Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Obama's war
President Obama has decided to increase the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan by roughly 17,000 troops over the next few months. The increase will begin with an initial deployment of 8,000 Marines in the next few weeks, to be followed by subsequent deployments of an Army brigade of 4,000 troops and about 5,000 support troops next summer.
This is a fateful decision. Yes, I know; he promised that he would do this during the campaign, but ignoring campaign promises is a time-honored tradition and I can't help feeling like this was one issue where a rethink was called for. Instead of being just another one of George Bush's mishandled legacies, Afghanistan will now become Obama's war. If increasing U.S. forces doesn't work, he will face pressure to do still more, and he will incur the political costs of any subsequent failure.
As other commentators have noted, what's missing in the announcement is a clear statement of U.S. strategy. To begin with, as William Pfaff notes here, it is not clear what our present goal is. Are we trying to bolster President Karzai, and do we still hope to build a stable democracy there? Is our real objective to defeat the Taliban once-and-for-all and eradicate poppy growing while we're at it? Is the objective the long-term delegitimation of the central Asian strains of Islamic extremism, and the encouragement of more moderate forms of Islamic observance? Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has already told Congress that we are not trying to create "some kind of Central Asian Valhalla" (which is both realistic and smart), but that still leaves a lot of other possibilities open.
In fact, we have only one vital national interest in Afghanistan: to prevent Afghan territory from being used as a safe haven for groups plotting attacks on American soil or on Americans abroad, as al Qaeda did prior to September 11. It might be nice to achieve some other goals too (such as economic development, better conditions for women, greater political participation, etc.), but these goals are neither vital to U.S. national security nor central to the future of freedom in the United States or elsewhere. Deep down, we don't (or shouldn't) care very much who governs in Afghanistan, provided they don't let anti-American bad guys use their territory to attack us. As I recall, President Bush was even willing to let the Taliban stay in power in 2001 if they had been willing to hand us Osama and his henchmen.
Second, it is not clear what the additional troops are going to do once they get there. In Iraq, we faced a mostly urban-based insurgency, and the so-called "surge" focused primarily on stabilizing Baghdad. By contrast, the Taliban is a rural movement, and an additional 17,000 troops (or even 30,000), won't be enough to provide reliable protection for the Afghan people. And as Juan Cole and Rory Stewart have warned, using U.S. and NATO troops to eradicate opium poppies or to engage in other forms of social engineering is likely to provoke a local backlash and make the Taliban even more popular.
Going forward, here are some critical things to watch:
1. Do the United States and its allies devote more resources to training the Afghan national army, and do these efforts succeed? If so, then we ought to follow the Iraq model and turn the country back to the Afghans as quickly as we can.
2. Is Obama able to persuade our NATO allies to increase their own efforts there, or will they mostly free-ride on Uncle Sam? (And watch out for token deployments intended to signal that the rest of NATO is with us on this one, but that have no real effect on the ground).
3. Can Obama (or more precisely, Richard Holbrooke) get Pakistan to do more to deny safe havens in Pakistan's frontier areas? If not, more U.S. troops on one side of the border won't have much effect. Does the recent ceasefire in the Swat Valley generate a backlash against the extremists who are imposing Shariah (as my FP colleague Thomas Ricks hopes), or do these groups continue to extend their sway?
4. President Karzai is increasingly seen as the weak leader of one of the most corrupt regimes in the world. Was this new commitment of U.S. troops linked to specific changes in Karzai's policies, or did we just do this on our own? My understanding is that the surge in Iraq also involved pressuring Prime Minister Maliki to crack down on both Shiite and Sunni militias (rather than just the latter), a decision that helped reduce violence and may even have enhanced his own legitimacy somewhat. Before we decided to up the ante in Afghanistan, did we get some a clear commitment to reform from Karzai, and do we think he has to backbone to pull it off? If not, we're in trouble. Do the names Ngo Dinh Diem or Nguyen van Thieu ring any bells?
Given Central Asia's potential to become the bottomless pit of American foreign and military policy, I hope Obama's decision pays off. But it's hard to have much confidence at this stage, until we know what the objective is and why he thinks adding more troops is going to get us there.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
This is a fateful decision. (Updated)
Professor don't worry about it Obama kept his promise and tomorrow the situation may change and he withdraw more troops than he deployed to keep his promise;->
Remember Obama is there to enjoy the Kingdom;->
No as you have already said, just to keep his promise. You should ask those question when he made this promise. Now it is too late Mate!
and this is another one of tongue in cheek, leg-pulling statement;->>
I don't think poppy-traffic is your main concern out there, you must have much more important traffics than that out there. For example Natural Gas traffic etc.
Professor! tell us realistic reasons why the US and her Allies to be there. Remember this is a Realist Blog.
Have you looked at the Afghanistan Map recently?
It is very, very close to Iran, isn't it? It would be nice to lay a pipe-line thru Iran to the EU, isn't it? - to by-pass Russian interests?
Professor please don't be scared like a Greek God (what a God;-)) that we will steal the knowledge from you and use it against you, remember you are the Hegemon here;->>
Isn't it amazing Professor, you are a citizen of the US and a Professor of Foreign Politics, but even yourself is unaware of the objectives of the Monopoly to move another 17000 men to Afghanistan. If you ask me it is not amazing, it is scary.
And this is happening in the pillar of the democracy;->
I can't imagine even a city-state like Athens ruled like that. Didn't I tell Obama will enjoy the Kingdom like an African King. That is what he is doing and of course you wouldn't have a clue what is the objective of his moving 17000 men to Afghanistan, but don't worry you will eventually learn it after the disaster/fortune strike you - wait and see as a loyal subject of the Kingdom;->>
The Monopoly knows the best by Jupiter!
Or maybe you don't tell us the truth. But I don't think so, because when the Monopoly don't trust her subjects why would she trust her subject professors;->
Grand Sen~or
on a second thought I know the objective of this move of 17000 men to Afghanistan. Obama is creating an extra job opportunities to at least 50000 people with a spending of couple of billion dollars. Compared to the Bill of $787 Billion, this is nothing to worry about, he is just kick-starting the job-market;->
tisk..tisk..can you believe it;->>
I think you are right
It is a bit off putting, how leading analysts of US power in the US, can sometimes appear out of touch with real-polik. It'as as if they prefer washing down their theories to the least controversial and debatable abstractions if only to extend their lifespan. But there are the likes of Brzezinsky, who write honestly and h'openly.
I guess real IR info will always remain for initiates.
Zbigniew Brzezinsky
I found this article by Zbigniew Brzezinsky
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03dd3a7a-b230-11db-a79f-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1
sound right advice for a start, but the main problem with the US is her out of date constitution stifling her own dynamic human resources under the tyranny of the Monopoly.
The US has much more serious internal problems than her international problems. In fact, the international problems are just the result/reflection of the internal ones deferred to international. Therefore Brzezinsky's advices are most likely to end up in deaf ears.
Thank you for your comments.
Grand Sen~or
who is?
Who is the Monopoly?
Who is the Monopoly?
The State, a new more picturesque name for her;->
I have prepared ground on my previous postings to thes label how and why it is the Monopoly etc.
Grand Sen~or
The Monopoly
The term Monopoly implies a level of coercive power and perhaps single-mindedness that the State might not have.
During the presidential campaign we were treated to frequent groveling by the candidates to the Israel Lobby.
There may actually be a developing monopoly of power and single-mindedness in the USA, but it belongs to the Zionist intelligentsia and political-economic oligarchy and not to the US government per se
Struggle for America and the World
Either Israel lobbying has so perverted the process of identifying national interest that US policy-makers in effect wear Zionist blinders, or American Zionist power has for the most part totally manipulated the US government into subordinating US interests to Israeli interests to the detriment or harm of the nation.
One may choose either view point, but in either case Mearsheimer and Walt fail to describe the full magnitude of the problem.
Bat-Ami Zucker points out in Ha-Mesoret Ha-Mishpatit ve-Ha-Zionit shel Louis D. Brandeis [The Legal and Zionist Tradition of Louis D. Brandeis, in Hebrew ] that Brandeis aimed to demonstrate that Zionists were complete and better Americans. In other words Zionism at least for Brandeis and people like him was part of the German Jewish Americanization project (and provided an alternative to Jewish radicalism or communism here in the USA).
An assimilationist German American Jew like Brandeis could view Zionism as part of the project of assimilating Eastern European Ethnic Ashkenazim because German American Jewish assimilationists and European Zionists shared common assumptions about Kultur in German sense as Zionist Culture and West European Jewry Before the First World War by Michael Berkowitz indicates.
Eighty years later American Jews have moved beyond mere assimilation. The New Jewish Elite that supplanted the older New York German Jewish elite has been assimilating US society and culture to Jewish standards for the last generation,[iv] and Jewish groups are now at the centers of American power.
Mort Zuckerman recently made an important observation in a JTA news report.[54]
If Israel is a client state and the New Jewish elite is dominating American culture and politics, American Zionists or more correctly those American Zionists manipulating or dominating US ME policy call the shots in Israel and not local Israeli politicians.
There is another critical aspect to the flow of power. A segment of the American Jewish community seems to increase its status, wealth and power through its Israel connection, which at the very least gives this small but important well-connected group of American Jews a place on the gravy train of unaccounted cash aid to Israel.
These American Jews then use their increasing wealth to make sure that national politicians, who support continuing and increasing aid to Israel, are well funded during election campaigns. By carefully working the Israel lobby and media connections, this group of Zionists keeps American politicians in a state of dependency on Jewish contributions and in a state of fear of campaign swift-boating.
In effect American national politicians with the exception of Ron Paul are clients of a powerful Jewish Zionist elite. In other words, the State of Israel may be a client state of America, but America is a client state of the American Jewish Zionist elite, which is probably in the process of establishing itself as the permanent national "meritocratic" elite.
[Is it surprising that a vocal Zionist like Kondracke and Commentary, which until recently was the flagship national publication of the American Jewish Committee have systematically attacked affirmative action?]
While the American public has not fully comprehended the nature of power relations, Israeli leaders do, and the American Zionist elite calls all shots on issues of importance to itself from "Who is a Jew" to whether the USA should attack Iraq or Iran first.
The political relational hierarchy and the domination of an American Zionist elite over all validate the Finkelstein and Massad critiques of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.[55]
The alliance between Israeli and the American states is in the process of creating an internal American caste system that will be dominated by a small class of hyper-wealthy Zionists. With the sort of permanent war that has been envisioned since the beginning of the twentieth century by a segment of the Zionist elite under the influence of Sorel and with the application of the Friedmanite Shock Doctrine as described by Naomi Klein, this caste system will spread globally. (See The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,[56] by Naomi Klein.)
no worries Mate, it is just changing hands....
What would you expect from the Jews under the Monopoly determined to assimilate them according to her mono-laws?
Yes, if the game is assimilation eventually you will get assimilated;->
My use of the Monopoly is related to the mono-law structure and it is a result of it. There is a mono-law and it has to be imposed to all (including Jews) to get them assimilated. If the Jews turning the table and getting the assimilators to be assimilated, for me this is not a big deal, the big deal is the Monopoly goes on, it is just changing hands;->
Just suppose you have a Telephone Company called G-Bell and there is no competitor to her by Law.
You have two ways to deal with such a Monopoly.
1. You change the Law and break her monopoly.
2. Wait clever Jews (you call them Zionists, I am just wondering what would you call the previous owners;-> Secularo-fascists??!!;->>) obtain the G-Bell to carry on the Monopoly.
You Guys observe it correctly that the Monopoly is changing hands. But you are struggling in vain to keep the Monopoly in old hands;-> You created this gigantic Monopoly expecting that she will always be yours, yeah it is still yours with a different twist. Don't forget those clever Jews (you call them Zionists) are the citizen of the US and they have all the right to obtain the Monopoly. In other words the Monopoly is good as long as it belongs to you, but hey, why wouldn't Jews think the same way that it would be good to have the Monopoly in Jewish hands with their thanks that you have established it by Law?.
That is why I keep telling to Prof. Walt to invest on his investigations on the IL rather than going to conferences to listen ancients' fables/mythology;->>
Joachim, good on you Mate!, thank you very much for your comments, they are illuminating. I am sure we will be getting somewhere;-)
Grand Sen~or
Government Legitimacy/Reform
Re: Karzai, Afghanistan has a presidential election in six months. The short-term US objective should be to ensure that the election produces a legitimate winner.
'Strongman' in prospect
"Deep down, we don't (or shouldn't) care very much who governs in Afghanistan"
This is the kind of logic that gets 'friendly' dictators like Saddam Hussein and Islam Karimov into power with US backing so very, very often. Its guaranteed to turn around and bite you in the you-know-what in thirty years. Why is so called 'national interest' so short sighted?
Of course that isn't to say that social engineering (which the democratisation project is, you are perfectly right) can ever actually work. Its natural to wish for security and peace for such a geo-strategically important and terminally conflicted region but one should stop to wonder whether peace and security come from democracy or whether democracy comes from peace and security. I'd have it about 3 to 1 in favour of the latter, myself.
On another note, if Afghanistan (and Iraq) are left in anything less than a semi-functional democratic state where does that leave Bush and friends vis-à-vis locking them up and throwing away the key?
Did the USA Bring Saddam Hussein to Power?
Or did the USA simply deal with him after he achieved power?
Did the USA Bring Saddam
That's a hard question to answer.
There are people who claim that Saddam was on the CIA payroll before he took over iraq. But I don't know how to confirm that. Would they admit it if it was true? The story could have been cooked up to make Saddam look bad, or to make CIA look bad, or both.
If it was true, it doesn't have to mean much. CIA asks questions of various mid-level members of various governments, and some of them talk to CIA. CIA pays them a modest stipend and thinks of them as contacts. Some places they would be treated as spies, so CIA has a hold on them. They have to get information to CIA or they could be exposed as spies and punished by their own governments. Other places it's just expected that they'll tell CIA what their government wants CIA to hear. It doesn't mean CIA backed Saddam in his bid for power. It doesn't even mean they knew about it until afterward.
Whatever the truth is, would the CIA tell it to Obama if he told them to? Would they feel that they have secrets that the President of the USA should not know? Assuming he asked and got an answer, how would Obama or we or anybody outside CIA know whether it was true?
unrealistic wish maybe
politics are the art of being hopeful. i like to believe that, Obama no doubt an egomaniac (but which ruler/statesman isn't?), the reason behind Afghanistan is still the unfortunate fruit of interest group politics. just count how many lobby die-hards are in this administration. it's not his wish, nor the result of any kingdom enjoyment--he is cocky and he likes to wait until he can get his way safely. otherwise i would say he is a fool. but he probably isn't
Can We Please End the Cold War Now?
Nobody in that neighborhood likes the Salafists. They are trouble for the Iranians, trouble for the Russians, trouble for the Indians and trouble for the government of Pakistan - they're even trouble for the Chinese.
So why have we spent so much time working with NATO instead of the local neighbors who have a real stake in cleaning up their own backyard, and the strongest desire to do so? Is this our stodgy old Atlanticist foreign policy establishment still conducting the foreign policies of the 90's - and even the 60's and 70's - still dreaming their NATO uber alles dreams, still treating Iran like its 1979, and still trying to pull off some crazy anti-Russian, anti-Iranian, anti-Salafist triple play in Afghanistan?
We're weighed down by an antiquated global strategy forged by a half century of cold war, and grafted into the DNA of generations of foreign policy practitioners from the foreign policy seminaries. Enough is enough. We've got real problems in Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan, but we're still busy trying to push NATO in the Ukraine and Georgia, and still trying to overthrow the government of Iran?!
Disliking Salafists?
While I am mostly a Jewish and Eastern European studies expert, I have done business from Egypt to Malaysia for long enough to have realized that flinging terms like "salafists" without really understanding or explaining them is not particularly useful.
I will try to put some of my current thinking on the subject of "salafism" on my blog for Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel within the next three entrees.
some objectives
Consider the implications of pulling out of Afghanistan.
Also consider, that keeping someone in power, who can enforce some law - even the most rudimentary law which simply seeks out terrorists who can launch attacks against US interests, may take a surge.
No?
Make peace with 'Taliban'; Camps destroyed in 2001
The 'terrorist-trainingcamps, the rationale for going in in the first place, were destroyed in 2001.
Make agreement with 'Taliban'
We can make an agreement with 'Taliban' along the following lines: "You agree that no new camps will be established on your trrritory, and we will withdraw our troops. And you and we know what will happen if we find any camps in the future on your territory."
Its even possible to include a passus about OBL should be handed over, just like they proposed to do in 2001.
But there are certain people who want war, war, war - read more about them in The Old Testament.
So you are saying the Taliban
So you are saying the Taliban is the de facto administrative potential of the country?
What about Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek north? Partion and give to ethnonymous states? (its possible I guess)
Could work, maybe.
But why would we
a) trust them to keep their word
b) rely on them
Also - wouldn't we in fact be instituting a totalitarian system, the likes of which we've only seen under Pol-Pot, and would we want that moral responsibility.
Furthermore, I think the Taliban sucks as administrators, the only thing they can do, is work on terrorist bases, sell drugs, and terrorize their own people. If that's what you give Afghanistan, then you are taking its future away from it.
Interests and Skills
I seldom see much discussion about U.S. policy makers thinking that we need a long term and stable presence in Central Asia so that we can gain access to the region’s oil resources.
Also, I seldom see a detailed analysis about the importance of the dynamics of factional politics on both sides of the Pakistan and Afghanistan border regions. How do those dynamics affect the stability of Pakistan, and how do the complex kaleidoscope of activities affect China?
Thirdly, Afghanistan supplies almost 95% of the world’s opium. That large enterprise makes up most of Afghanistan’s economy---along with foreign aid.
To me, the humanitarian issues are important.
Whether or not you agree with how important any of these potential or real interests should be, or are presently important to American interests, we apparently do not have the skills to manage those interests.
In the long term, the peasant political culture will determine the outcome of any of our interests in the region. If we cannot operate within a culture of ever changing factional alliances and where personal interests override any notion of state legitimacy, then we will continue to escalate the military role because we have failed politically to recruit support or even temporary collaboration with a broad base of rural communities.
We are obtuse enough to think that we can pay the warlords to support us, and that will provide the support we need to prevail. In reality, we are undercutting President Karzai’s ability to perform the traditional Afghan role of head patronage broker. The warlords are more loyal to us than to their own President. Consequently, the country cannot obtain even a beginning of stability.
We escalate the military’s role because we cannot mange the politics. Doing that almost guarantees that we will suffer a long frustrating loss of any legitimate interest.
Bob Spencer
Right on
Agreed.
We can make an agreement with
We can make an agreement with 'Taliban' along the following lines: "You agree that no new camps will be established on your trrritory, and we will withdraw our troops. And you and we know what will happen if we find any camps in the future on your territory."
It isn't clear that we can do that. Suppose for a moment that our strategy of killing off the Taliban top leadership has actually succeeded. Then Taliban has become a many-headed monster. Many local leaders who agree generally on a vague philosophy and who cooperate on tactics. Nobody who has authority to negotiate peace.
Now suppose that they do have a leadership that we have not killed off. Who are they? How do we negotiate with them? We don't know who they are; if we did know we'd kill them. Can they trust us enough to reveal themselves?
This is a fundamental problem with the decapitation strategy in general. During and after the iraqi war the iraqi government never officially surrendered. We didn't let them get organised enough to do that. It likely would have helped us if they had, but we didn't let them.
So, we could pull out without an agreement. We could broadcast a warning to Taliban. "OK, you win, you can have afghanistan. But if you ever set up another terrorist training camp, then [ahnold voice] we'll be back!" How would our collaborators in afghanistan feel about that? How will they respond when we come back?
And what do terrorist training camps look like, anyway? The camps in afghanistan were mostly infantry training camps. They downloaded US Marine training manuals and chopped out everything that didn't apply to them, and then they taught by the book. They turned out infantrymen almost as good as our Marines, except they lacked air support, artillery, and armor. What does that have to do with terrorism?
Terrorists need special training. How to transfer money without leaving a trail that will attract attention. How to communicate over the internet without exposing your contacts if you are discovered. Urban assassination. Etc. Not the sort of skills tha are easy to teach in afghanistan at all. They might do better to make that camp in jamaica, and maybe disguise it as a tourist resort.
Getting out with a warning to Taliban not to make new terrorist camps seems to me like a start toward saving face. We can pretend we didn't just give up and leave. But then what happens if some Republican in an intelligence agency finds photos of something he says are new terrorist camps, and leaks it? Do we go back to Taliban and warn them to destroy the camps? And if they say it's just infantry training camps, for their army? Destroy the camps ourselves? Fire the analyst and announce that we've changed our minds and they aren't terrorist camps after all?
If the US government tries this strategy for getting out of afghanistan, then Taliban or random Republicans can yank our chain any time they want to with pretend camps.
Right on
Another good point against agreeing with these barbarians.
corruption?
Here is a different viewpoint about corruption in Afghanistan.
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3326&updaterx=2009-02-19+12%3A45%3A33
Sending a Message to Pakistan?
I can't help wondering that the real object of the troop buildup is Pakistan and not Afghanistan.
I can think of several ways in which their presence might affect US Pakistan relations. I had a chat with David Frum shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, and he seemed to think the US should have been focusing primarily on Pakistani regime change and not so much on getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
Anyway the drone attacks seem to be a disaster and increasing the instability of Pakistan.
A New Standard of Hypocrisy!
by Joachim Martillo
The US condemns rocket attacks on Israeli Jewish civilians by the Palestinian resistance. Yet the USA routinely kills dozens of Pakistani Muslim civilians via drone attacks. Could the USA possibly be more hypocritical?
Zionist Jews believe that they have the right to plunder and to kill non-Jews with impunity.
Zionist Jews planned to genocide Palestinians in the 1880s and started abusing them as part of a very dirty demographic war in the 1890s.
Zionist Jews put their genocidal plans into effect in 1947 and have not let up since.
Not only are Palestinian attacks on Zionists are completely legitimate, but they are also completely legal under Nuremberg Law, which the USA helped create.
In contrast, US attacks on Pakistani Muslims are neither legal nor legitimate.
Until Obama ends attacks on Pakistani Muslims and retracts condemnation of the Palestinian resistance, he engages Muslims not on terms of mutual respect and equality but instead insults the intelligence of any decent human being that understands the difference between right and wrong.
US attacks ... neither legal
So!?
what are you going to do about it?
You Guys still don't get what a "state" is;->
Please read carefully;->
Salvare Apparentias Theory of FP (SATFP).
1. There exist states.
2. A State composed of a nation, a national leadership, national interests and power (economic, military, population, land, etc? ..(any others? pls feel free to add, it is the Blog's theory, not mine).
3. There exists a competitive arena where states acts as they do.
4. There exists no central authority in that arena that can enforce moral or legal constraints.
5. States commit morally dubious acts (dubious according to what? The Blog knows) (see axiom 4)(Why this is here? Didn't the Blog declare that SATFP is essencially amoral?)
6. A State's foreign and defense policy reflects national interest of the state.
7. A State can take deterrent action against other State(s) if the Leadership of the State decides so. (see axiom 11 & 12).
8. A State seeks to increase her national interests when her existence is threatened.
9. A State's power is a potential threat to other states. A state is by definition paranoid of other states.
10. States to increase their National Interests, to decrease potential threat of other States, to assimilate them and to dominate them, impose their Constitutions to other States. (But of course this degenerates all constitutions to a mono-constitution which prepares the Competetive Arena to the favour of the State whose Constitution became the one and only dominant Constitution to pave the ground for so called Globalization - Global Dominance - Ein STAAT, ein LAND (the GLOBE), ein FUERER und ein VOLK where there exists NO THREATt, NO COMPETITIVE ARENA, NO WORRIES and bsst of all NO NEED TO FP - a Paradise on Earth if you believe;->>)
11. A State talks sweet but carries her power peeping under her cloak to deterre the potential threats of other states. (McCain the Presidential Candidate 2008)
12. Powerful States to rule or protect or increase their National Interests divide less powerful states ad infinitum.
13. A States can suspend her constitution if the National Intersts dictates so. Soley the Leadership decides whether the National Intersts dictates that or not and their decision is final, cannot be challenged based on the articles of the Constitution of the State. In such cases the leadership for the sake of the National Interests is not required to disclose the reasons how they reached to a certain decision.
14. A State to keep her Internal Balance of Threat and National Interest and National Unity must centralize the power and not to share it with any Identifiable National Entity(ies).
15. A State keeps the power of making and implementing the laws solely to herself and does not share this power with any Identifiable National Entity(ies).
16. Salvare Apparentias Foreign Policy is the art of keeping the threats of states in Balance besides saving the foreign policy related phenomena. (How? By shuffling, dividing and mixing nations/races/cultures?!, subjecting them to prototype secularo-fascist laws to reduce their multiplicity to singularity? the Blog knows).
In this Blog Bloggers are talking about this kind of "state" and arena and they call it realistic not yourkind of "state and arena". In other words according to this Blog you are living in a dreamworld and expecting miracles to happen.
Keep on dreaming Mate!
Grand Sen~or
International Legality or Legitimacy
I have already explained that I use a much less limited definition of the modern state than most academic political scientists. (See Introduction: The Virtual Colonial Motherland as Political Innovation.)
However we define the state, to believe that states or even the most powerful state exists in a frictionless environment is simply unrealistic.
International legality and legitimacy are contructs useful in discussing pushback against a state's policy or actions from other state or non-state actors.
the definition of modern state
Joachim,
I am not against people introducing new theories here and I am not in favour of the SATFP either. But I observe that the SATFP is sort of standard theory used here, my formalization of it is just a draft but better than nothing. So what I would like to suggest you is; when you say your concept of "state" is somehow different than the "state" of the SATFP, please bring your axioms together and put them in contrast with the SATFP, like I did to degenerate the concept "state" of the SATFP to "hegemon state". That would really help the Bloggers to understand your theory better in relation to theirs. They could dig out your theory's structure like I did for the SATFP but this is really a lot of time waste. Please do the Bloggers a favour and tell them which axioms of the SATFP you accept/reject/modify/add to invent your theory. By that way once they get familiarized with your concepts they may be attracted to your literature and better understand it. That is what I would do if I wanted to promote my theory;->
But fortunately I am not here to promote a theory, I am here to conduct conceptual investigations on some political concepts. For me the concept of "state" based on existing proto-type constitutions is completely corrupted one cannot repair it trying what you are doing:
BTW, still, if someone see some error on my list of axioms of the SATFP please feel free to correct it, sort of to represent the mostly used standard theory here.
Thank you.
Grand Sen~or
ok?
Sounds a little off topic. Its factually wrong, and full of lies. You had a talk with Frum? Yah, and I just chatted with Henry (you know, the one whose last name starts with K, and is followed by Associates?).
Talking with Frum
My corporate headquarters is only a few minutes from Harvard Square. Not only can I drop by and chat with anyone interesting that pays a visit to Harvard or any nearby college, but I have also been consulting with various governments and government officials on an assortment of problems for years.
Frum came by the Kennedy School a few years ago. After a relatively stupid verbal "disquisition" on the Vietnam War, which he is too young to remember, Frum tried to tell me that as an ally Pakistan was more of a liability than an asset and that the USA should consider a military intervention there.
I pointed out that one could make at least as legitimate an argument that as an ally the State of Israel was more of a liability than an asset.
He told me that the American people had already made its choice on that subject.
I asked when the USA had held an open public debate followed by a democratic decision on the alliance with Israel. He gave me the yeshivah shrug as if it were a topic in gemorah beyond my ken and turned away.
By the way, if you are in the Boston area, you could probably go chat with Frum yourself next week.
If Frum is not enough to make you puke, later that day the RJC is hosting Geert Wilders.
Daniel Pipes founded the Middle East Forum.
I have a lot of entries about the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) on my website. RJC and CUFI Incite Islamophobia is a fairly typical example.
He told me that the American
he made a mistake, you should correct him saying you mean "the US (the Monopoly) had already made her choice on that subject" ( according to the SATFP ) - to make him feel happy;->
Grand Sen~or
It is high time to amend...
Oh well, didn't I say it is high time;->
(Please keep in mind that "religion" is also used as "law" in the Scriptures. Therefore when Pharaoh was saying "religion" he meant the laws that he was implementing/imposing. In that sense it looks like there has been a long deviation/erosion of the concept "law/religion" from Moses to RJC;-> RJC is operating on the concept of "religion" inherited from the Ancient Greeks rather than Moses.)
Maybe Frum should be appointed to get this amendment to be realized;->
I mean I can clearly imagine if Moses has been sent to the US then most probably Obama would say : "Moses will alter your Constitution!" and RJC would support Obama rather than Moses;->>
Joachim, thank you very much for the quotations.
Grand Sen~or
Lack of Media, Lack of Strategy
The attention, or more accurate, the lack there of, this has gotten in the media is appalling. On the day of the announcement, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric had it as the fourth storyline of the day, behind the Stimulus passage (ok) and the Aroid scandal (not ok). And today, the second news morning after the announcement, not one story from any major newspaper (realclearpolitics). Heck, I write an Afghanistan blog for the Foreign Policy Association and I didn't even write about until today! The Iraq ’surge’ was just a little over 20,000 troops and I recall it being a ‘big deal’. Not only should the media do its job of examining the how’s, why’s, and the ‘what’s’ of this Afghan troop surge, but it also owes it to the men and women who are about to do tremendously difficult work in a dangerous and unstable region.
Anyway, what really concerns me is that there does not seem to be a comprehensive strategy to go along with these troops. In a written statement, (no time for a press conference or speech), Obama really only justifies the troop surge as ‘necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation.’ Obama and his JCS have already leaked that they are likely to have a more ‘realistic’ approach to the conflict, trying to bring stability and security first, democracy and Afghan good governance second, but I want to hear some explanation how these troops will lead to that. The Iraqi surge did come with a General Petraeus counterinsurgency plan attached to it and had his rock solid leadership.
Zero
Not a comprehensive strategy, not even a short term or mid term idea of what they are gonna do. Its politics gone Public Relations. And it is also a way of making sure the DoD budget stays the same, neutralizing the intelligence community and defense community's apprehensions about the Obama administration for this one year.
Its a farce - let me guess who wrote the script?
Axelrod.
Professor Walt, One of your
Professor Walt,
One of your earlier insightful posts referred to the prospect of Pakistani internal conflict which could lead to a jihadi-led nuclear power.
That seems to be a critical concern.
How would you recommend avoiding that?
dismantle it
I am sure we could take out Pakistan's nuclear forces from the inside out. If we really needed to, we could neutralize it.
Who knows, maybe they don't even have nuclear, or they have far less than we think.
If we can booby-trap all of Saudi's oil resources, then why couldn't we booby-trap or control Pakistans.
Especially considering that the UK's arsenal is in our hands, I have a hard time believing that a long-time ally who has nukes only thanks to our active help in their nuke program (Khan was our buddy, remember?), isn't at the same time under some back-up program to neutralize the arsenal.
If we can booby-trap all of
If we can booby-trap all of Saudi's oil resources, then why couldn't we booby-trap or control Pakistans.
Tell us more about booby-trapping saudi oil resources?
likely to provoke a local
Keep in mind that from what we can tell of Afghanis, the Taliban aren't popular - the Afghanis utterly despise them.
Pakistan couldn't even deny the Taliban safe haven in the North West Frontier Province, much less the FATA. Their army is simply not that competent in dealing with counter-insurgency, which is why 3,000 Taliban were able to keep 12,000 Pakistani troops at bay. On the "bright" side, though, presumably they can be counted on to at least try to defend Islamabad, and we might be helped by the ethnic differences (the FATA and NWFP are primarily Pashtun areas, whereas Islamabad and the Punjab are not).
"...likely to provoke a local
"...likely to provoke a local backlash and make the Taliban even more popular."
Keep in mind that from what we can tell of Afghanis, the Taliban aren't popular - the Afghanis utterly despise them.
So, how do they dominate afghanistan?
A small group that everybody despises. A nation where every village has a large armed militia.
Against them we have the overwhelming majority of the population of afghanistan, the afghan government that's armed, supplied, and financed by the US government, the US Army, the US Marines, the US Air Force, and NATO.
So why are they winning?
I see two likely possibilities, and no third possibility.
1. Maybe Taliban is more popular than it looks like to us. Maybe afghans tell us what they think we want to hear.
2. Maybe Taliban is a small weak force that everybody despises, and we mostly aren't fighting Taliban. We're fighting most of afghanistan because we can't tell them apart from Taliban. When we leave, maybe somebody other than Taliban will take over or maybe nobody will take over.
Either way, the afghan government clearly isn't getting much support from afghans. And regardless how the US military does on the battlefield, don't we lose unless the afghans start supporting their government?
So, how do they dominate
"Not popular" is not the same as "no supporters". They do have some, and they make up for the general lack by doing things like intimidation and assassinations. Think of them in gang-like terms.
The latter is almost certainly not true, or is only true depending on how well you define "armed". One of the major complaints that the local Afghani tribesmen give to US troops, if I recall correctly, is that the US won't provide them with weapons to stand up against the Taliban. All they have are aging AK-47s (a same problem the lashkar had in the FATA).
They have supporters, but you don't need widespread support if you have a decent source of money (poppy sales) and just enough support to have hiding places and safe houses. Intimidation is a big factor here.
"So, how do they dominate
"So, how do they dominate afghanistan?"
"Not popular" is not the same as "no supporters". They do have some, and they make up for the general lack by doing things like intimidation and assassinations. Think of them in gang-like terms.
So it's only that they're better organised than anybody else? And afghans don't accept our help dealing with them, and don't help us do it, because....
"A small group that everybody despises. A nation where every village has a large armed militia."
One of the major complaints that the local Afghani tribesmen give to US troops, if I recall correctly, is that the US won't provide them with weapons to stand up against the Taliban.
And of course we don't. We can't tell which of them would give their weapons to Taliban. We can't tell which of them *are* Taliban. What we know for sure is that they are not particularly on our side.
They have supporters, but you don't need widespread support if you have a decent source of money (poppy sales) and just enough support to have hiding places and safe houses. Intimidation is a big factor here.
They were real good at stopping poppy sales when they were in charge. So, what fraction of poppy sales do you think goes to Taliban now? How do we estimate that?
Try a little history. After we won in iraq, we said the problem was that Saddam had a secret organization that still terrorised people. They had a lot of funding, and they had lots of safe houses and people they could terrorise into aiding them, and that was the problem. People were still afraid that Saddam would come back. But after we caught Saddam nothing changed.
So then we said the problem was Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were the enemy that was causing the problem. They were a small minority that terrorised everybody into giving them support. Nobody liked them but nobody would lift a finger to oppose them. And we kept talking about AQI until finally we were ready to make a deal with the sunnis, and then we announced that the sunnis had changed sides and were willing to fight AQI for us. But AQI was never more than a tiny foreign faction that nobody liked. And by that time we could say the problem was ethnic tensions, and iraqis needed us to stop them from killing each other.
Meanwhile, after we won in afghanistan then we said the problem was Taliban. But which of our information sources about Taliban are reliable? The afghan government? The tortured suspects? The farmers who tell us why they plant poppies? The paid informants? The spy satellites? The coded messages we intercept?
How much do you know about Taliban? Why do you believe it?
Expanding Attacks on Pakistan
Obama widens Pak strikes - Attacks target Mehsud camps
I have a blog entry on Mehsud: CIA: Mehsud Behind Benazir Killing?
Afghanistan Invasion
I cringe every time I read commentaries that suggest that the initial invasion of Afghanistan was necessary. I can't believe that you in any way believe Ben Laden was responsible for 911. For Christ sake you can see the buildings exploding. You here the firemen telling us explosions went off in the buildings. You can see Tower # 7 falling straight down just like a controlled demolition. It was not struck by a plane. You most know the coverup that followed. The steel was shipped out of the country before it could undergo a thorough inspection. Video from security cameras from the Pentagon and surrounding businesses were confiscated to never be seen by the public. Why were they not shown? At most all we would have seen would be a jetliner crashing into the Pentagon. Or, would we have seen something different?
Please do all you can to reveal the truth about 911 and stop the the suffering of people subjected to the USA unjustified revenge