Iran is playing everyone, and it’s getting awfully close to midnight

Sep 08 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Dacia Nichol Taylor Iran is about to become our next big problem. Forget Afghanistan. Forget Iraq. The center for world insecurity is Iran, hands down, and they’re about to cause an uproar because we’re falling into their trap. Iran has its hands in everything. Last month, I opined about why Russia was getting involved with Iran. Russia used to be public enemy number one around here, but the more I draw the lines and connect the bad guys to Khamenei and Co., the more Russia seems to just be a huge looming distraction from the real issue. Actually, Russia looks more like one of a number of pawns that Iran has orchestrated in its favor. Let me break this down. Puppet master. Iran is aiding our enemies. They’re training Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they’re helping al Qaeda in Iraq, and they’re helping Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Palestine. Oh bonus!  They’re trading missile and nuclear technology with North Korea, which leads me to my next point. Iran secretly has or will soon have nuclear weapons. The Bushehr facility is a ploy. It has to be. There is no logical reason to make a huge public display about a facility that has the ultimate purpose of generating energy alone. Enrich materials there, ship it off elsewhere. Kick out the inspectors right before the excess is trimmed and sent to another facility. Build weapons accordingly. We’re all huffing around about the decoy while they’re secretly building what the world doesn’t want them to have. They’ve been working with North Korea for quite some time now, and the whole Russian-fuel thing is just masquerading the real ball. Russia wants to have legitimacy. North Korea doesn’t give a damn. Iran wants Israel to attack. As Ahmadinejad has recently proclaimed, if Israel attacks Iran’s facilities, there will be blood. Usually, we can just cast this off as hot air coming from a mad man, but let’s put this together: If Israel is set off by an advance it deems threatening – say UN inspectors come in one day and say Iran is one week from having weapons-grade uranium – it will attack to defend itself. Newly attacked Iran now has the right to retaliate. It unleashes all of its recent technology and weapons buildups, showing no mercy, and when the U.S. comes to side with its ally, Iran drops the verbal bomb: Not so fast, guess what we have? That’s right baby – nukes. Now Iran has had a dummy facility as its only loss, has done God knows how much destruction to Israel, and the world is frozen to respond because the clock is 30 seconds to midnight. Iran is not Iraq 2.0. With mutually-assured destruction on the table courtesy of Iran, is there anything we can do? What about another coup? We did that in 1953 and installed the pro-Western Shah. Um, did you see what happened in 1979? Iran’s people might have had a potential revolution last year, and we can glean from this that they do not have Iranian leaders in their good graces. But if there’s one thing the Iranian people hate more than oppression, tyranny and stoning, it’s foreign occupation. So that means our job would be largely hands-off. Then, who’s controlling the outcome? What if Iran is nuclear at that point? What does that mean for Israel? One of the biggest no-no’s in Arabia is being friends with Jews. And guess who broke that rule? The Shah. And where is he? This isn’t looking good. I am no conspiracy wonk, but when we’re all freaking out at work one day because the clock is about to strike midnight, you’ll know why.

View post:
Iran is playing everyone, and it’s getting awfully close to midnight

No responses yet

Army Doctrine Hurries to Catch Up With Battlefield Practice

Sep 04 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

The Army that officially emerged last week from more than seven years of combat operations in Iraq, and that is still fighting in Afghanistan, is vastly different from the military that was dispatched to the region nearly a decade ago. Gone, for instance, is the implicit reliance on technology to overcome all obstacles. In fact, the entire concept of “Future Combat Systems” — built around electronics, information dominance and lightly armored, nimbler vehicles — has been deemed too dangerous and put on the shelf.

Originally posted here:
Army Doctrine Hurries to Catch Up With Battlefield Practice

No responses yet

“A nice, big, shiny, new surge”

Sep 03 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress

Bob Maistros “Good mornin’.  Welcome to the NeoCon General Store.  How kin we hepp ya?” “I have this war in Afghanistan I inherited from my predecessor, and I have a little issue.” “We got exactly what y'all need.” “Really.  What seems to be the problem?” “Well, I won election in part by claiming that his invasion of Iraq was an unnecessary war, that the conflict we really needed to fight was in Afghanistan, and that we needed to divert resources there.  So now I’m stuck.  The right demands that I follow through.  But my party’s left flank is all bent out of shape about us staying there, so I promised we’d start getting out after 18 months.  I’m not sure how I’m going to pull this off.” “Friend, do we have the ansuh for y’all.  What y’all need is a surge.” “A surge? “Sho thing.  A nice, big, shiny, new surge.  It wuhked great in Eye-raq.” “How does it work?” “Y’all just send a whole great big wave of troops into the country.  The people are seein’ whole bunches of US of A fightin’ men and wimmin, and they’re startin’ to feel real safe.  So then they’re all comin’ ovuh to our side, and informin’ on and givin’ up the bad guys, and everythin’s startin’ to get better.  Then y’all can announce a withdrawal on national tellyvision and get credit for full-fillin’ another campaign promise.” “Oh, yeah.  I remember that now.  But, uh, there’s a problem.  When I was a Senator, I said a surge wouldn’t work in Iraq.” “Well, y’all know that saying:  a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small men’s minds.  Y’all don’t want one little past statement gettin’ in the way of the right so-loo-shun.” “You’re sure about this.” “Oh, yeah.  Not only is it the best way to go, but we’ve got the same gen’ral to run it.  Here’s Gen’ral Petraeus.  Say hi, Gen’ral.” “Howdy, Mr. President.” “Well, that clinches it.  General Petraeus is a genuine American hero and very popular with Congress and the public.  I can’t lose.  Let’s do it.” “Great.  We do have to share one little disclaimer here: “SurgepolicymaynotworkinalltheatersofwaratalltimesIraqandAfghanistanarevastlydifferentcountrieswithwidelydifferingcircumstancesSurgemaynotworkaswellinhighlydecentralizedungovernablesocietywithwarringtribesruledoverbypowerfulwarlordsfundedbydrugmoneycorruptdoubledealingcentralgovernmentwithlittlepowerbeyondtheconfinesofthecapitalanddetermineddeadlyterroristoppositionholedupininaccessiblemountainregionsandaidedbysometimesallysometimesenemyneighboringcountry.” “Say what?” “Don’t y’all worry about that, friend.  Jest a little formality.  Y’all jest sign right here, and we’ll fix y’all right up.  Pleasure doin’ bizness with y’all.”

Read more from the original source:
“A nice, big, shiny, new surge”

No responses yet

“They Shoot, And We Build”

Sep 02 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

The quote in the title of this post sums up, in five simple words, the difference between us and the Islamist terrorists. We affirm life and create. The Islamist terrorists affirm death and destroy. But these words were not uttered by the President of the United States Tuesday night during his prime time speech from the Oval Office announcing the official end of the combat mission in Iraq .  Nor did he utter any similar sentiments to explain what we have been fighting for. They were the words of an Israeli settler group in response to yesterday’s gruesome massacre by Hamas gunmen of four innocent Israeli civilians in the West Bank.  The murder victims included a pregnant woman. We are fighting the same enemy as Israel – fanatical Islamist terrorists who know only the language of death and destruction. Whether they go by the name of al Qaeda , Hamas, or any other of their numerous titles, they are all heinous murderers. They are all the enemies of civilized society. Obama’s speech was a somber reflection on the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform and a reminder that more sacrifice lies ahead in Afghanistan. But missing was any passion about the existential cause we – and Israel – are fighting for. Instead, Obama reiterated his intention to begin withdrawals from Afghanistan next year (although acknowledging that the pace will depend on conditions on the ground). Obama spent precious time in his speech on the need to fix our economy, which he called his central mission as President. With all due respect, the president’s most important mission as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution is to keep this nation safe. He has failed both missions to date. Instead of repeating that he was originally opposed to the war in Iraq (but not mentioning his later opposition to the surge that brought us victory), Obama should have pointed out the importance of the strategic defeat that al Qaeda suffered in Iraq – which they called the front line against the “Crusaders.” Our brave soldiers made that possible, fighting alongside Iraqi Muslims who rejected the nihilism of the Islamic terrorists. Obama’s heart is not in the fight because he evidently still harbors the same misguided notion about Iraq that the New York Times expressed in its lead editorial today.

Read more:
“They Shoot, And We Build”

No responses yet

European Military Reform and American Power Projection

Sep 02 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

This is a good point by Galrahn at Information Dissemination, on the disconnect between trends in European military reform and trends in U.S. strategic thinking: We will have to wait and see what Germany ultimately decides to do, but in reading military reform arguments from various nations across Europe, including Russia, the 21st century army models of expeditionary forces most often include discussions regarding amphibious lift capacity and numbers of medium and heavy lift helicopters. In other words, the capabilities that most mimic the U.S. Marines are more desired by the rest of the world than the capabilities of a large standing army. It is a noteworthy contrast of strategic thinking how in the U.S., we seem to have this in complete reverse as we debate what the U.S. Marines will be in the future while speaking of the enormous challenges towards recapitalizing the Army in DoD budget discussions. With Iraq combat operations now over, it is time to keep an eye on what narrative emerges in Washington. At a time when many are rightly asking what we’ve learned from Iraq, it’s important to contrast that with what our main defense partners have learned from Afghanistan. European defense planners are clearly concerned by their lack of expeditionary capacity. Having available troops might not have affected their ultimate refusal to send more of them to Afghanistan. But they would have preferred to say no by choice, not simply because they don’t have the ability to say yes. At the same time, they have become even more convinced of the importance of the political component of any intervention, and in particular, the need for an exit strategy before entering the field. The EUFOR Chad mission is a case in point: The mission’s end date was written into its deployment authorization and was — to most observers’ surprise — respected. Along these lines, another indicator to watch, both for decision-makers and public opinion, will be the EU participation in the UNIFIL mission in southern Lebanon, should that ever become a hot zone. It’s too early to tell what Washington policymakers have learned from the Iraq war. I don’t think it’s fair to extrapolate from the Obama administration’s time-limited escalation in Afghanistan, for instance, to conclude that we have learned nothing, as Michael Cohen and Andrew Bacevich have done. But in terms of defense thinking, we might be risking a role reversal in the division of labor between the U.S. and its European allies, whereby their militaries become more apt at short-term expeditionary interventions and ours more geared toward long-term stabilization operations. In other words, they would become the peacemakers, and us the peacekeepers. It’s far from a certainty that things will play out this way in Europe. Such an expeditionary capacity is in pretty sharp opposition to the European mindset regarding power projection. And I suspect, like Andrew Exum , that even if the U.S. does end up with a boot-heavy, COIN-focused Army, it would go largely unused for the 10 years to come. But that just represents a waste of resources, and another case of “last-war-itis,” on both sides of the Atlantic.

Follow this link:
European Military Reform and American Power Projection

No responses yet

America in the ‘Post-Pottery Barn Rule’ Era

Aug 31 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

I didn’t get to enjoy a full-fledged media fast during the three weeks I was away, as I managed to do last summer. But I did limit myself to urgent e-mails, the occasional online news item, and some print magazine reading. And I consider that kind of break from the information onslaught a vital exercise for the way it allows you to focus back in on the big stories that are sometimes obscured by the radio static of day-to-day international news and debate. Not that the latter is unimportant, just that the former is essential. The first thing that struck me as I waded back in was this East Asia Forum piece on the great rebalancing in Southeast Asia. And the upshot echoes with yesterday’s WPR briefing by Fabio Scarpello about the U.S.-China-Indonesia “three-way dance”: After a decade of China making enormous advances in terms of its regional influence, the U.S. is regaining some of the ground it lost, and even once again taking a bit of a lead. The explanation is obvious enough, and has to do with lingering regional anxieties about China’s sheer size, as well as recent Chinese overreach. Thomas P.M. Barnett hit upon it before I left, too, with his WPR column titled, “Putting the Brakes on China until Beijing Can.” The U.S.-China rebalancing in Asia is clearly the most significant ongoing development in global geopolitics. And it looks as if structurally, we happen to be in pretty good shape moving forward. Credit the Bush administration with establishing a sound policy framework to work from, and the Obama administration for both approaching China pragmatically and paying closer attention to the concerns of our regional friends and allies. Credit also goes to Beijing, for its hamhanded approach to the South China Sea, the Cheonan sinking and a variety of other global issues. It’s significant, too, to take note of this on the day that President Barack Obama is marking the shift in the U.S. role in Iraq, which despite being largely a case of sleight of hand in terms of nomenclature, is a major symbolic milestone. For all our initial failings there, Colin Powell’s famous “Pottery Barn” rule has officially reached its expiration date. Hopefully the same will soon be true of our misadventure in Afghanistan, something that seems increasingly probable. At that point, the U.S. will have emerged from its self-inflicted wounds of the past decade in much stronger shape, in geopolitical terms, than appeared likely as recently as 2007, when the sky appeared to be falling on U.S. power and global influence. I’ll have more to say later this week about where, besides Asia, I think we should turn our priorities in the “post-Pottery Barn rule” era. (Hint: Africa). But for now I just wanted to point out what seems like an emerging trend: The U.S. claim to being the indispensable power is an enduring one.

View post:
America in the ‘Post-Pottery Barn Rule’ Era

No responses yet

A Conflicted Vision for Afghanistan

Aug 31 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

World Politics Review contributors John Nagl of the Center for a New American Security and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress discuss the conflict of visions for the way forward in Afghanistan with NewsHour’s Ray Suarez.

Here is the original post:
A Conflicted Vision for Afghanistan

No responses yet

Denmark Denies NATO Request for F-16s

Aug 30 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Denmark’s foreign minister turned down a NATO request for the country to contribute F-16s to the international effort in Afghanistan, saying that her country has done enough for the NATO mission there. Denmark’s prime minister, Lars Loekke Rasmussen, said he wants to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by 2015. Denmark currently has 750 troops serving in Afghanistan, mainly in Helmand province.

Read more here:
Denmark Denies NATO Request for F-16s

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »