Making Sense of it all?

The incongruities of the current political season debate about terrorism, Iraq and the Middle East are quickly approaching the point of incomprehensibility.

The oft-repeated statement that some of our leading political lights would support a troop withdrawal, but not really, really, really a withdrawal because we’ll leave troops behind for the dual purposes of fighting terrorism and training Iraqi troops is, again, incomprehensible.  We are, as near as I can gather, currently doing that now.  To suggest that this is a radical change in policy is a decent into the unreality that occurs when rhetoric attempts to overcome indefensible logic. This point of view assumes that we’re not fighting terrorism now.  It further assumes that being dislocated from potential flash points in Iraq, abandoning security operations in Baghdad and eliminating direct access to intelligence sources on the ground would somehow be a step in the right direction.      

This strategy might be a good one from the singular point of view that U.S. casualties would be reduced.  However, the reduction in U.S. Casualties would likely be replaced with a 200-fold increase in Iraqi casualties, which would include increasing amounts of Iraqi civilians. A reversal of the security gains made in the past three months would be proof positive of bin Laden’s claims that we lack the courage to get the job done. Bin Laden is counting on this factor and he has reason to believe its true. 

We would in essence, politically correct or not, be providing the most reprehensible form of aid and comfort to an enemy in our history.  Bin Laden expected the evolution of a Vietnam era anti war political movement in the U.S. and we have giving it to him. It is clear that Vietnam formed a template for al Qaeda’s long term planning.  Islamist commentary frequently identifies the Vietnam model.  The withdrawal of U.S. Troops would be the most significant victory yet in the war on radical Islamism and that victory will belong to bin Laden and his ideological brothers the world over.  The rallying cry will be simple, “We have defeated the two superpowers The Soviet Union in Afghanistan and The United States in Iraq, who, brothers, do you think can stand against us?” 

Withdrawal from Baghdad and abandonment of the ground currently under evolving coalition control will, without question, insure the failure of the Iraqi political structure.  Despite the disappointments over Iraqi political failures to date, their ultimate failure is not yet a certainty.  Our withdrawal from Baghdad would insure the failure of that fledgling political process.  The critical point, seldom addressed, is that the current efforts in Baghdad and the long overdue “surge” are necessary to create the conditions whereby a political solution might be possible. 

Without even less than perfect security conditions, failure of the political process and a “real” civil war is guaranteed. That civil war will be the most significant proxy war in recent history and will, with certitude, explode the Shia, Sunni conflicts as managed and motivated by radical Islamists. It will motivate Turkey to occupy Kurdistan, set the stage for regional hegemony by Iran and motivate Saudi Arabia to involve itself in the conflict. If that conflict does, in fact, explode our withdrawn troops will be back.  But, they will be back at a severe disadvantage, we will sacrifice many more lives in that scenario than we will by staying.

An argument can be reasonably and correctly made that the Iraqi’s have not performed as well as they could have, politically or militarily.  This performance, however, must be viewed in reasonable context.  Evaluated against the expectations of the U.S. Congress there are many points of failure.  Evaluated against the historical record of what is necessary to generate sea change in political conditions the progress has been amazing, as has been the courage of the Iraqi people. 

The basis of opposition logic seems to demand a complete change in the Iraqi political landscape in two years time.  A complete change despite; no recent history of democratic institutions, the presence of sectarian violence, multiple agenda by regional players, guerilla involvement by Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia et al., motivation of sectarian violence by Islamists, the presence of al Qaeda and a distinct lack of support from the “world community”.  In light of all of these factors and uncertainties; they should have done more?  Truly an amazing set of expectations in the context of realities and rational historical perspective.

The, again, incomprehensible argument that the Al Qaeda we’re fighting in Iraq is not the same Al Qaeda that attacked us on September 11th defies a reasonable knowledge of radical Islam, their structure and goals.  Based on this “fact”  we need to abandon portions of Iraq and re-deploy resources to Afghanistan to fight “the real enemy”.  This argument is spurious, shallow and intellectually dishonest. This argument is either based on ignorance of the conditions in Iraq and the nature of radical, political Islam or it is pure political theater for the purpose of political advantage here at home. If, as I suspect, it is theater in pursuit of a policy it is one of the most significant political disservices in recent memory.  Appeasement and defeat will simply delay a much larger price tag that will be presented to us in an uncertain future, by an enemy much emboldened.   

Al Qaeda represents an ideology.  Whether or not we can draw the line on an organizational chart with direct pathways from Iraq back to bin Laden to September 11^th is academic. Radical Islam is a political ideology with political goals.  Can we draw a line on an organizational chart from Carl Marx to all who embraced Marxism?  Radical Islam finds its examples in the classic definitions of Fascism and Stalinism. It is beyond imagination that the U.S. Congress could be less well educated than average citizens with nothing more than open source material available to them, as is the case with the author.

Supporting the troops?  Mrs. Clinton declared in the Democratic debate on July 23^rd 2007 that we are losing to al Qaeda in Afghanistan.  This, analysis, is contradicted by average soldiers actually in Afghanistan.  The declaration of defeat came as quite a surprise to them.  They think they’re winning, and they think they’re winning on a variety of levels.  If this is someone’s idea of supporting the troops than we have a fundamental problem with how, in this case, Mrs. Clinton views her leadership accountabilities to the military.  As the saying goes “with friends like this who needs enemies”.  Declaration of impending defeat is generally not considered a positive leadership technique for troops in the field.  Oh I know Mrs. Clintons comments were aimed at the administration but effective leadership demands consideration of how a declaration will ripple through an entire organization and the consequences of those comments.

The approach on the left seems to purport that the best way to support the troops is to, in essence, never use them.  This point of view defies logic and represents a significant danger in light of the threats we face.

The idea that supporting the troops by bringing them home in defeat with the potential for a cataclysmic blood bath in the wake of their withdrawal is chimera.  Let’s repeat Vietnam?  Let’s ignore what actually happened in Southeast Asia in the wake of our withdrawal.  Candidates point to the fact that we now trade with Vietnam as an argument that the Middle East will evolve the same way.  There was no movement for religious based Sharia law in Vietnam, no movement in support of fascism, no global intentions, there was no intention by the Vietnamese to dominate the whole of Asia.  We did, however, get leaders like Pol Pot. We got Pol Pot with no presence, capability or will on our part to mitigate the horrific genocide he and others engaged in.  They had no fear of reprisal from a self defeated “civilized world”!  Civilized indeed!

While the cold war idea of deterrence and containment was valid and ultimately effective, our current enemies care nothing for militarily strength. They understand, all too well because we have taught them so, that they will defeat us based on our lack of will, our lack of collective political courage, our, less than objective, media, domestic political discontinuity, ongoing subterfuge related to masking their true goals, public relations, propaganda, warfare against economic institutions and the murder of civilians.  The equation from their point of view is fairly simple, “spill blood, expedite surrender”.

The very nature of asymmetric warfare, combined with the ideology of radical Islam eliminates the very premise that historical ideas about deterrence and containment could possibly work here.  Deterrence was based on the idea that attacking us would bring such an overwhelming response that it was simply not worth it.  We and the Islamists have clear evidence to the contrary beginning with the first World Trade Center bombing and passing through time and events to the second. We declared that state sponsors of terrorism would suffer and yet no due bill has yet to be presented to Saudi Arabia, Hezballah, Syria or Iran, to name but a few.

Based on the National Intelligence Estimate, Al Qaeda is reconstituting, and this is proof of failure.  This position, again, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what Al Qaeda is about and what its historical roots and ideological connections are.  Of course they are reconstituting, to think they would not or could not is naïve to the point of being criminal.  The point is not that they are reconstituting, the point is that they always will and we need to accept that fact. The point is that the Islamist view of their commitment to a resurrection of the Caliphate is a duty of their faith, to underestimate the power of that faith would be a major miscalculation.  The point is our lack of will and our inability to be more aggressive creates a perception of victory within the al Qaeda infrastructure and there is nothing more motivating that the belief that victory is at hand.

Remember the book from the 70’s “The Peter Principal” it purported that in corporate America there was a trend to promote people just one step beyond their inherent capabilities.  That is what must be done with al Qaeda.  We must continue to pressure them, eliminate them whenever possible and insure that the general competence of the affiliated organizations are constantly compromised and under pressure.  We must force them to constantly reconstitute.  We must do so on the battlefield, economically, politically and ideologically.  We must “Peter Principal” them.  We must make them reach so deep into their organizations that, ultimately, failure will become an internal dynamic.

My very favorite position in this political season is the often repeated candidates position: “We need to get “fill in the blank” to do “fill in the blank”!  There are a plethora of statements that essentially say we need to get “someone” to do “something”; France, the European Union, The United Nations, the African Congress, The Arab League, Egypt, Syria, Iran etc. Sounds good, but these statements are meaningless, shallow rhetoric. These statements are never followed by any discussion as to exactly how we’re going to get “someone” to do “something”.  How do we get the folks who have chosen not to do the things we would like them to do, to actually do the things we would like them to do. 

These statements never address the internal politics and self interest of the parties we want to do “something”, they never address what level of bribe we will have to endure to get them to do “it”, whatever “it” might be.  There is no consideration or discussion of the simple fact that as long as our current efforts are under the current internal political pressures ”someone, anyone” is not going to do “anything”, “it” will have to go begging for now.

For instance; in light of France’s significant and long standing economic self interest in the Middle East, the amount of Middle Eastern money in the French political process, it’s long history of acceptance of Middle Eastern positions and political goals, the infrastructure associated with the EAD (Euro Arab Dialogue) the degree of Middle Eastern and North African immigration over the past thirty years, the lack of assimilation associated with this immigration and the long standing control of the political left in France, exactly why would France engage our interests in the Middle East?  What is the French  motivation?  What could we possibly offer France that would lead them to dis-engage from 40 years of a political philosophy and approach to foreign policy that elevated the politics and priorities of the Middle East above the French relationship with the U.S. What could we possibly offer France that would replace their existing relationships in the Middle East?  I certainly do not know the answer to these questions and near as I can tell neither does anyone else, rhetoric notwithstanding.

In point of fact it is a majority view in the French political class that our failures in the Middle East are in their self interest.  That any reduction of American influence and credibility is good for France.  Again, what will we offer to turn the tide? The same dynamics with different details can be applied to any of the aforementioned statements that we need to get “someone” to do “something”.  I’m not picking on France, substitute any of aforementioned countries or organizations and the same trail of logic prevails.

Talk to Syria and Iran!  Yes!  But, first begin with an understanding of the teachings of the Koran. Any agreement with an infidel should be honored only so long as it is in your self interest.  You honor the agreement only as long as it suits your purposes and then you are allowed to vacate the agreement in the name of Allah.  Talk to them? You bet! How about we talk to them about some of the following issues.

For Syria;

Ø      Where exactly is Saddam’s infrastructure related to WMD.  A wide variety of reports identify their movement to Syria in advance of the invasion. And while we’re on the subject how about the Iraqi missile technology.

Ø      Transport and support for foreign terrorist incursions into Iraq, please so very kindly eliminate this activity.

Ø      Arms caches in eastern Syria, pretty please stop supplying the foreign fighters as they cross the boarder into Iraq.

Ø      Get out of Lebanon.

Ø      Abandon support and safe haven for Hizballah.

Ø      Renounce all state sponsorship for terrorist organizations.

Ø      Abandon your goal of eliminating Israel.

Ø      Agree to abandon any weapons based relationship with North Korea.

Ø      Eliminate aggressive repression of minorities.

For Iran:

Ø      Eliminate the nuclear program related to its weapon production capabilities.

Ø      Renounce the apocalyptic views that are guiding the current government.

Ø      Stop the incursion of Iranian special forces into Iraq.

Ø      Stop financial support for the insurgency in Iraq.

Ø      Stop the financial support for the Shia militias in Iraq.

Ø      Execute a non-aggression pact with Saudi Arabia.

Ø      Publicly renounce your claims on the Gulf States.

Ø      Eliminate support for Hamas and Hizballah.

Ø      Renounce your goal related to the destruction of Israel.

Ø      Eliminate your support for West African radical groups currently supporting Abhorrent behaviors in Darfur and Somalia.

Ø      Agree to abandon any weapons based relationship with North Korea.

Ø      Agree to and insure safe passage through the Straights of Hormuz for all commercial shipping.

Ø      Abandon support for insurgencies in Central Asian republics.

Ø      Eliminate support for the Afghan insurgents.

Ø      Eliminate support for the Pakistani insurgents.

Ø      Systematic repression of non Islamic religious groups, women, dissidents and those who are not Islamic enough!

Nice agenda but impossible.  Why impossible? Because the same perception of the lack of political will and courage that bin Laden is counting on is being counted on by Syria and Iran.  That combined with the objective perception that we have been outmaneuvered by Iran at every turn.  I’m not happy with that reality but it is a reality.  Iran’s options and influence have grown while our options short of military action have been marginalized.

Making some sense of it all is difficult.  It is admittedly difficult from whatever point of view you come at it from.  There is a genuine schism. If you believe that Jihadism is truly a threat with clear global intentions you may come to view circumstances as I have.  If you believe that its all hype for the purposes of forwarding an artificial political agenda you simply cannot accept the historical lessons of where appeasement gets you.  If you cannot accept the presence of unadulterated evil in the world, you cannot see beyond the surface to what Jihadism can accomplish.  If you see the U.S. as the predominant evil in the world that point of irrationality can not be overcome, irrationality never really can be overcome. 

As one enamored of Winston Churchill I visit with him often. I take some measure of courage from both his despair and his courage during his wilderness years.  I revisit the lessons he taught us about collective strength, the power of leadership, the liabilities of appeasement and the inherent evil of ideologies such as Fascism and Stalinism.  These lessons translate today.  The form a historical perspective and they form a historical time line that is all too comprehensible.  The lessons?  Evil cannot be appeased.  Collective will is the most powerful political or military weapon yet devised.  That a moral center is not and cannot be relativistic. That, ultimately, we must be guided by our historic core principals.  There is a right and wrong about things.  That changing political winds should not be allowed to mitigate core principals.

Our failure to find these points of commonality speak to our weakness.  A lack of political leadership that embraces this lack of commonality is appalling.  Our failure to insist on superior leadership empowersweak leadership and thus we are getting what, for the moment, we deserve. 

The danger, of course, is what may finally bind us together will be another cataclysmic event.  I hope not, I don’t wish for it, but there it is.  There is something about America that demands a kick in the butt to get us going in the same direction, together.  I thought September 11^th did that, but our instincts and attention to that event have, inexplicably  faded.  Over the past six months I’ve heard more about crazed theories about how the president actually blew up Tower 6 than I have about the people who really did do it.  Pseudo science that, “proves” explosive charges in the World Trade Center is actually what brought the towers down not the fully fuel laden planes. 

Dancing with Mahmoud

I would like to ask the faculty and students of Columbia which of the two following Options they would support;

Option 1:  Support the dissident movement in Iran.  Send them the message that their freedom is worth the fight and that we will stand with them.  Support them with a return to a strategy of information delivery, international pressure for human rights, and a clear message from the democratic world that we believe in the inherent capabilities of the Iranian people.  Or…………

Option 2: Military action to insure, at least, a postponement of the current nuclear  program and punishment of the current regime,  Economic sanctions that destabilize an an economy already swirling the drain and not have any impact on the ruling elite.

I’m fairly confident that Option 1 would receive unanimous support.  The disconnect is that the actions of Columbia have provided a significant setback to Option 1 even were it to be considered.

Why? 

In the first case you can be assured that the video tape of the Columbia appearance will be seriously edited for domestic consumption in Iran.  The edited tape will serve the interests of the current regime.  They will show our dance with Mahmoud, the applause, the insults by the déclassé Americans and make it clear that Mahmoud has the support of Americans everywhere.  There really can be no other anticipation of what the spin will be keeping in mind the number of opposition media outlets that have been closed down in the past two years, the number of those imprisoned for positions contrary to the regime, the reduction of broadband accessibility and the number of outright political prisoners.  There will be no video tape of demonstrations or of confrontation.  Just applause from those gathered at Mahmoud’s dance party.

In the second case is the message to the Iranian people.  “There is no support for you in America”, “The policies of Mahmoud are supported by the American academic elite.”  “You are alone” and without so much as moral support!  You know, all the stuff necessary for Option 1.

There is an endemic opinion amongst the Iranian people that nothing of significance happens without U.S. involvement.  There is an overestimation of our ability to affect events, but it is there.  Any variety of experts and analysis left and right has reported thiss dynamic.  They are looking for us but they can’t find us.

Our criminal failure to say clearly to the Iranian people that “we’re with you” will, despite, the significant courage and sacrifice by those selfsame Iranian people make them question the often stated values of the U.S. and what our “true” commitment to democratic reform is.  Add that to the anticipation of what the edited video tape from Columbia will look like and a fairly clear picture emerges.

Columbia has, to be kind, unwittingly cut the knees out of what should be the correct strategy for dealing with the Iranian regime, a strategy they would likely support.  A strategy of proactive support for the dissident movements in Iran.  It is and always has been a consistent failure of the left to anticipate consequences.  This situation is no different. 

We know how to do this.  We know how to support dissident movements.  We have done it in Eastern Europe, Russia, Central and South America.  The end of the Cold War was as much about Lech Walensa and the rise of courageous dissident movements as it was about the guarantee of mutually assured destruction. 

We know how to deliver information to populations under tyranny.  We know how to get them funding.  We know how to deliver, at the very least, the message that we’re with you.  It’s a shame that, instead of delivering that message we’re dancing with Mahmoud.