Author: wrongologist

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – July 6, 2014

On this Sunday of Independence Day Weekend, let’s think about the differences between patriotism and nationalism. We use them interchangeably, but they are not the same.

“Patriotism” denotes a devotion to fundamental fellowship with other human beings belonging to a geographic region. Patriots love, support and defend their country.

“Nationalism” is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves identifying with, or becoming attached to, one’s nation. One definition of nationalism is excessive patriotism or chauvinism. Nationalism leads to asserting one’s own nation’s interests to the total exclusion of the common interests of some nations, and not just those with which we might be waging war.

You should be a patriot. If you are a patriot, you stand when the national anthem is played. You serve your country in accordance with your abilities.

There is nothing wrong with chants of “USA, USA”. But, there is nothing right about them when the crowds in Murrieta, CA chant “USA, USA” at a bus load of illegal immigrants.

Americans will always profess support for American ideals, but chauvinists are far more willing to ignore those situations where America falls short. Those jingoistic Americans display an attitude that when America falls short, it is not a failing of “America” but rather some group (e.g. “liberals”, “the Tea Party”, “illegals”, “the 1 %”)

Remain suspicious of flag waving jingoists and their self-serving ways. Be true to your own beliefs and pay no attention to those who try to shame you into doing otherwise. Now, for some humor.

Can we march together anymore?

COW July 4We the corps, in order to form a more perfect union:

COW We The Corps

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One version of the Holy Writ:

COW Holy Corps

And the Word was delivered unto them:

COW Court

Let’s remind each other that at no time does a corporation: a) speak clearly, or b) take full responsibility for what they do.

And in international news, hope is dying in Israel:

COW Common Ground

 

Facebooklinkedinrss

Corporations Celebrate Their Independence Day

Happy Independence Day, corporations!  You’re way more important than women!

Indeed, way back on June 30th, tweeter Scott Wolledge was prescient. The Supreme Court wasn’t done celebrating the religious rights of corporations over those of individuals. After ruling Hobby Lobby had the right to refuse to provide company health insurance coverage for contraception it (erroneously) believed was a form of abortion, the Supreme Court went further and ruled that corporate beliefs about ANY contraceptive trumped all women’s individual rights. From MoJo: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

Less than a day after the United States Supreme Court issued its divisive ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has already begun to toss aside the supposedly narrow interpretation of the decision. On Tuesday, the Supremes ordered lower courts to rehear any cases where companies had sought to deny coverage for any type of contraception, not just the specific types Hobby Lobby was opposed to.

The Affordable Care Act had listed 20 forms of contraception that had to be covered as preventive services. But Hobby Lobby, a craft supply chain, claimed that Plan B, Ella, and two types of IUD were abortifacients that violated the owners’ religious principles. The science was against Hobby Lobby—these contraceptives do not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg and are not considered abortifacients in the medical world—but the conservative majority bought Hobby Lobby’s argument that it should be exempted from the law.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, using many qualifiers in an attempt to limit its scope, but orders released by the court Tuesday contradict any narrow interpretation of the ruling.

The Supremes decided that non-profit organizations objecting to birth control coverage were (somehow) being crushed by the “substantial burden” of having to inform the government that they wanted an exemption. So, SCOTUS gave Wheaton College an injunction against having to fill out the required paperwork to acknowledge that they wanted to opt out. More from the NYT:

In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights.

The decision temporarily exempts a Christian college from part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The court’s order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. The order, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the 5-to-4 decision on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.”

The court’s action, she added, “undermines confidence in this institution.”

So, corporate personhood trumps human personhood. Worse, the religious rights of a corporation outweigh the individual rights of a woman who knows that birth control is a necessary medical expense for her. And filling out a form is too a harsh requirement for Wheaton College. The idea that what constitutes a “substantial burden” should be determined by the party alleging burden is absurd.

This is a 4th of July that doesn’t feel like most others.

We are a divided people on a day that celebrates our unity. It must change.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Transparency: OK for You, Not for Me

What’s Wrong Today:

Sometimes, good intentions get lost. Organizational rules and government laws are established with good intentions, and later, get watered down. We call this the “except me” option. The rules apply to everyone, except me, my company, my church, my political party.

Today let’s look at three examples of organizations saying the rules do not apply to them. The premise of Federal and state Freedom of Information Act laws is that government records should be open to the public, and their information subject to public review.

First, the Red Cross: Barry Ritholtz at Bloomberg warns us that the Red Cross doesn’t want you to know how they spend their money. The Red Cross is using a “trade secrets” exception as a pretext for hiding much of their activities. The story began with an article by Pro Publica about donations to the Red Cross for Superstorm Sandy, and what happened to the money:

Following Superstorm Sandy, donors gave $312 million to the American Red Cross. How did the aid organization spend that money? A year and a half after the storm, it’s surprisingly difficult to get a detailed answer

Pro Publica tried to get answers by filing a request with the State of New York for the information. They were rebuffed:

Just how badly [did] the American Red Cross want to keep secret how it raised and spent over $300 million after Hurricane Sandy? The charity…hired a fancy law firm (Gibson Dunn) to fight a public request we filed with New York State, arguing that information about its Sandy activities is a ‘trade secret’

That’s right, when asked where the money went, the Red Cross lawyered up. Isn’t it hard to believe that how a charity spends its money could be a trade secret? Yet, the Red Cross’ “trade secret” argument persuaded NY State to withhold the information. From Yves Smith: (brackets and emphasis by the Wrongologist)

The…New York State Attorney General [is] helping the Red Cross shroud its activities. Admittedly, Schneiderman has taken up an investigation of the Red Cross. However, when ProPublica tried to obtain a copy of the information that the charity sent to the Attorney General, the Red Cross’ law firm, Gibson Dunn, insisted that much of the material provided was a trade secret and thus not subject to disclosure under New York’s version of FOIA, the Freedom of Information Law, or FOIL

ProPublica published Schneiderman’s response. It shows how absurd some of Gibson Dunn’s arguments were. For instance, the charity wanted the second line of a two line title redacted. The first line was “American Red Cross.” What could the second line possibly be that Gibson Dunn would contend that it deserved secret status? The name of a legal entity? Why does the Red Cross need trade secrets? They are supposedly, not for profit. Why would they need “business strategies” when they are not a business?

Next, as police departments across the US militarize, a former good idea is now being used for a bad reason. The good part was the formation of Law Enforcement Councils (LECs), made up of various municipal police departments in a state or region. When these LECs were set up, the idea was to exchange information about policing techniques and to provide back-up when incidents on the ground exceeded a given town’s resources.

The bad part: The WaPo reports on how police departments use their LECs, often incorporated as 501 (c) (3) organizations, to avoid providing information on its SWAT team activities. These LECs exist throughout the US. As part of the ACLU’s recent report on police militarization, the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU sent open records requests to SWAT teams across Massachusetts. It was told that the SWAT teams were part of a private company that was not subject to the Massachusetts public records law. From the WaPo: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that their 501(c) (3) status means that they’re private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they’re immune from open records requests

These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams. But in Massachusetts, they say that because they’re incorporated, they’re immune to Massachusetts open records laws. 240 of the 351 police departments in Massachusetts belong to an LEC. While LECs are legally “corporations,” they are funded by local and federal taxpayer money, and are composed exclusively of public police officers. Jessie Rossman, an attorney for the Massachusetts ACLU:

You can’t have it both ways…The same government authority that allows them to carry weapons, make arrests, and break down the doors of Massachusetts residents during dangerous raids also makes them a government agency that is subject to the open records law

Massachusetts residents aren’t permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they’re used for, what sort of training they get or who they’re primarily used against. Sound OK to you?

It is like a circular firing squad – as more and more Americans arm themselves with automatic weapons, the police see this as a reason why they need more and better military-grade weapons. And more secrecy.

Finally, our Congress at work: The National Journal reports that Congress decided to stop reporting Members’ trips that are paid for by private parties:

It’s going to be a little more difficult to ferret out which members of Congress are lavished with all-expenses-paid trips around the world after the House has quietly stripped away the requirement that such privately sponsored travel be included on lawmakers’ annual financial-disclosure forms

The move, made behind closed doors and without a public announcement by the House Ethics Committee, reverses more than three decades of precedent. Gifts of free travel to lawmakers have appeared on a Member’s yearly financial form dating back to the late 1970s, after the Watergate scandal. National Journal uncovered the deleted disclosure requirement when analyzing the most recent batch of yearly filings. They quote Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington:

This is such an obvious effort to avoid accountability…There’s no legitimate reason for it

Free trips paid for by private groups must still be reported separately to the House’s Office of the Clerk and disclosed there. But they will now be absent from the chief document that reporters, watchdogs, and members of the public have used for decades to scrutinize lawmakers’ finances. Last year, members of Congress and their aides took more free trips than in any year since the influence-peddling scandal that sent lobbyist Jack Abramoff to prison. There were nearly 1,900 trips at a cost of more than $6 million last year, according to Legistorm, which compiles travel records.

Now, none of those trips must be included on the annual disclosures of lawmakers or their aides.

There you have it: 3 examples of smart people, all ‘sponsored’ in whole or in part by we the people, who believe that the rules shouldn’t apply to them. These organizations are reducing transparency at a time when trust in public entities is at or near all-time lows, despite rules or laws on the books that argue against the very loopholes they say they need.

What about you and me is so scary to the Red Cross, the Massachusetts police, and Congress?

Facebooklinkedinrss

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – June 29, 2014

Americans prefer not to think about, and rarely allow elections to turn on foreign policy. Events, however, are not cooperating.

No Exit from Iraq:

COW-Exit-Ramp

The cartoon points out a different, subjective “reality.” Objective reality knows that there is always an exit ramp out of that loop. We perceive it doesn’t exist, since we fear the possible consequences. That blinds us to the options of seeing and using the exit.

Dems and Repubs send same message on Iraq:

Our options in Iraq are poor, and none:

However, sending Cheney to help ISIS might work:

In domestic news, Boehner digs in on Executive Orders:

The GOP feels that the primaries vindicated their approach:

Football not anywhere near as confusing as Cricket:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Wrongologist Site is Updated!

The Wrongologist has been silent the past few days. We were busy porting the site to WordPress. Our previous blogging software is no longer supported, and was in fact, discontinued on June 25th.

We hope you like the new look and feel. Comments on the changes would be very helpful. Previous posts have been imported to the new site, but formatting for previous posts was far from perfect, so please excuse the changes in fonts, line spacing and curious page breaks that appear in some posts.

One issue is that those who subscribed to the Wrongologist via email must re-subscribe, since we were unable to export that list.

 

Facebooklinkedinrss

Our Military Strategy in the Middle East Hasn’t Worked

What’s Wrong Today:

Here is some perspective from two former presidents on the possibility of our returning to war. First, from Gerald Ford, speaking about Vietnam, at Tulane University in April, 1975: (h/t to Rachel Maddow writing today in the WaPo)

We, of course, are saddened indeed by the events in Indochina…Some tend to feel that if we do not succeed in everything everywhere, then we have succeeded in nothing anywhere. I reject categorically such polarized thinking. We can and we should help others to help themselves. But the fate of responsible men and women everywhere, in the final decision, rests in their own hands, not in ours

And the money quote is from Thomas Jefferson:

We have the wolf by the ears and feel the danger of either holding or letting him loose

So it is with Mr. Obama and the Middle East. He has the wolf by the ears. Some of our erstwhile allies on the Arabian Peninsula are encouraging a radical Sunni uprising in Iraq, and in Syria. It’s part of a regional, sectarian war, and we should have no interest in furthering the violence on either side. Bush’s team empowered Iran with the destabilization of Iraq. Then, Mr. Obama’s decision in Syria helped push our Sunni allies (Saudi Arabia, and Turkey) to go all-in with AL-Qaeda types in Syria. Let’s take another look at a map of the Sunni-Shia divide that we posted about a year ago:


Since the 1930’s when we first recognized Saudi Arabia, we have tried to straddle the fence with our choice of allies in the Middle East. Turkey (NATO member) is Sunni. So is Saudi Arabia. Our enemy AL-Qaeda is Sunni. Our “enemy” Iran is Shia. Our “ally” Iraq is Shia. So what did we think would happen when we deposed Sadaam’s minority Sunni government and replaced it with a majority Shia government in Iraq?

Since Assad has fought  ISIS (Sunni) to a standstill, they have now moved part of their operations into Iraq to further inflame the regional situation, so that the US will be required to intervene, something that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Oil States and neo-con supporters of Israel have been advocating for some time.

Today, we have no real allies among the Muslim states in the Middle East. So, do we stay on the sidelines or do we go in with both feet? Mr. Obama, on Face the Nation:

But I think it’s important for us to recognize that ISIS is just one of a number of organizations that we have to stay focused on. Al Qaeda in Yemen is still very active and we’re staying focused on that. In North Africa, you’re seeing organizations, including Boko Haram that kidnapped all those young women that is extreme and violent

That doesn’t sound like in with both feet. Mr. Obama went on to say:

What we can’t do is think that we’re just going to play Whack-A-Mole and send US troops occupying various countries wherever these organizations pop up

Yet, neo-cons think that ISIS is a perfect tool for two American goals. First, they think ISIS helps in the removal of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, something which would make Israel very happy, since it would weaken Iraq’s connection to Iran.

Second, ISIS could be an excuse for American air attacks. If ISIS could be forced back into Syria by American jets, it could create an opportunity for Assad to continue to do the dirty work for both America and Iraq.

Andrew Bacevich, in an interview with Bill Moyers, took down the neo-cons, particularly Dick Cheney and Robert Kagan:

There is very little effort to look beyond the Bush versus Obama, Republican versus Democrat, to try to understand the larger forces in play that have brought us to where we are today…to think somewhat more creatively about policy than simply having an argument about whether we should, you know, attack with drones or attack with manned aircraft

Bacevich calls out the neo-cons, specifically, Kagan: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

He [Kagan] believes, many people in Washington believe, perhaps too many people in the hinterland also believe, that the United States shapes the global order. That there is an order for which we alone are responsible

He goes on to say we look for easy solutions: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

You know, we live in a country where if you want to go bomb somebody, there’s remarkably little discussion about how much it might cost, even though the costs almost inevitably end up being orders of magnitude larger than anybody projected at the outcome. But when you have a discussion about whether or not we can assist people who are suffering, then suddenly we come very, you know, cost-conscious…

We have been engaged in the Muslim world at least since 1930’s, based largely on the assumption that projecting American military power could somehow “fix” this part of the world, or at least secure our access to its oil resources.

So, we now have a track record to review. We intervened militarily in Lebanon in 1982. In Somalia. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. And Yemen.

Has the region become more or less stable? Has it become more democratic? Is there less anti-Americanism? The answer to all of the above is no. So, it is time to recognize that US military intervention in the Middle East has failed as a primary means of US policy.

Despite all the testosterone running rampant in Washington, we are not going to meet our goals by simply bombing more Muslims.

The events unfolding in Iraq right now require a debate around the question, “what should we do about Iraq?” The nation-state of Iraq was never a particularly good idea, but it plodded along for most of the 20th-Century with a series of kings and dictators at the helm. President George W. Bush ended that Iraq, and it is very doubtful that it can be saved.

Neither Iran nor the US has an interest in a protracted civil war in Iraq. And both the US and Iran have an interest in greater stability in this region. More from Bacevich: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

We should at least explore the possibility, whether this common interest in stability can produce some sort of an agreement comparable to Nixon’s opening to China. When Nixon went to China, that didn’t make China our ally. It didn’t have the immediate effect of bringing about a political change in China. But it did change the strategic balance in ways that were favorable to us and frankly favorable to the rest of the world

All efforts should be focused on creating a negotiated settlement and new boundaries rather than preserving Syria and Iraq as coherent nation-states. It is unlikely that they will ever be coherent nation-states again.

We need a new approach to our participation in the Sunni-Shia divide, one that keeps America from intervening again. Shortly after Mr. Obama was inaugurated, he went to Cairo and gave a speech that proposed a new beginning in the Middle East, a new beginning of US relations with the Islamic world.

Whatever happened to that President Obama?

Facebooklinkedinrss

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – June 22, 2014

“You may not be
interested in war, but war is interested in you.” – Leon Trotsky

The truth in
the quote attributed to Trotsky is the fact that more than 14,500 armed
conflicts are recorded in history. They have killed at least 3.5 billion
individuals.


And thus, Iraq
returns, VERY interested in America.


It arrives hot
on the heels of Ukraine, Syria, Libya, The Central African Republic and a dozen
other places.  


Mr. Obama seems unable to articulate
what our strategy in Iraq should be. Since nature doesn’t tolerate a vacuum, up
steps the “Iraq Pack” as Steven Colbert calls them:

He means politicos John Bolton, John McCain, George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, who were so very wrong about the Iraq War, but now feel compelled to again tell us what to do.

Salon reports that Colbert declared war on Mr. Cheney’s testicles:

It takes ‘huevos rancheros’ to blame the outcome of a war you started, on the man who ended it…In fact, I’d say those things he’s swinging could be balls of mass destruction, which means we have no choice but to invade Dick Cheney’s sack!

We have got satellite images of this man’s nuts, and he is definitely hiding something down there…now for national security reasons, I cannot show them to you

Republicans knee jerk reaction to Obama:

The GOP’s reactions are influenced by facts on the ground:

Iran could be “frenemies” with us in the Iraqi conflict:

And in other news, Dan Snyder has issues with the Redskins trademark:

Kevin McCarthy finds the swamp wasn’t drained by Eric Cantor:


Facebooklinkedinrss

Aw C’mon, It’s Just a Few Little Air Strikes…

What’s Wrong Today:

Mr. Obama did not call for air strikes in Iraq in his announcement today. That was not what Senator McCain (R-AZ) wanted to hear. McCain wants US airstrikes in the region, if for nothing other than boosting Dick Cheney’s morale.

It is possible, but not likely, that surgical strikes might restore some stability to Iraq, at least near Baghdad, but hope is not a sufficient basis for a foreign policy decision. Iraq is trying (unsuccessfully so far) to cope with its sectarian divisions. It may have acted as a nation in its war against Iran, but that ended in 1988, and it doesn’t feel like a nation any more. As Jim Kunstler asks: “Have they tried diversity training?”

Probably not.

This is not the first time we have heard from Mr. McCain on Iraq. Regarding the potential challenges of a conflict in Iraq, here is a quote from 2002:

…I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult. It may entail the risk of American lives and treasure, but Saddam Hussein is vastly weaker than he was in 1991. He does not have the support of his people

Regarding at least part of the reasons for war, consider this 2003 statement by McCain to FoxNews:

I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

This was his view yesterday from The Hill:

There is a need for immediate action…The worst option is to do nothing

McCain said yesterday that political reconciliation between Islamic groups in Iraq is key to peace, but, that it can’t be a “prerequisite for military action”.

Whatever.

We need a comprehensive debate about our strategy in the Middle East and specifically, in Iraq. The debate should be explicit and public, since if/when Iraq descends into chaos or breaks up, there will be further recriminations from our opportunistic politicians and pundits, and the question of “who lost Iraq?” (As if it is ours to lose) will drive our political discourse for many years.

McCain could start by answering the question: Where do airstrikes fit into our overall strategy? Does he have an answer other than there is the big money to be made building drones and Hellfire missiles to blow up Toyota pickups filled with jihadis?

After 8 years, $2+ trillion dollars spent, 4500 American lives sacrificed, 50,000 wounded (plus those of the Iraqis), can the sum total of what was achieved by the US in Iraq be this harvest of ashes?

It might be. Our 8-year nation-building experiment achieved little of substance. Tactical strength on the ground did not overcome strategic weaknesses in the form of Iraq’s demographic divide, its geographic location and porous borders.

Another question is: Which of the following options should we choose?

(a) Stand aside and watch the most virulently hostile anti-American force in the world carve out a swath of territory in Iraq and Syria to use as a base of operations; or

(b) Re-establish a “coalition of the willing” and insert a level of direct military force into Iraq in order to aid the Baghdad government. The peacekeepers should be mainly comprised of soldiers from Arab countries in the Middle East.

Staying out may allow circumstances to unfold which later compel intervention against a direct security threat, like in Afghanistan in 2001.

From a regional geo-political perspective, it is important to note that Israel supports the Kurds. Turkey and Saudi Arabia support ISIS. The USA supports “moderate” Jihadists in Syria. The Obama administration wants a regime change in Baghdad, giving Nuri al-Maliki the boot. Imagine, we want to bring about TWO regime changes in Iraq in 13 years. A coalition of the willing might suffer from the same sectarian divide that is already seen on the ground.

Neither course is certain to meet our Middle East goals. Either course will result in creating more anti-American anger among a large number of dangerous people. If America supports Maliki directly while he declares emergency powers and cracks down on certain groups, it will re-establish our old pattern of US support for antidemocratic strongmen.

That has not served us well in the Middle East.

It appears that the partition of Iraq is about to become a fact on the ground, if not in the minds of some in Washington. The Malaki government cannot retake Anbar Province without outside help, from Iran or the USA. This January, ISIS took over Fallujah (in Anbar Province), 40 miles west of Baghdad, and has held it ever since, despite artillery and air counter attacks. Below is a map that outlines the approximate borders of the sectarian groups in Iraq:

No matter what course we choose, our actions will be seen as insufficient by one side, and an atrocity by the other.

No peace will be gained, but much enmity will accrue to our image in the Middle East.

Let’s close today with a quote from a blog post by Brian Dowling in 2006:

Our present efforts to build a unitary state acceptable to all three main groups are at an impasse. The construction of a central government is blocked by the majority’s unwillingness to cede disproportionate power and revenue to the Sunnis, who have misruled the country, often brutally, since its inception, and by a vicious insurgency, waged mainly by these same Sunnis, which is increasingly taking on ominous sectarian tones that threaten to devolve into civil war. Our policies are antagonizing the majority of Iraqis, which hardly augurs well for postwar relations

As you see, NOTHING has changed in the intervening 8 years.

Sorry, but if Iraq devolves into 3 states who wage a low-grade war among themselves, so be it. If one of those states creates a haven for anti-American jihadists, we will deal with that when we must.

Our choice today is not between a unified postwar democracy and chaos. Some form of Iraqi democracy has emerged, but a unified democracy does not exist, and may never exist.

It is not a choice between victory and defeat.

It is a choice between a foreign policy based on ideology and hormones, and one based in reality.

Facebooklinkedinrss

America’s Military Strategy in the Middle East

What’s Wrong Today:

Yesterday’s column asked about our goals in Iraq, and our willingness to default to military action whenever a crisis emerges. Since that is our reflexive reaction, let’s take a quick look at how effective our military operations in the Middle East have been. Ian Welsh wrote: (brackets and emphasis by the Wrongologist)

I think it’s worth emphasizing that what we’ve seen over the past 30 years is a revolution in military affairs. New model militaries have arisen which are capable of fighting Western armies to a draw in irregular warfare, or even defeating them on the battlefield (Hezbollah v. Israel). It’s not that guerrilla warfare wasn’t effective before (ask the Americans in Vietnam), it is how stunningly cheap it has become and how brutally effective [it is] at area denial and attrition warfare

The military as a tool of national strategy is designed to use its resources to inflict costs (loss of territory, weapons and fighters) on the enemy, which the enemy cannot easily replace. Or, that the financial costs of replacement are beyond the ability of the enemy to pay.

In a sense, war fighting is often a battle of attrition of resources, and generally, one side prevails. That was the history of warfare in the 20th century.

Our 21st century experience with fighting Islamist militias is instructive. Our military is brutally expensive. Islamist militias are cheap. The Taliban funds itself with blackmail and drugs. Until they broke the bank in Mosul for $425 million, ISIS ran on donations from rich Muslims along with some state support. Now they are self-funding.

These Islamic armies cost peanuts compared to the US, British or Israeli military. And they are capable of tying down Western militaries for years, using up huge financial resources, and even winning. Hezbollah defeated Israel, which was (before Hezbollah proved otherwise) widely considered one of the most effective militaries in the world. We were held to a tie in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

A military that is hundreds of times more expensive than its main competitor has problems, particularly in a long war. In military operations, effectiveness is most important. But if your effectiveness doesn’t actually deliver a win, in the sense of making your enemies stop fighting, then a hugely expensive military will indeed bleed us white in a prolonged state of warfare.

Our military is aware of these facts: We use drones because they are cheaper than planes. Ground combat robots, which the US army is working to perfect, may ultimately be cheaper than human soldiers, as well as offering the advantage of requiring fewer troops, meaning fewer combat casualties.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, our military leaders completely underestimated the strategic importance of the IED. When the insurgents deployed IEDs, the costs of American occupation soared, and our maneuverability, a perceived strength, slowed to a crawl. Now, IEDs are simply the 21st century version of land mines. It was understandable that our generals thought that we knew how to detect and beat the mine, but with the IED, a cheap and primitive weapon, entire areas of Afghanistan became “no-go” zones, where our troops could only move in convoys of exceptionally large armored vehicles. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) caused by IEDs has become a major cause of US casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan, with soaring costs for extended rehabilitation when the injured soldier returns to the US.

Our generals have not been able to blunt the effectiveness of IEDs, even though we own the most advanced military technologies since the dawn of human society.

We also have a political problem. America is no longer willing to accept high levels of casualties. We, our politicians, and therefore our generals, try exceedingly hard to avoid large numbers of dead and wounded in our “wars”. This has made successfully occupying space in a foreign country impossible. If we are occupying a province or a city in a foreign country, and the lives of our troops come first, we will shoot first and ask questions later. It is better strategically if we accept higher losses than it is to kill innocents in tribal societies, even though that is a very difficult ask of our military. When we kill an innocent, an extended family then hates America. Even if they don’t take up arms, they will then provide support to the insurgents.  

Our soldiers stand out in a Middle Eastern culture. US soldiers did not speak Arabic, did not dress like Iraqis or Afghanis, did not practice the predominant religion or understand its culture. To our troops, all locals became the enemy, and to the locals, the occupying forces come to be seen as the enemy. This is true despite efforts to train our troops to work with locals.

The most amazing fact is that all of this is known/taught/accepted by US military leaders, but they seem to be incapable of behaving differently, or to change the tactics on the ground sufficiently to enable a “win”.

So the West uses highly expensive troops whom we don’t want to die, along with drones, close air support and extensive surveillance. And the Islamic militias, on budgets that aren’t even shoestring by US standards, survive and grow stronger. They are evolving: They communicate via Twitter, we use UHF radios with big, heavy batteries. They get smarter all the time. They are Darwinian organizations: screw up, and you die.

But, in his book, The Generals, Thomas Ricks d
emonstrates that a culture of mediocrity has taken hold within the Army’s top leadership rank, and if it continues, the country’s next war is unlikely to produce better results than the last two. Nor is there much of a relationship between an officer’s battlefield performance and subsequent promotions. He quotes an American civilian official based in Afghanistan in 2007:

The guys who did well didn’t get treated well, and the guys who did badly didn’t get treated badly

Ricks wrote in the Atlantic that the tactical excellence of enlisted soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan may have enabled and amplified the strategic incompetence of the generals in those wars. The Army’s combat effectiveness lets its generals dither for much longer than they could have if the Army had been suffering clear tactical setbacks. He quotes Sean McFarland, brigade commander in Ramadi in 2006: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

One of the reasons we were able to hold on despite a failing strategy…was that our soldiers continued to be led by highly competent, professional junior officers and non commissioned officers whom they respected…And they gave us senior officers the breathing space that we needed, but probably didn’t deserve, to properly understand the fight we were in

Despite our 13 years of military experience on the ground in the Middle East, our strategies, tactics and weapons remain essentially the same, and they haven’t worked well enough to deliver the strategic objectives we hoped they would.

So, which are the effective methods of stopping or defeating an insurgent or terrorist force in Tribalstan™?

  • Kill and/or expel the insurgent militias
  • Play ethnic groups against each other
  • Colonize the provinces with jobs, infrastructure, schools, and a new legal regime
  • Some combination of the above?
  • Something completely different?

As a thought experiment, how exactly could the US “win” on the ground in the Middle East, given our current military?

If we cannot “win” on the ground in the Middle East, where does the use of military force fit in our Middle East Strategy?

Facebooklinkedinrss