because of their status as a secular Islamic nation and their help with Israel or perhaps against Iran? If that is the solely case, we should really reconsider what benefit this really is. My other thought is that we are constantly hearing that our support in Israel has more to do with us having such a large and influential Jewish population and pro-Israel lobbies in this country. I imagine there is some truth to this, but if it is true or least true to some extent, then why haven't we abandoned Turkey yet? We have substantial and wealthy populations of Armenian and Greek immigrants in this country and the subject of Turkey is one on which they all have a very negative opinion. That is compared to perhaps a handful of Turks.
My initial reaction to this article is to agree that us being actively involved in helping Turkey deal with Kurdish incursions into its territory (real or imagined) is a bad idea. The bigger question in my mind is why we are even involved with Turkey at all. The Cold War is over and even if Russia becomes a problem for the world again, Turkey will not likely play any vital role for us in any way.
They are a "moderate" Muslim country with a secular tradition of democracy and one of the few Muslim countries to recognize Israel. But every time they have an election, the people seem to pick religion-based, anti-American parties. It happened again earlier this month. The army then has to step in to restore "democracy" by removing any elected officials who don't tow the military line. This is obviously not a true democracy and if it ever becomes one it will likely be staunchly anti-American.
And beyond those few redeeming factors, what is the point of us getting any more deeply involved in their historic problems - especially in taking their side against one of our few success stories in Iraq - the Kurds? What good is a relationship with Turkey for us? Is I recall they were nothing but an obstacle to our invasion of Iraq. I disagreed with the invasion myself, but what good is an ally if they refuse to help us in an area where they can offer some of the best assistance?
Let's take a look from another angle though. Let's assume they are giving us something really valuable as our ally that is hidden from public view. Do we really want to make a deal with the Devil? Turkey, like Japan, has trouble coming to terms with admitting its own crimes against humanity. The Armenian genocide comes to mind here. It is, I believe, still officially banned from text books and has lead to more than a few deaths and death threats against public officials who say Turkey should admit to its role in the killings. We can also look to the "ethnic cleansing" of Greeks from mainland Turkey after WW I as well as from northern Cypress, not to mention the invasion of northern Cypress to supposedly protect the minority Turks.
Interestingly, while Turkey has no problem carving out a separate ethnic enclave for Turks out of a sovereign nation, they do have trouble with their own minority populations carving out a sovereign state for themselves. In this case the primary minorities being the Kurds in the southeast and Armenians in the northeast. Turkey has done a fairly good job of colonizing these areas with Turks to try and defeat any claims for ethnic autonomy, but this is just as a phony as it sounds.
My final question though is why we still have this strong relationship or feel this need to cater to Turkey. Is it solely because of their status as a secular Islamic nation and their help with Israel or perhaps against Iran? If that is the solely case, we should really reconsider what benefit this really is. My other thought is that we are constantly hearing that our support in Israel has more to do with us having such a large and influential Jewish population and pro-Israel lobbies in this country. I imagine there is some truth to this, but if it is true or least true to some extent, then why haven't we abandoned Turkey yet? We have substantial and wealthy populations of Armenian and Greek immigrants in this country and the subject of Turkey is one on which they all have a very negative opinion. That is compared to perhaps a handful of Turks.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Iraq - Positive Short Term News
Growing With Time by Charles Krauthammer
I read a lot of columnists (mostly considered conservative) but Charles Krauthammer is the one I seem to agree with most of the time. He is probably considered more of a libertarian than a conservative, so that it likely why I find myself agreeing with him so much. If I ever get around to deconstructing the basic principles of conservatism vs. libertarianism, I think I will find that his schema and mine are remarkably similar in construction.
His latest article is a lot different from his usually commentary about Iraq in that he is stating the positive things are finally happening - perhaps as a result of the much-touted "Surge" no less.
From the conclusion of the article: In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost -- al-Qaeda.
Here is the problem. The success he mentions is that the Sunni leaders is predominantly Sunni areas are "cooperating" with American forces in eliminating Al Qaeda in their home turf. This has nothing to do with the surge or with some pretense at cooperation on a national level. This has everything to do with local public sentiment turning against Al Quaeda for any number of reasons - principal among them probably being the competition for control of the area.
These Sunni leaders want power. They welcomed us a liberators initially because the defeat of the Saddam and the Iraqi central government meant more power for them. They turned against us when they saw that a central government backed by us would result in the loss of their power. As a result they let insurgent organizations and Al Qaeda (or Al Qaeda wannabes) run wild in attacking American troops. They likely neither backed nor supported these groups but preferred to see them waste their energy against Americans and driving them out.
Now the problem for them is that these elements are becoming too powerful for them in their own realms and are now a threat to them. Thousands of armed foreign fighters are eventually going to organize and attempt to control the areas they operate in for simple support and logistics purposes. This was why were able to Al-Zarquawi so quickly once he made himself known as a leadership presence. The local Sunni leaders don't mind a disorganized rabble sporadically attacking foreign troops sent by and in cooperation with a Shiite led central government (or any central government for that matter). They do, however, mind a separate organization setting up a political and military niche in their home territory.
The same will hold true in the rest of Iraq. My own suspicion is that the reason the Kurdish areas are so peaceful is because we have already made them semi-autonomous and put them under the direct control of the local leaders.
I still agree with the early predictions of many commentators prior to the invasion of Iraq that it is impossible to create an Iraq with a strong central government. Three (or more) semi-autonomous provinces would be the only arrangement that has any chance of succeeding. And as much as everyone hates the term "ethnic cleansing", the movement of the various ethnic groups in the Balkans has come close to producing a lasting peace there. The mass movement of people to areas where their loyalties lie and a big wall will likely stop the bombings that are now targeted more toward civilians than the military. The area around Baghdad itself might have a chance of becoming a multi-ethnic secular state, but it would have to be completely independent from the other areas of the country.
In short, Krauthammer's optimistic assessment of the situation may be correct in the short run, but this country will likely degenerate into civil war sooner or later as long as we cling the notion of creating a strong central government. The country is not ready for it. We can either create it for them now or let them create it for themselves after we leave. Either way, there is no point in risking American lives on this war any more not to mention the cost.
I read a lot of columnists (mostly considered conservative) but Charles Krauthammer is the one I seem to agree with most of the time. He is probably considered more of a libertarian than a conservative, so that it likely why I find myself agreeing with him so much. If I ever get around to deconstructing the basic principles of conservatism vs. libertarianism, I think I will find that his schema and mine are remarkably similar in construction.
His latest article is a lot different from his usually commentary about Iraq in that he is stating the positive things are finally happening - perhaps as a result of the much-touted "Surge" no less.
From the conclusion of the article: In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost -- al-Qaeda.
Here is the problem. The success he mentions is that the Sunni leaders is predominantly Sunni areas are "cooperating" with American forces in eliminating Al Qaeda in their home turf. This has nothing to do with the surge or with some pretense at cooperation on a national level. This has everything to do with local public sentiment turning against Al Quaeda for any number of reasons - principal among them probably being the competition for control of the area.
These Sunni leaders want power. They welcomed us a liberators initially because the defeat of the Saddam and the Iraqi central government meant more power for them. They turned against us when they saw that a central government backed by us would result in the loss of their power. As a result they let insurgent organizations and Al Qaeda (or Al Qaeda wannabes) run wild in attacking American troops. They likely neither backed nor supported these groups but preferred to see them waste their energy against Americans and driving them out.
Now the problem for them is that these elements are becoming too powerful for them in their own realms and are now a threat to them. Thousands of armed foreign fighters are eventually going to organize and attempt to control the areas they operate in for simple support and logistics purposes. This was why were able to Al-Zarquawi so quickly once he made himself known as a leadership presence. The local Sunni leaders don't mind a disorganized rabble sporadically attacking foreign troops sent by and in cooperation with a Shiite led central government (or any central government for that matter). They do, however, mind a separate organization setting up a political and military niche in their home territory.
The same will hold true in the rest of Iraq. My own suspicion is that the reason the Kurdish areas are so peaceful is because we have already made them semi-autonomous and put them under the direct control of the local leaders.
I still agree with the early predictions of many commentators prior to the invasion of Iraq that it is impossible to create an Iraq with a strong central government. Three (or more) semi-autonomous provinces would be the only arrangement that has any chance of succeeding. And as much as everyone hates the term "ethnic cleansing", the movement of the various ethnic groups in the Balkans has come close to producing a lasting peace there. The mass movement of people to areas where their loyalties lie and a big wall will likely stop the bombings that are now targeted more toward civilians than the military. The area around Baghdad itself might have a chance of becoming a multi-ethnic secular state, but it would have to be completely independent from the other areas of the country.
In short, Krauthammer's optimistic assessment of the situation may be correct in the short run, but this country will likely degenerate into civil war sooner or later as long as we cling the notion of creating a strong central government. The country is not ready for it. We can either create it for them now or let them create it for themselves after we leave. Either way, there is no point in risking American lives on this war any more not to mention the cost.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Iraq
If We Pulled Out Of Iraq
A news site bloggers correct assessment of the situation on the ground and the inevitable future that Iraq faces no matter how long we remain.
Kurdistan will remain relatively peaceful though at constant odds with Turkey. The area will have to become a U.S. protectorate to avoid invasion by Turkey or Iran.
Shiite militias and Sunni militias will clash until the Shiites drive the Sunnis out of just about everywhere except western Iraq.
The Shiite areas will degenerate into a full blown civil war between rival factions. Iran will attempt to play friend to all sides until they are forced to choose - at which point whichever side they pick will have public sentiment turn against them. Iran will then be bogged down in an even bigger mess than we have now and may face a retaliatory invasion or a revolt among its general population if there is even a hint of sending Iranian soldiers into combat.
A democracy cannot spring forth from anything except a nation-state. Iraq is not a nation-state and never will be.
Time to start withdrawing and saving what little we can. Even if the surge is successful, it will merely be a cosmetic measure that will be swept away a week after we leave.
If the fear is that Iraq will become a base for Al-Quaeda operation against the U.S., fear not. Once we are gone, the recent converts to Al-Quaeda will drop that banner and take up sides with whichever local faction they favor in the Civil War to follow. The Al-Quaeda factions there are interested in getting American troops out of Iraq. Once we are gone, they will be too busy with their own civil war to plan attacks against us here. Most I suspect fit the profile of low-level street thug rather than international terrorist.
A news site bloggers correct assessment of the situation on the ground and the inevitable future that Iraq faces no matter how long we remain.
Kurdistan will remain relatively peaceful though at constant odds with Turkey. The area will have to become a U.S. protectorate to avoid invasion by Turkey or Iran.
Shiite militias and Sunni militias will clash until the Shiites drive the Sunnis out of just about everywhere except western Iraq.
The Shiite areas will degenerate into a full blown civil war between rival factions. Iran will attempt to play friend to all sides until they are forced to choose - at which point whichever side they pick will have public sentiment turn against them. Iran will then be bogged down in an even bigger mess than we have now and may face a retaliatory invasion or a revolt among its general population if there is even a hint of sending Iranian soldiers into combat.
A democracy cannot spring forth from anything except a nation-state. Iraq is not a nation-state and never will be.
Time to start withdrawing and saving what little we can. Even if the surge is successful, it will merely be a cosmetic measure that will be swept away a week after we leave.
If the fear is that Iraq will become a base for Al-Quaeda operation against the U.S., fear not. Once we are gone, the recent converts to Al-Quaeda will drop that banner and take up sides with whichever local faction they favor in the Civil War to follow. The Al-Quaeda factions there are interested in getting American troops out of Iraq. Once we are gone, they will be too busy with their own civil war to plan attacks against us here. Most I suspect fit the profile of low-level street thug rather than international terrorist.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Gulf War I
After watching yet another documentary on the First Gulf War, I am utterly convinced that our direct involvement or at least the extent of it was a major mistake. Risking American lives and spending American money to protect one dictatorship from another is the worst example of American foreign policy. In the end, we got absolutely nothing from this and we are still, to this day, denounced and attacked by the regular citizens and many government officials from the countries we liberated.
The next time something like this occurs, we should do what has always made America great. We will limit ourselves to selling arms to the right side (the sovereign nation that was invaded) and let them do the heavy fighting and risk the heavy casualties. It's their war, not ours. Our involvement should be limited to whatever is needed to test the capabilities of our armed services. This type of real training with limited casualties is needed to keep our armed forces strong through experience while minimizing the risk of catastrophe, not to mention the cost. Our presence on the ground, however, should be at a minimum.
The other major problem in particular with the Middle East or any Muslim countries is that our involvement automatically makes Israel a part of the issue by implication. This is a classic example of what happens with entangling foreign alliances. Tying ourselves so strongly to the fate of one nation prevents us from being effective in other areas.
The next time something like this occurs, we should do what has always made America great. We will limit ourselves to selling arms to the right side (the sovereign nation that was invaded) and let them do the heavy fighting and risk the heavy casualties. It's their war, not ours. Our involvement should be limited to whatever is needed to test the capabilities of our armed services. This type of real training with limited casualties is needed to keep our armed forces strong through experience while minimizing the risk of catastrophe, not to mention the cost. Our presence on the ground, however, should be at a minimum.
The other major problem in particular with the Middle East or any Muslim countries is that our involvement automatically makes Israel a part of the issue by implication. This is a classic example of what happens with entangling foreign alliances. Tying ourselves so strongly to the fate of one nation prevents us from being effective in other areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)