More on the ISG Report

On the day following the Report's release, things don't look good for either Bush or Congress' acceptance of its provisions...largely due to the very aspect the Group warned against...partisan politics.

One event may serve as an example. I listened this morning to an MSNBC report regarding the Group's Co-Chairman's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator McCain was skeptical, implying the Report called for withdrawal of combat forces, when he has been calling for increases. Baker spoke up and noted to McCain that that was not what the report called for; in fact it suggested an increase in the U.S. forces in Baghdad by some 20,000, if that is what the commander's on the ground requested. This is virtually the "exact" policy McCain has been endorsing. But apparently, neither McCain or the MSNBC reporter had read the report, for the reporter concluded that McCain was upset with the report "because it called for the removal of all combat forces."

Thus, "politics" and the media penchant to encourage polarization of all issues, for the sake of entertainment, if not national security, takes apparent precedence over the substance of the report itself.

The report, on this point, says both. It foresees a temporary increase in U.S. force levels to restore stability in Baghdad, thus LEADING to a responsible withdrawal of most combat forces in the Spring of 2008. It does not mandate this withdrawal, but qualifies such on two counts: 1) the usual "conditions on the ground," and 2) the necessary forces that would be required to protect the thousands of U.S. forces who would be involved in training the Iraq Army and who would remain as long as necessary. There is no time table or withdrawal date for ALL forces. McCain and MSNBC have misinterpreted the report.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the President was having his own communication problems with his friend Tony Blair. Their joint press conference reminded me of two friends trying to "tip toe" around their disagreements for fear of offending one another. [Prediction: UK forces in Iraq will be gone within six months of Blair's own departure from UK government...probably by the end of 2007...coupled with the Pole and Italian withdrawals...we'll be down to just about Bush and Barney...and maybe six or seven Latvians and Estonians, plus Dick.]

The message thus far is clear (although its a bit early for final judgment). The President does not see his actions (or lack thereof) in Iraq as part of a failed policy; rather, he sees them as a failure of initial intelligence and subsequent competence in execution.

It's time for someone other than God or Richard Cheney to whisper in his ear. "Unless, Mr. President, you want to restore the draft, triple the defense budget and raise taxes, the country does not want you pursuing a confrontational course around the world in pursuit of turning it into a reflection of American democracy."

One of the major problems of the President is that he seems incapable of putting himself in his opponent's shoes and apparently believes that being "decisive" is the same as being "right." This is the same craziness that has come out of "business literature" and more than a few business schools, for the past twenty years. You may find George Bush thinking in books such as "Reengineering the Corporation" and "If It Ain't Broke; Fix It." And, it's largely the "cult of personality" over that of substance.

I think George Bush really thinks he can "will" success in Iraq, if he is just resolute and unwavering in his course...whatever that may be. This colors everything about his Presidency, particularly his foreign policy.

The stance that "we won't talk to you unless you first do as we say," is infantile and the stance of a bully. It is also the stance of someone with far more military power than that possessed by Bush. From the beginning, I have thought the Bush rhetoric never matched his resources. And, the last three years in Iraq have only further weakened those resources. The limited number of troops and equipment we devoted to Iraq were all predicated on a short war, followed by "privatizing" as much of the aftermath as possible. Today, there are some 5,000 plus American subcontractor personnel in Iraq, employing as many as 100,000 employees (Iraqis and others), most doing tasks normally accomplished by military forces. We fought Afghanistan largely by proxy (the Northern Alliance) and with private contractors. Indeed, treatment of the military has basically followed the same direction as the Administration's approach to the rest of federal government...privatize as much as possible.

In nation-building, which is essentially what Bush is advocating, all of the military technology in the world will not substitute for boots on the ground. You can't build schools and hospitals or protect neighborhoods from insurgents with "smart bombs." Privatization isn't effective because it introduces the "doing good for profit" motive and potential corruption on a major scale. If you scratch the surface, this Administration generally equates "patriotism with profit."

Our ability to remain a "super-power" with a downsized military, based on high tech, rests fundamentally on one factor, in cases of potential large scale conflicts, we possess effective tactical nuclear weapons and have never renounced our use of them.

Without tactical nuclear weapons, the North Korean Army could probably overrun the 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops and South Korean Army in a matter of days. Without tactical nuclear weapons, our 145,000 troops in Iraq, next door to the hostile Iranians, would be in an untenable situation.

So, for a moment, let's put ourselves in our enemy's shoes (or play devil's advocate). Our possession of sophisticated tactical nuclear weapons and an understanding that, if necessary, they would be used, is what allows the Bush Administration to pursue an aggressive and military-oriented foreign policy. And, the "Axis of Evil" knows it. From their perspective that is as good as any reason for them to reject the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Only, by developing a nuclear weapon capability of their own do they ensure their own sovereignty against a potential U.S. attack. Given that the Bush Administration is openly pursuing a "crusade against tyrants and evil doers," which includes pre-emptive war, what would you as a tyrant and evil doer do? Build nuclear weapons.

That we went into Iraq supposedly based on the threat of "imminent attack" (which, incidentally, NO ONE outside of a handful within the Administration believed was imminent) and that intelligence has subsequently been shown to have been false, undoubtedly only solidified North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions. It would not take much to convince them that the only reason we invaded Iraq was either 1) because we knew Hussein did NOT yet have nuclear weapons or 2) if it was a genuine mistake, the same could happen to them without a nuclear deterrent.

Deterrence is a concept we never hear discussed as a possible motivation for the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapon development. Yet, such deterrence was undoubtedly the case of such development in Pakistan, India and Israel, and quite possibly in China. We hear arguments such as "bargaining chip" in the case of North Korea, or an expression of nationalistic Islamic power in the case of Iran. But, nothing on deterrence.

The absence of this discussion within the United States is remarkable in that the entire Cold War with the Soviet Union was based on such deterrence. Indeed, the perception that both the Soviet Union and the United States possessed sufficient nuclear weapons to ensure the destruction of the other is generally considered a prime factor, if not THE prime factor, in keeping the Cold War cold.

Looking back on American post WWII foreign policy, from the perspective of the "Axis of Evil," it would not be an unfounded conclusion that had the radical right of the Republican Party been in control of the American political system in post WWII era and in the absence of Soviet/Chinese nuclear deterrents, the United States may have well used their nuclear capability against the Soviet Union and China in various Eastern Europe and Far Eastern post war confrontations (Berlin, Hungry, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam).

And, as noted previously in this blog, the neo-cons are the descendants of the same Republican radical right who advocated the roll-back of communism in Eastern Europe and China and toyed with the idea of offering France nuclear weapon support at Dien Bin Phu, in 1954, against the Viet Minh. As long as the United States possesses a sizable nuclear weapon deterrent of its own and does not renounce its use, what possible assurances can we give "rouge states" such as Iran and North Korea that we will not use such weapons against them, whenever WE decide its necessary?

Having been branded as enemies of the United States as part of the Axis of Evil by an Administration publicly announcing a "roll-back" composed of democratic nation-building, utilizing pre-emptive war, the leaders of these states would be crazy NOT to develop nuclear weapons.

And, then, there is Israel. By the best accounts, the Israelis possess between 200 and 300 nuclear weapons. The reason they developed these weapons is obvious. They are surrounded by peoples who want to destroy them, do not recognize their existence, and have virtually indefensible borders in case of a large scale and effective ground attack. The anti-Israel posture of the Arab in the Street is largely promoted by Arab regimes who wish to sustain their own power through keeping their populations focused on the "enemy" of Israel. The entire Middle Eastern Arab world is a rather tenuous proposition barely held together by hatred of Jews and the sale of Oil.

The West vacillates between a moral commitment to Israel and the need for oil. The "idea" of Iraq as an opportunity to "crack" this stand-off through the creation of a stable, democratic state wasn't bad in itself...aside from ignoring the reality of a thousand years or so of history and the inevitability of becoming, in the minds of the Arab in the Street, the Christian invaders. Regional Arab and Muslim power still revolves around hatred of Israel, even if it is for little more than "playing to the crowd." And, nationally-oriented Mullahs are going to prove infinitely more difficult to deal with than Saudi Princes, Egyptian dictators, or genocidal Saddam Hussein's. In fact, aside from the Israeli problem, they may actually want to keep more of their oil revenue rather than recirculate their petro dollars into western investments.

To sum this point, basically Western Middle East policy has been based on the following proposition toward Middle Eastern regimes: "We buy your oil, allow your regimes to exist and, in return, you don't let the anti-Israel play in the streets get out of hand and keep oil prices to a level that won't drive western economies into bankruptcy."

All of this has now been upset. Failure in Iraq wasn't the only factor, but it didn't help. We allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to fill a vacuum, one that now threatens to plunge the entire region into, at best, growing civil/religious unrest and, at worst, war.

I seriously doubt there is anything we can really do effectively against the religious fervor beginning to sweep the region. God, or Allah, knows we've done enough on that score. The trick is to provide safety for Israel and keep the oil flowing at a reasonable price, in the midst of a massive power shift that began with the downfall of the Shah and the murder of Anwar Sadat in Egypt.

Aside from 9/11, almost irrespective of 9/11, we are in the worst of environments...market wise. We are faced with Middle Eastern oil dependence in a market of declining resources and greater demand (thanks to the end of communism and globalization). [Note: I do not mean to say 9/11 was unimportant; very little could be more important. But, I do see 9/11 as a smaller scale problem, only indicative of the larger problem. As previously discussed, in my opinion, the proper response to 9/11 was the pursuit of Al Qaeda and the capture of Bin Laden, rather than the invasion of Iraq.]

I'll try and address how we might get through this transition in my next post.