Have I Figured It Out?

And no I'm not talking about why Bochey refused to play fundamental baseball last night against the Dodgers. Don't even get me started on what you should do in a one run game when your team has not been hitting and you get a lead off walk.....


Moving on. To figuring out what President Obama is thinking of when it comes to Libya.


After dithering for weeks, and failing to consult with Congress, Presidnet Obama ordered U.S. military forces into action over Libya. The mission, of kinetic action as they liked to call it in the Obama Administration, was ostensibly to establish a no-fly zone. However, its quickly turned into a ground attack mission to support the rebels, even though President Obama will not admit to it.


Today, the Obama Administration announced that as of Saturday, US air combat assets will be withdrawn from Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR (previously known as Operation ODYSSEY DAWN aka bombing-Qaddafi-in-the-hopes-that-he-will-relinquish-power-to-the-rebels-whom-he-has-on-the-ropes-and-will-probably-exterminate-in-order-to-prove-Obama-is-not-indecisive).   The reason given? The Obama Administration hopes that our NATO partners will take up the slack. 


Why is he doing this? I cannot tell you. There does not appear to be another crisis which poses an imminent threat to our national interests for which the air craft currently deployed to UNIFIED PROTECTOR are needed. If there are, everyone has been strangely silent about it.  Yes, there is fighting going on around the world and, yes, the United States military is in the middle of some of it, but its not like we're fending off an invasion of South Korea.


Why do I think he is doing this? The cynical part of me thinks this is one more chance for Obama to try and defy logic and reason while at the same time throwing our allies under the bus. Libya, as evil as Qaddafi is, has not been a vital U.S. interest in  years. Most of this has to do with the actions of Reagan and Bush. Why? Reagan's raid in 1986, as well as other actions, showed Qaddafi's impotence at projecting power even to the so-called "Line of Death". Bush, that would be George W. Bush, cut the deal in 2004 which ended the Libyan nuclear program.  An even more cyncial part of me believes its because the poll numbers supporting this have dropped off quickly. Great. We're starting wars to support his poll numbers now?

Is he doing this because the mission has been completed? Well, let's take a look. Qaddafi's forces seem to be maintaining the upper hand in the fighting that over the last few weeks. There are reports that the rebel forces are down to maybe 1,000 active fighters, who ill-equipped, ill-disciplined, and lacking in munitions, and it appears that the desert tribes are remaining somewhat loyal to the Qaddafi regime. 


So what has President Obama's military action done? Has it ended the threat of a massacre of the rebels and the civilians who passively supported them? No. Its merely put the day of reckoning off a little.


Last week, President Obama said,

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

But apparently every single statement there is a lie. We have a responsibility as a leader because of what the United States is. Yet, with his declaration today, we abdicate, again, our position of leadership in this crisis. We remove from the operation our Navy and Air Force, which has provided the bulk of the combat power, and leave the operation in the hands of a NATO force which is not unified in either purpose or capabilities. The statement released indicated that the U.S. would reconsider the use of combat air craft if the situation became dire enough. So I guess it would mean that President Obama will "wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves" before he continues to take action.


This decision, however, does more than abandon Libyans opposing Qaddafi. Its an action that will embolden other evil-doers who wish to take by force what they are not entitled to have by any other means. Why? Because they see evidence that our nation is unwilling to complete the tasks for which we volunteer. Because they see evidence that our nation will not support the aspirations of people attempting to throw off a tyrannical dictator. Because they see that we are weak. 


And when people believe that the world power is weak, that is when dangerous things begin to happen.


So actually, no,  I have not figured out why President Obama is doing what he is doing. It makes little sense. He is removing nearly half of the combat strength of UNIFIED PROTECTOR. The largest member of the coalition now is France, with 33 aircraft involved, supported by its carrier. Apparently, President Obama is ignoring the lessons of Rwanda and Srebrenica, both places where the U.S. stayed out of the way, allowing our European allies to act alone without out us. 


Apparently, the Obama Doctrine can be summarized as this "The United States will act only in the interest in protecting the reputation of Barack H. Obama and only so long as there is clear support to be found in the poll numbers."


Or am I missing something?

Obama and Eisenhower

There is a civil war going on in Libya. Egypt is relatively quiet for the moment, but disturbing questions are starting to be asked about the military's commitment to elections. Japan has just undergone a massive 8.9 earthquake, followed by tsunami, and now looks to undergo a possible meltdown at two of its nuclear facilities. Along with all this, there is an economic recovery that is barely producing any jobs, a massive debate over the future of public employee unions in America, and don't forget there are soldiers fighting for us in Afghanistan.

So where is President Obama? He's playing a round of golf. Again.

Now before we.. I... condemn him too quickly for playing another round of golf, let's take a step back and look at the original Golfer-in-Chief: President Dwight David Eisenhower.

According to records, President Eisenhower played golf on average twice a week while in office. He was known to shoot 3 holes before breakfast when he was leading the liberation of Europe during the Second World War.

But then, maybe President Eisenhower earned the right to go hit the golf balls twice a week while president. As president, he quietly had a list of accomplishments which, if you put them in the context of his time, were pretty impressive.

Thoughts on Central America

I don't have many. However, there was a coup in Honduras. Which I find interesting for the reasons that it happened.

Basically, as I understand it, the president, who apparently thinks that Hugo Chavez is the cat's meow, and not some tin pot dictator, was trying to get himself reelected. Just one little, tiny problem: the Honduran constitution does not allow president's to be reelected. One and done.

So he was trying to hold a referendum that would allow him to run again. Just a little problem with that: it was not legal to do it that way. In order for it to have been legal, it needed to be approved by the Honduran legislature. It was not. So the president, a lovely fellow named Manuel Zelaya, decided to hold a "non-binding referendum".

The military, which administers elections in Honduras, refused to comply with the President's orders to go ahead with the election, even though it had been rejected by the legislature and declared illegal by the country's Supreme Court and human rights ombudsman. So the lovely gentleman fired the head of the military, probably in the hopes that he might find someone more malleable.

Now, it needs ot be pointed out that the constitution of Honduras is a bit different from the U.S. Constitution. Article 42 section 5 states that if a person tries to continue a president's time in office past his one term, they can be stripped of their citizenship. However, it does not seem to have a provision for how to remove a president via impeachment. Interesting oversight, especially in light of the obvious fear of a president running away with power and becoming a dictator.

Over the weekend, the military took it upon themselves to solve this problem. On Sunday, the military woke him up, a wee bit violently, and thew him on a plane and deported him to Costa Rica.

Was this the best way it could have been handled? Probably not. Was it the right thing to do? It looks like it was.

Now, in this day and age, a coup does not happen without everyone weighing in. Of course, Mr. Chavez is very, very upset. Mr. Zelaya was one of his supporters. Now, our President is in little pickel. On the one hand, the Honduran president was usurping the constitution of the republic. On the other hand, the military did stage a coup.

Given those choices, what do you think that the president wants to emphasize? Yeah, I guess it does make more sense to emphasize the coup over the fact that Mr. Zelaya was trying to violate the constitution and illegally maintain power. And its totally consistent with the tact that Mr. Obama has taken in regards to Iran and its electoral troubles.

What is the President's Problem?

I am starting to wonder about the President. I never pegged him as disciple of the "American Exceptionalism" school of thought. But the more I listen to the way he talks, acts and the way he is planning to act, and the more concerned I get.

Example 1: He bows. To most people, I am sure, bowing is something quaint and anachronistic. Something that you do mockingly or to assuage someone's feelings when you patronize them politely. It is not something that Americans do. Period. We are citizens. We are not subjects of any potentate, foreign or domestic. We have made this clear from the beginning. Ever notice how at the Olympics our flag does not dip? Its part of the point. We will show respect, but we do not bow.

However, President Obama does not seem to get this. In his first 100 days, he bowed not once but twice. President Obama's staff have tried to dance around this, but it is clear that he did in fact bow. One only bows to someone they acknowledge as being superior in some way. At best, on a good day, foreign monarchs (from whatever land), are equals to the President of the United States. To acknowledge them as superior is a symbol, one that we do not want to establish.

Example 2: Obama and Hugo Chavez. Let's not mince words about who Hugo Chavez is. Hugo Chavez is a convicted felon who somehow managed to ride a wave of populism to being elected president of Venezuela. He does not respect the political process unless it benefits him. His felony? That would have been an attempt at violently overthrowing the government while he was a soldier. Once in power, he has worked systematically to undermine democratic institutions, nationalizing the property of those who don't agree with his brand of socialism/marxism, and routinely blames everything on the United States as a way of deflecting his own authoratarian abuses.

Hugo Chavez's abuses of power are many. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have catalogued a number of abuses including attacks on human rights groups and freedom of expression. Other organizations have found that there have been extra-judicial killings (i.e. death squads) composed of members of Venezuelan security forces, election tampering, and neutralized the power of the courts to impartially ensure that justice is done.

So what does President Obama do with the first opportunity to be in the same room with Hugo Chavez? What would you expect someone who criticized the Bush Adminsitration so heavily for its decisions with regards to rights of terrorists or American citizens wanting to be free from arbitrary surveillance?



That's right, our President walked right up to Chavez and shook his hand and talked with him like they were compadres. Let's see, how have we treated other people who shook hands with authoritarians who trample on human rights? Well, how about...Donald Rumsfeld (who at the time was not the President of the United States or even the Secretary of Defense). Because there was never any outrage over that by human rights groups.

Simply put, it was wrong to shake Saddam Hussein's hand. It was wrong to shake Hugo Chavez's hand. Why should we be giving President Obama a pass on this?

Going beyond the real lack of outrage is the message that this sends. It says, violate human rights, work at destroying democratic institutions, and continue to erode at personal freedoms and there will be no response from the United States. It says that our president, the one whom we have elected, is comfortable treating those who perform acts which we as a nation say we abhor the same or better than our long-time allies who do their best to uphold the ideals of liberty.

Yeah, great job at remaking American diplomacy so far.

So what brought all this up? Apparently, Obama's staff has been talking to reporters about what is being bandied about as possibiities for his upcoming visit to Europe in June. Part of that is attending D-Day ceremonies in France. However, there is also word that President Obama is planning on visiting one of the concentration camps in Germany.

That would be fine. However, he also plans to make a visit to Dresden where President Obama, "will also acknowledge how Germany suffered during the Second World War." Acknowledge how Germany suffered?

Let's see. Germany started World War II. They engaged in a warfare with no limits when it came to respecting the distinction between civillians and combatants from the very beginning in Poland. They then went on to continue this policy by specifically targetting civilian populations of Poland in general and certain ethnic groups in particular. Forget the idea that it was just a few nasty apples at the top. These actions were supported, in many cases enthusiastically, by the general population (see Hitler's Willing Executioners by Goldfarb). Most German resistance to the war did not come until well after it was clear that they were losing the war. And what resistance there was came from the classes that stood to lose the most because of Hitler's actions, mainly mismanagement, not because they necessarily disagreed with the underlying purposes.

Apologizing to Germany for their losses in the Second World War would be akin to a rape victim having to apologize to a rapist for testifying at the trial that convicts them. If anything, we should make sure that the Germans never, ever forget what happens when they choose militaristic authoritarianism (something they had done more than once before their final defeat in 1945).

But it seems that President Obama is seeing if people are ready for him to apologize on behalf of the United States for actions we took during the war. In paritcular, it looks like he wants to apologize for Dresden. At the time it was decided to use all available means to bring the war to an end. That meant destroying everything that could support the war effort. Industry, railways, marshalling yards and the like. Dresden was one of the last communication centers supporting the German defense against the Soviet advance from the East.

Anyways, if this is what President Obama wants to do, then I seriously question what his motives are. If he wants to apologize for sins committed by this nation, then he should apologize for ones which we actually have committed. There have been more than a few in the last few administrations. But apologizing for something in the Second World War to the Germans, a war instigated by Germany, is stupid, senseless, and equates the sacrifices of the men who served the Allied cause with those who served the Axis forces.

That is just abhorrent.

So this brings me back to my original question. What is the President's problem? Is he what I call a "Little American", one who wants so badly to believe that this country is evil and sinful that he must hobble it all costs? That he has accepted the idea of moral equivalence, and simply does not believe that there is such a thing as evil or wrong? Does he believe that the key to serving the United States is to make us "popular" with the world, instead of making us an example?

If the answer is yes to these questions, this is very, very disturbing.

Does This Administration Get It?

It was cute when they insulted the British Prime Minister earlier this year by treating him like he was the head of a third world nation, instead of one of our most important and stalwart allies. It was a good chuckle when President Obama broke with tradition and bowed to foreign monarchs. And I cannot tell you how much I enjoyed it when the North Koreans began to pull out of the working group and agreements set up to prevent it from being nuclear armed and the Obama Administration answered with a resounding...by the way what did we do? Send a nasty email? Oh that's right, some sort of Security Council resolution.

Let's see, what else the Obama administration has been up to. Iran is continuing their progress in their quest to develop a nuclear weapons arsenal. The Russians are moving to finish up (or should I say finish off) in Georgia. I'd say that the Obama administration is doing exactly what they promised to do in the election. It's working so well, that we are further away from our goals now than we were under W's misguided attempts diplomacy.

Not content to make things so interesting in the foreign policy arena, it looks like the Obama administration wants to gut the people we need in order to effectively execute a foreign policy program that will capitalize on the early "successes" of the Obama Administration. Yesterday, President Obama ordered the release of certain memoranda covering authorizations and tactics used in interrogations of suspected terrorist.

I mean, its not like there is an actual, if not undeclared conflict going between the United States and non-state actors who deliberately targt non-military, non-governmental locations for the purposes of maximizing short-term mortality rates in those locations. It's not like we don't have government employees in various parts of the world trying to deal with these non-state actors in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, civil reconstruction efforts, medical and humanitarian relief efforts, and targeted direct action to prevent the instigators of "man-made" mortality events. Those employees' health and well-being, as well as the success of their various governmentally-backed and sanctioned initiatives, probably benefited from these activities.

What's more, releasing how interrogations used to work gives too much information to people who already are trying to figure out how to withstand interrogatoin. If you know that the interrogator won't really put a harmful insect in your cell with you, it makes it that much easier to call the interrogators bluff and remain silent.

Am I in favor of torture? No. Then again, having read some (but not all of the memos) I fail to see how in the context of these situations (i.e. unlawful combatants captured in foreign lands, terrorist operatives caught in military operations, etc.) these can be construed as torture. There is a difference between military operations and civilian criminal cases. By blurring the lines between the two, we are going to end up hurting both.

But back to my admiration of the Obama Administration's policies over the past few months.

The only thing this can serve is to demoralize and make tenative our intelligence services, because they are going to fear being prosecuted for doing their job. It gives ammunition to our enemies out there.

But then again, the Democratic leadership, since 2003, has failed to differentiate between being anti-Bush policy and the security of the United States. At one moment, they are helping to pass massive bills which trample over our constitutional rights (i.e. PATRIOT ACT and PATRIOT ACT II). The next moment, they are trying to tear the teeth away from those entities which are trying to protect us. It leaves us a country where the government is starting to protect itself more from the people it governs than protecting the people from the threats it is supposed to protect it from.

To me this almost smacks of an administration trying to ge a "bread and circuses" thing going. Why? Because Democrat legislators are already announcing that they want to hold hearings. Nice, big, public, embarrasing hearings, which will allow the news media to flash words like "Torture" and "AGENT'S IMPLICATED IN HARMING PRISONERS" and the like. I still remember Iran-Contra and how much play that got, as well as all the big headlines. However, it wasn't until years later that I studied it in college and realized that it was not what the media made it out to be.

But back to this point, bread and circuses. While all this is going on, it's almost as if Obama is going to be using this to distract Americans from something else that is going on. Usually, when you are doing that, its because something else bad is going to happen. More nationalizations? Another capitulation on the world stage? Who knows, but there is a little piece of my brain thinking that this is a little convenient. And that the Obama's chief of staff is a big time pragmatist.

Now, before some people start saying things like "There was a court ordered deadline for disclosure", stop. I know there was. I also know that there are a lot of smart lawyers over at the Justice Department. Smart enough that they could have gotten an extention.

So back to the main point, does this administration of President Obama get it?

Sadly, I'm starting to thing it does not.

And This Is The Kind Of Court Some People Want Us To Join

Apparently it was not enough that he was elected president of a country. It was also not enough that as president of Serbia that he was a member of the "Supreme Defense Counsel" or that he had control over the police and army in Serbia during the the atrocities in Kosovo against the ethnic Albanian Kosvars.

The UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (UNICTY) found Milan Milutinović innocent yesterday.

Either these judges cannot recognize a war criminal when they see one or the prosecutors went to the Clark-Darden School for Prosecutors Who Want To Lose Their Cases.

This is an odd result to me for a couple of reasons. In addition to Milutinović, there were five others who were charged with the same or similiar crimes. The other five were all convicted. Yet somehow, the court drew a distinction for Milutinović. Yet even though Milutinović was a memebr of the same groups, they somehow came to the conclusion that he did not have authority that the others did.

To me that's like saying Hitler would be convicted but not convicting von Ribbetrop because he was not in the direct chain of command becasue he was a diplomat.

For all the carnage and death caused by the Serbians in Kosovo, the five will get between 15 and 22 years in prison minus the time they have already spent in custody. Have to love European sentences. Be responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and end up with a sence as low as 9 years in jail.

Seems ridiculous to me.

Just Like Old Times (or Scary Times (Part II)

To think that I used to miss the Cold War.

Well it appears that a cease-fire has been negotiated in Georgia. Again. Let's see if the Russians respect it this time.

For an interesting article about what has been going on, I suggest reading Steve Levine's articles over at The Oil and The Glory.

As it appears right now, Russia will be retaining control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Officially Russia will only be there as "peacekeepers". However, what will more likely happen is that in a year or so, I anticipate that there will be a Russian-sponsored referendum where the people of South Ossetia will "vote" to be annexed by the Russian Federation.

Just as the Georgian situation starts to, hopefully, calm down, a new situation is on the rise. As some people may know, for months, the Bush Administration has been seeking partners in Europe to act as location sites for a missile defense system. Among those that have been targeted are nations in Eastern Europe including Poland and the Czech Republic. Today, it was announced that Poland and the U.S. have reached an agreement on the missile defense program.

Russia reacted predictably. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy commander of the Russian Air Force and a deputy of the Chief of Staff, stated, when asked about the agreement, "Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent[.]" He also quoted Russian doctrine which permits the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them."

Aside from the fact that Russia has shown that its true colors are no different from those of Imperial Russia or Soviet Russia, it is interesting that it has taken this long for it to do so. Looking at what Putin has been doing to Russia since he took over in 1999, he has been trying to restore the old luster to Russia.

Now what is interesting is the timing of Putin's actions. From my less trained eye, the timing of the Georgian invasion seems to have been delayed. Judging from reports of what happened in Georgia, the Russian response to the situation appears to have been planned and not improvised. If it was planned, why did they wait so long? If this is the first step in Russia attempting to bully its way into recreating a bipolar world, why did they wait so long.

Start from the position that U.S. is only world superpower. As such, the U.S. is the preeminent threat to any country which seeks to establish itself as a hegemon in a region, continent, or hemisphere. Simply put, the U.S. has the ability diplomatically, economically, and militarily to project its power to any corner of the world. When bullets start to fly, as they have in Georgia, or are threatened, as is the case of Poland, then the most concrete form of U.S. intervention is the military.

The threat of a carrier battle group being dispatched to a region, of USAF aircraft being dispatched to create a no-fly zone, or of a U.S. Army Division being dispatched, causes many countries to pause before embarking on a military option. However, the threat of U.S. intervention is diminished if we are already engaged in a large campaign elsewhere which requires us to commit large quantity of our resources.

Which has been the case for the past five years. For five years, the bulk of the U.S. Army and USMC have been rotating through either Iraq or Afghanistan. This has left the bulk of U.S. deterrence to the U.S. Navy, USMC MEU units (when they aren't needed in either Iraq or Afghanistan and Air Force. In many cases, this has been enough. However, Russia has a large army, with an air force which boasts approximately 850 modern combat aircraft. They also have a sizeable nuclear arsenal.

Had Russia rattled its saber against Poland and attacked Georgia even a year ago, this would have left the U.S. in a position where it could do almost nothing concrete. A year ago, the U.S. was in the midst of the Surge in Iraq. Troops were committed there and withdrawing them , or even threatening to, would have been incredibly difficult. Had Russia, or any other nation which aspires to the position of superpower (i.e. China) or regional superpower (i.e. Iran), made their move then, the U.S. would not have been in a position to easily act to counter them.

However, times are changing. No matter who becomes president in November, the reality of Iraq has changed because of the events that occurred during the Surge. The Iraqis are increasingly eager to provide for their own security and to see all or the majority of the U.S. and Coalition forces in the region withdrawn. Although Afghanistan will continue to be a work a progress over the next few years, it is not Iraq. Large conventional forces that are deployed there do not pay the same dividends as they would in other areas.

Essentially, it's almost as if the Russians have begun flexing their overt muscles too late. In some areas, it has been suggested that Putin feels that the U.S. cannot do without his influence over events in Iran. Perhaps, but if we do decide to forgo Russian help there, it could lead to failure which will only cause Russia more trouble as it tries to bring the Central Asian republics back under its influence.

That being said, the Georgian operation could have been spurred by Putin wanting to accomplish his objective before the U.S. is in a more balanced position to meet overt threats to its allies. Therefore, could we be in a sitaution where for the next year to two years, Russia will be pressing its agenda (i.e. bringing the Central Asian republics back under its hegemony, as well as seeking to keep more of the former Warsaw Pact nations from becoming enmeshed in NATO/U.S. security guarrantees) before the U.S. can do more than just offer unsupported diplomatic notes and presidential proclamations to support its allies?

One thing seems clear: the bear is back in the woods. It would be prudent to be ready to confront this bear, or any other that is lurking there.

Scary Times

I wish I could have spent the last few days just watching the Olympics and cheering on Team USA while I met the cutest little girl ever. Instead, I was watching the Olympics, meeting my niece, and trying to find as much as possible about what is going in Georgia.

I am not talking about the state either.

Georgia is a nation in what is variously known as the Near East or Central Asia. Although the territory has existed for centuries, it has been controlled by Imperial and then Soviet Russia for almost two centuries when it regained its independence in 1991.

Almost from the beginning, the newly independent state had two problems. Due, in part to Soviet control, there were significant minorities of non-Georgians in two regions: South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The people living in South Ossetia are Ossetians, essentially descendants of a Sarmatian tribe. Georgians are, well, Georgians. In both cases, most are Orthodox Christians (differing sects from what I can read) and both have Muslim minorities.

The Georgians have always viewed the territory that is known as South Ossetia as part of Georgia. And to date, no member of the United Nations has recognized South Ossetia as an independent nation.

While there is no official recognition, Russia has maintained a "peacekeeping force" in South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, since the troubles there began over a decade ago. Although there is a claim that there is a de facto state of South Ossetia, this undercut by the fact that Georgia has, in fact, maintained government control over a large portion of the territory which South Ossetia claims.

Now, as often happens when "peacekeeping forces" are dispatched to a region, there has been a constant low intensity conflict going on in the region (translation: both sides shoot at each other on occasion). Although generally it was peaceful, things began to intensify in 2004 as the central government in Georgia began to solidify its control over the region. Even though the Russians were supposed to be neutral, the Georgians claimed to have captured Russian spies, in 2006, who were engaged in espionage against Georgia in support of the South Ossetians.

It is important to remember something else Blogger: Wandering Bell - Create Poste. Prior to 2003, Russia liked the way things were in that part of Central Asia. The Georgian President was Eduard Shevardnadze. It was corrupt. It was stagnant. It was not going to pose a threat to a Russian state which was still trying to pull itself back together following the end of the Soviet Union.

Then in November 2003, there was an election. And Shevardnadze tried to rig it. And failed. Demonstrations occurred throughout the month of November, culminating in the non-violent take over of the capital building by protesters with roses in their hands (hence the name the "Rose Revolution").

In the place of Shevardnadze, following the election was Mikheil Saakashvili. While democratically elected, he is no saint, not that anyone should expect to find one in power in virtually any government. However, he does appear to be committed to democracy and ties with the West. To that end, his government has been working towards membership in NATO.

And that is what Russia fears.

First, NATO is still viewed as the enemy (even if they don't use that word). NATO was the organization by which the U.S. brought down the Soviet Union, and in the process humbled Russia. Second, the Caucus region, of which Georgia is a part, has been viewed as a Russian preserve (much like we in the U.S. view the Carribean, Central and South America). The concept of NATO bases (meaning U.S. bases) there on a permanent basis must be terrifying.

And did I forget to mention oil is involved as well? Although Georgia does not have oil reserves, there is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline running through the country which carry natural gas and crude oil from Azerbaijan. For years, the West has been trying to keep the pipeline free of Russian control. Russian control would give them even more control over the world's oil reserves than it already has. As it stands right now, Russia produces almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

Control of the pipeline would add to Russia's petrochemical wealth. It would also give it another hook into Azerbaijan. At this time, the pipeline remains in Georgian hands, but that could change at any time if the fighting continues.

Georgia has firmly placed itself in the camp of the West in general and the U.S. in particular. Georgia's government has welcomed the idea of possibly becoming part of the missile defense shield program. The Deputy Chairman of the Defense and Security Committee, Nikoloz Rurua, stated, "In my view, the closer and more integrated Georgia is to Western defense systems, the better off our country will be." Predictably, the Russian response was not nearly so enthusiastic.

Which brings us back to what started on Friday. In the days leading up to August 8, there was an upswing in the violence. Both sides were accusing the other of initiating it. However, as the violence started to escalate, the Russian army began moving troops into position to enter the conflict. What happened is confused, with both sides claiming that villages were attacked indiscriminately.

What is certain is that on August 8, 2008, the Georgian military launched an assault on the separatist capital of Tskhinvali, almost surrounding and controlling it for a time. Russia then responded. According to the Russian version, Georgian troops were engaged in ethnic cleansing. According to the Georgians, the Russians are engaged in agresssion against Georgia, seeking to topple the nation's government.

So far, I have not been able to find any evidence of ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, Russian troops today have captured the city of Gori. Gori, aside from being the birthplace of Joseph Stalin, is well outside the dispute territory and is located in Georgia proper.

Russia is clearly using Georgia as an object lesson. First, it showing that the Russian Bear is back and ready to fight beyond its borders (i.e. Chechnya). Second, it is trying to show those countries in the Near East/Central Asia the consequences for siding with the U.S.

Failure to confront the Russians effectively on this will damage the United States' credibility. Bush has made it clear that he is working to help Georgian aspirations in NATO. Georgia has been a contributor to operations in Iraq, committing approximately 2,000 troops to combat operations there. American forces have been working to help the Georgian military modernized and adopt NATO style doctrine.

Unfortunately, because of our commitments around the world, it seems that Georgia will get nothing from the U.S. The U.S. military is currently deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia, and South Korea among other places. It is not easily accessible by the sea (only accessible to the U.S if it were able to transit the Dardanelles into the Black Sea).

Although it seems like we should do something, our leadership, in the form of the Bush Administration, seems content to offer up the language of support without actually doing anything to show tangible support.

Anyone else out there feel like they are watching a repeat of the Sudetenland in 1938? Or for the nightmare scenario, Serbia 1914? Am I overreacting? Possibly. But then again, the Russian Bear, historically, rarely moves when it doesn't intend to stay.

And Then I Find This Commentary on Senator Obama's Speech

So after finally finishing my last post, I found a much more succinct response to Senator Obama's speech. Senator Liberman reportedly stated,

Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.

Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.

Too bad the rest of the Democrats don't have the same sort of principles that I have seen from Senator Lieberman. Then again, I doubt that I will see a lantsman in the White House any time soon.

Maybe Some Better Choices Could Be Made

So a couple of days ago, I noted how Senator Obama conveniently lost his principles and voted for a flawed piece of legislation in the amendments to FISA. So I guess that it was no surprise that Senator Obama would trot out the following in today's speech on foreign policy. According to the sources I have found, he said

For weeks, now, Senator McCain has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.

In the 18 months since the surge began, the strain on our military has increased, our troops and their families have borne an enormous burden, and American taxpayers have spent another $200 billion in Iraq. That's over $10 billion each month. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset - Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.

Now, reserving the Afghanistan issue later, I think its important to take a step back and look and see exactly what U.S. Congress established as the metric for success in Iraq. (It should be noted that some have criticized some of the benchmarks for being too subjective/arbitrary to be used as adequate metrics)The benchmarks (or milestones) are:

• Perform constitutional review.
• Enact de-Bathification reform.
• Form semi-autonomous regions.
• Hold provincial elections.
• Address amnesty.
• Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan.
• Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature.
• Keep Iraqi Security Force free from partisan interference.
• Disarm militias.
• Provide military support in Baghdad.
• Empower Iraqi Security Forces. Ensure impartial law enforcement.
• Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government.
• Reduce sectarian violence.
• Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad.
• Increase independent Iraqi Security Forces.
• Implement oil legislation.
• Distribute Iraqi resources equitably.

Whether right or wrong, these were the established benchmarks. From my perspective, some of these benchmarks seem unreasonable. Specifically, those dealing with the oil legislation and distribution of resources seem like internal problems that really will take longer to resolve. Remember, it took us here in the U.S. 4 years, in a time of relative peace, to figure out how to do such things.

The surge was announced in January 2007. The initial 20,000 troops reached Iraq in March 2007, with more arriving and other units rotating home, the forces in Iraq hit 150,000 in April 2007. Six months after the surge, the initial report showed that of the benchmarks, only three, according to the GAO report, had been met (the Baghdad security plan had been supported, minority rights in the legislature had been ensured, and neighborhood security in Baghdad had been established).

Three months later, the surge strategy, in buying time for the civil process to reestablish itself in Iraq, had resulted in 12 of the benchmarks being achieved. By May 2008, 15 of 18 benchmarks had been achieved. According to the AP story, the two most intractable problems in meeting all the benchmarks are laws to eliminate and disarm militias and solution to the question of the distribution of the oil revenue question.

Let's see. January 2007, there is sectarian violence which is basically out of control, a government that is so fractured that it is ineffective, an indigenous military force which is still trying to stand-up to the point where it can operate as an effective, independent entity, in addition to a de-Baathification process that is out of whack and disputes over how best to use the best natural resource available to the Iraqis. In July 2008, violence in Iraq has largely been brought under control. The Iraqi government, while not a model, is operating more effectively. An amnesty program has been put into effect which allows people who did not commit crimes but were tainted by their association with the Baath party to come back into the fold. While there is still a dispute over how to share oil revenues, the parties are talking and investors are being courted. And best of all, U.S. casualties in Iraq have significantly dropped.

To the layman, taking this all in, it would seem that the surge strategy has worked.

Of course, it would seem that the surge has altered the operational and strategic landscape of the Iraq situation. The Iraqi government realizes this. They want to start talking about the withdrawal of U.S. units. However, this proposal includes the possibility of maintaining bases in Iraq (though not like a Guantanamo type arrangement). Senator Obama, however, had this to say,

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

Let's see. The situation has changed. Yet, Senator Obama does not want to change his position to address the change in the situation. If you read the speech he gave today, its interesting to see how much he wants to get out of Iraq, how much he wants to remind people of how he never approved of the invasion of Iraq, and how much he wants to focus on Afghanistan.

Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong, the fact is that we are there. Leaving without ensuring there will be the conditions necessary for relative peace will mean that all the lives and treasure we have spent will have been wasted. The one thing that seems to be the lesson of the surge policy is that it works for what it can do. It cannot solve all the Iraqi problems. What it is doing is allowing the civil society in Iraq the time it needs to reassert itself. It would be nice to learn from the mistakes we made in Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Vietnam.

Now turning from the Iraq portion of his policy to Afghanistan. It is interesting to see how much he wants to end what we are doing in Iraq... only to do exactly the same type of thing in Afghanistan. Then again, maybe it is what we should expect from a man who said his foreign policy would be an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and a deployment of more troops (but not a "surge") to Afghanistan and possibly invading Pakistan (who by the way has a nuclear weapons system).

By the way, has anyone ever told Senator Obama about people who send large occupation forces to Afghanistan? Someone might tell him to get an adviser who has read something about the Russian and British experiences of trying to be too hands on with the Afghani people.

In one of the sections of his speech where he gets into talking about what his plan would mean, Senator Obama states,

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century's frontlines are not only on the field of battle - they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

So, send more troops. Focus on the training. Build up a judiciary. And get NATO allies to do more. Call me crazy, but the way this reads is he wants to send more troops there, not to fight, but to train others to fight. He also thinks that the NATO members will be willing to suddenly reverse their apathy and commit their troops to do more of the fighting and less of the training.

Are more troops needed in Afghanistan? Yes. Do we need more NATO participation in combat operations? It might be nice. On the other hand, I think that Europe cannot be depended upon to do that. They are nice social democracies, but I think its safe to say that social democracies thrive by dampening down the warrior impulse (at least at the governmental level) that is needed to confront an external threat that isn't just a stones throw from the border.

Then Senator Obama turns to the issue of nuclear proliferation and Iran. Again, he stated,

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy - diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

Nice to see how he opposes Iran getting nuclear weapons. So opposed that "No tool of statecraft" will be left unused. Typically, statecraft means tools not including war. American policy on Iran has been sadly deficient for more than a decade. Rather than trying to engage in some way when we had a chance with previous Iranian administrations, we are left with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not exactly someone who can be rationally dealt with.

What can I say. I am disappointed by this Obama speech. From a speech writing perspective, its great. I am sure that if I punched this into a computer program, it might even be found to be written at an eighth grade level. But he missed a chance.

Instead of talking about the fact that he opposed the war from the beginning, he could have laid out some specific points about how his foreign policy would be different from the current administrations. He could have put forward a new idea on how future U.S.-Iraqi relations will work. Instead of the "Shared Security Partnership Program" idea, he might have laid down how the U.S. will operate in the Middle East and Central Asia. Its nice that he wants to promote "cooperative efforts" to defeat terrorism, and directing more foreign aid to Africa, but that something that a high-school policy debater would say (right before they linked the failure of the oppositions plan to nuclear war -- sorry Speech and Debate humor).

What I want from the person who leads my country is at least the idea that the policy is not going to be one of running away. That it is one where we lead, instead of hoping that others will go along with us. No other country has the capabilities, resources, or credibility (even as damaged as it has been by President Bush ineptitude). Even if one were to say that there are others ready to step up to being a super-power, is that what we really want? Do we want China to step up and assume the mantle of super-power? Do we want Russia to try and reassert itself as the other end of a bi-polar system? Call me a chauvinist, but I'm not ready to see their version of being the dominant hegemon.

I sort of expect a bit more from someone who wants to become next the licensee at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

And the UN takes another step towards irrelevancy

In case you had not heard the latest bit of lunacy from the UN, apparently a new rule was adopted recently by the UN Human Rights Council. Apparently, it has decided that it is no allowed to criticize the practices of any religion.

Incidentally, the rule was proposed by the Pakistani (a predominantly Muslim country) representative to the head of the council, a Nigerian (a country where a large portion of the country is subject to Sharia law heard by courts of Islamic mullahs), and supported by Egypt and Iran.

That's nice. So being unable to criticize, apparently in any form, practices of any religion, the Council can no longer really deal with issues such as genital mutiliation, stoning, and child marriage. Interestingly enough, all issues which are practiced (to some form or another) by reactionary Islamic nations such as Iran, unstable Islamic nations such as Pakistan, and authoritarian dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

I guess with all those pesky issues out of the way, the UN Human Rights Council can get back to important issues, like condemning Israel for defending itself against outlaws who want to indiscriminately kill its citizens. Nice to see their priorities are in the right place.

The Torch Relay Nonesense

As I watch the Giants' go down after blowing a 2-1 lead, I figure now is a good time to put my thoughts down about the Olympic Torch.

Here's my thought: how about protesting but not extinguishing the damn flame. Yes, the PRC is a despicable regime who oppresses a number of minorities as a matter of policy. Yes, they make Texas look like a judicial system that sparingly uses the death penalty. But simply because the Olympics are being held there does not mean that the world has approved of what China is doing.

We do that every day here in the United States by investing money there so that we can get our [insert product] cheaper.

Have to hand it to Iran

Even before the U.N. voted today to sanction Iran, the Iranians were getting ready for the outcome of the vote by grabbing bargaining chips. In this case, it was British military personnel.

In case you had not heard, the Iranian Islamic Republican Guard Corps maritime unit captured 15 members of a Royal Navy and Royal Marine detachment on duty in the Shatt al Arab. Iran claims that the men in captivity have "admitted" to violating Iranian waters. The Iranians have announced that they intend to try the captured British personnel for espionage.

The Iranians claim that the British violated their waters. However, in a similar incident last year, it was clear that the British were clearly within the Iraqi territory. Does it make any sense that they would be invading Iranian territory, in the day, in rigid inflatable boats, and unsupported? Or is it more likely that the Iranians are lashing out at the world's condemnation of their nuclear program and the recent capture of five Iranian Republican Guardsmen in Iraq earlier this year by U.S. forces?

A hundred years ago, the response would have been a swift reprisal raid freeing the prisoners. In today's world, with our lack of certain terms, moral equivalence, and tolerance, the response will definitely be less swift, less certain, and probably result in appeasement.

Hopefully, the Bush administration and Blair government will not repeat the fiasco of North Korean appeasement. Or they could just treat it like they have the rest of Iran's involvement in the Iraqi civil-war.

All Iran had to worry about was a UN sanction for its nuclear program. Those have proven so effective against Iraq, Sudan (for Darfur), Angola, the Former Yugoslavia, Somalia and all the other places the UN has sanctioned.

Now... ?

In the Category of...

How is this day different from all other days, Iran apparently has stated that it intends to humiliate the United States.

Maybe he hasn't noticed the headlines recently, but I think its fair to say that this is a nation with very little shame left and even less to worry about Iran trying to get in on the act of humiliating us.

I could only hope that was all Iran wished to do.

Is Chirac Trying to Live Down to the Stereotype

My friend's favorite joke, and this was pre-9/11, was "Want to buy a French rifle? Never fied only dropped once?" Perhaps you might have tried to google French military victories. Or perhaps heard the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" when referring to France and its foreign policy.

According to the news today, instead of trying to enforce the deadline which the U.N. gave Iran, France has decided to intervene. Chirac is proposing that instead of enforcing the deadline, the rest of the world should agree to refrain from sanctioning Iran and Iran will promise not to refine anymore nuclear material.

Like they did when they signed on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact.

Chirac seems to think that as long as people are talking, then peace will inevitably occur. I believe the head of that school of thought used to be Neville Chamberlain. Of course, Chirac has the luxury of allowing Iran to say one thing while it does another.

Its not as though his home territory. Its always much more convenient when the people who could suffer as a result of appeasement policy, and the resulting ballistic missiles capabable of carrying a nuclear warhead, are Israelis and American. No doubt, the French companies doing business in Iran appreciate the support the Chirac government is giving them. Perhaps their forecasts already include a head tax.

This is not to say that negotiations should not be tried. But to expect one side to adhere to rules which they have clearly shown a disdain for, and have actively worked to violate, shows a lack of understanding of reality. In the past, the West has repeatedly asked Iran to please stop refining nuclear material. Each time Iran has eithe refused or claimed that they are not doing anything of the sort. The definition of insanity, as my mother would tell me, is to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Mr. Chirac, your proposal is not only worthy of the stereo-type of the cheese eating surrender monkey, but insane to boot.