ForeignPolicy – Page 17 – The Wrongologist

Friday Music Break – December 19, 2014

Today, a little more about Cuba. In January, while on a US government-sanctioned trip to Cuba, Wrongo met and became friendly with an award-winning author who also teaches at a local college in Havana. He is not a member of the Cuban Communist Party. Yesterday, I sent him a congratulatory email. Here is his reply:

What a great day for the future of this country, thanks to everyone´s support. We are starting a new path and I hope the future is prominent for all who genuinely dreamt of this great opportunity. Personally I will keep up the fight to bring both countries even closer. We all deserve it.

He is representative of many of the people I met during the week in Cuba. Many struggle to put food on the table, many are entrepreneurial, holding down 2 and sometimes 3 private sector jobs. And all were optimistic about the future, despite most being cash-poor.

A diplomatic thaw is a hopeful opening for both countries. Time will tell if the governments can match the willingness of their people to create an atmosphere of peace and cooperation.

Wrongo was a freshman in college when JFK gave what some call the “scariest speech ever”. We were playing cards in a dorm room, using a bed for a table as Kennedy spoke. Everyone in that room was frightened, and subsequently, all were drafted, or volunteered for military service after graduation.

Here is a short reminiscence about the times and the reactions in Washington and the Kremlin in 1962:

To help celebrate the end of belligerence between our two countries, here is Phil Ochs with “I Ain’t Marching Anymore” from 1965. It was about Vietnam, but it works for our 55-year disagreement with Cuba as well:

Sample lyric:
Now the labor leader’s screamin’
when they close the missile plants,
United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore,
Call it “Peace” or call it “Treason,”
Call it “Love” or call it “Reason,”
But I ain’t marchin’ any more,

Phil, we could really use your voice now. The fight isn’t over.

See you Sunday.

U-Turn in Cuba/US Relations

Yesterday, Mr. Obama announced that the US and Cuba will resume diplomatic relations after 55 years of dysfunction and belligerence. Predictably, a few Congressional leaders and Republican presidential hopefuls lashed out at the president and the decision. Jeb Bush said:

The benefactors of President Obama’s ill-advised move will be the Castro brothers.

This was followed by these predictable words from Sen. McCain (R-AZ) and his paramour, Sen. Huckleberry Butch Me Up (R-SC), who said that the policy shift reflected that: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

America and the values it stands for [are] in retreat and decline…It is about the appeasement of autocratic dictators, thugs and adversaries, diminishing America’s influence in the world.

The Obama party line is: “the current policy has failed for 55 years. The Castro brothers have outlasted 8 US presidents. Let’s try something different.”

And here we are. This is now possible because the first generation of Cuban émigrés no longer completely control the Cuban voting bloc in Florida, the most crucial swing state to both parties. Consider the following:

• According to the Pew Research Center, there are about 1.9 million Cuban-Americans in the US. 70% of Cuban-Americans live in Florida, making them the most geographically concentrated of the 12 largest Hispanic origin groups.
• We know that the younger Cuban-Americans shifted toward the left during the 2012 election. In 2012, Obama won a majority of the Cuban-American vote in Miami. He won Cubans nationally by two points.

Here is how the political sands have shifted:

Thus, politics no longer drives the decision about our relationship with Cuba. Our 55 year-old hard line position was more about those upper middle class Cuban-American émigrés who hoped that the embargo would eventually force the return of houses that they abandoned 55 years ago when they left Cuba for Miami.

A final reason why this works for both sides right now is the Saudi decision to force lower oil prices. Cuba cannot sustain its economy on its own. As an example, Cuba now imports an estimated 80% percent of the food its people consume, at a cost of more than $1.5 billion per year. Venezuela has been Cuba’s prime financial benefactor, but the Venezuelan economy is in terrible shape, even before the current sharp decline in the price of oil, which is its primary source of state revenue.

They will soon be forced to cut Cuba’s rations. That will be a huge opening for the US, particularly since Cuba’s former benefactor, Russia, has its own economic difficulties as well.

Despite the Republican bleating about Cuba as a communist dictatorship with a horrible human rights record, being a communist government with horrible human rights record hasn’t stopped America from dealing with China, which these same Republicans think is just fine.

So why not trade with Cuba? How can trade with Cuba be a sign of political weakness, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to global economic progress and a spirit of international harmony?

It’s been wrong for the US to continue to hold a cold war grudge against Cuba. The US could most readily help the people of Cuba by opening up trade between the two countries.

Let’s close with a song about going to Cuba by Jackson Browne:

Sample lyric:
I’m going to drink the Ron Anejo
and walk out on the Malecon
in one hand a Monte Cristo
and in the other an ice cream cone.

And they truly love their ice cream.

Good luck to the Cubans, a lovely people, and a lovely country.

Is ISIS the Khmer Rouge With Prayer Mats?

Does our military history show us anything helpful for dealing with ISIS today? Do we have a former foe that resembles ISIS?

The best analogy to ISIS is the Khmer Rouge (KR). The Khmer Rouge managed to kill 2 million Cambodians (close to 30% of the nation’s population), from 1975 to 1979. Ideology played an important role in the KR genocide. The KR wanted to return Cambodia to its “mythic past”, to stop foreign aid, which they saw as a corrupting influence, and to restore the country to an agrarian society based on Stalinist and Maoist ideals.

The Khmer Rouge worked at it for 4 years until 1979, when, after the US failed to stem the tide with airpower and a brief 1970 boots on the ground adventure (the Cambodian incursion), the army of the Republic of Vietnam ousted the KR and its leader Pol Pot, liberating the Cambodian people. Our response to the KR overthrow was to impose economic sanctions on Cambodia. Their crime was to be liberated by our enemy, who had also defeated us.

Nixon had reached out to China in 1972, and created a few strange political bedfellows. Throughout the 1980s, the US, the European powers and China continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia and blocked moves to place Pol Pot and his colleagues on trial. In fact, Zbigniew Brzezinski has said:

I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.

It took until 2014 to try the KR on genocide. The case is still working its way through the Cambodian courts.

The KR goal of purifying the nation via aggressive conversion of its people is starkly similar to the goals of ISIS, and in many ways, ISIS are the Khmer Rouge with prayer mats. Both wear (wore) black. Both morphed from destabilization engendered by the West. Both ruthlessly murdered rival factions, aiming to become the sole standard-bearer for fellow travelers in their region.

The parallels are sickly similar: The KR used brutality as a compliance technique − ripping fetuses from living women, smashing babies against trees – as does ISIS, randomly beheading and tweeting the result, burying women and kids alive. The KR were fundamental atheists – promising to tear down every temple, and kill all the monks, which they often did. Just as ISIS are fundamental believers, slaughtering the infidels, the heathens, the Christians, the Shia, or even certain Sunni tribes.

Fast forward to 2014 and there are obvious parallels between Cambodia and the Middle East. Both situations out of which the KR and ISIS emerged, were in part created by the West’s meddling in the geopolitics of the two regions.

The war in Iraq exposed that country’s deep sectarian divide. The Arab Spring toppled the Gaddafi regime. That led directly to Libya’s descent into lawlessness and fragmentation. After Libya came Syria, where ISIS currently constitutes the dominant opposition to Assad. Their faction includes thousands of foreign fighters, all of whom hew to a barbaric methodology that is similar to that of the Khmer Rouge. They have no political center to negotiate with, or anything to offer the region, except more sectarian violence and bloodletting. This is why Mr. Obama said they must be destroyed.

The lens of the KR’s frenzy may be a good way to view ISIS. First there was the KR’s bloodlust, whereby they slaughtered their own, including nominal KR supporters, who were thought to be less than true believers. Then they invaded a more powerful neighbor, Vietnam, leading to their own destruction. Thirteen years after the fall of Pol Pot and the KR, communism itself came tumbling down at the Berlin Wall. It turned out that the KR was the Meta example of extreme communism.

Far from ushering in a global Marxist Utopia, KR brought about its own demise.

That is also similar to the disjuncture between Islam and ISIS. As the KR’s brand of communism was rejected as a perversion by the vast majority of communists in the world, so the ideology of ISIS seems to be at least outwardly rejected by the bulk of the world’s Sunni Muslims, on the same grounds.

Could ISIS represent the final form of radical Islam? We can only hope that is true.

Finally, remember that Syria and Iran are nominal “enemies” of the US who are now confronting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. We have, for the most part, exited Iraq and are bombing ISIS, much like our less-than-successful bombing of the KR in the early 1970s.

We had no stake on the ground in Cambodia. We eventually reconciled with Vietnam and with Cambodia. Today, we have a limited stake in Syria and Iraq. Can we, or should we, work with a different set of “strange bedfellows” to blunt the challenge of ISIS in the Middle East?

What Have We Learned from 13 years of War?

“The Americans have all the clocks…but we have all the time” – Taliban Commander

On Veteran’s Day, the Wrongologist asked himself whether, after the last 13 years of war in the Middle East, conducted by four presidents, with the loss of many thousands of American lives, and the expenditure of trillions of dollars, what have we learned?

Maybe, not enough. So, here are three more credits in the Big Picture:

Syria became the 14th country in the Islamic world that US forces have invaded or occupied or bombed, and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that’s just since 1980. Here’s the list:

Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-present), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-present), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-present), Pakistan (2004-present) and now, Syria.

We need to figure out what we have learned from all of this intervention in the Middle East. We need to total up what we have accomplished in the Middle East, and what a sustained war footing has cost us as a nation. Our veterans and the American people deserve an accounting.

On Tuesday, the NYT had an op-ed by Daniel Bolger, a retired General who fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Bolger wants us to stop saying that the surge won the Iraq War:

The surge in Iraq did not “win” anything. It bought time. It allowed us to kill some more bad guys and feel better about ourselves. But in the end, shackled to a corrupt, sectarian government in Baghdad…the surge just forestalled today’s stalemate. Like a handful of aspirin gobbled by a fevered patient, the surge cooled the symptoms. But the underlying disease didn’t go away. The remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni insurgents we battled for more than eight years simply re-emerged this year as the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

Please read Bolger’s book, “Why We Lost – A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars”. Its first paragraph:

I am a United Sates Army general, and I lost the Global War on Terrorism. It’s like Alcoholics Anonymous; step one is admitting you have a problem. Well, I have a problem. So do my peers. And thanks to our problem, now all of America has a problem, to wit: two lost campaigns and a war gone awry.

Americans have the problem, our politicians have the problem, and so do our generals. We think that we can: i) bring stability wherever it is needed, or ii) remake parts of the world in our image. Well, we can’t. And the world doesn’t want us to even try to do it. America has many fine attributes and things to be proud of, but there is a naïve and possibly purposefully ignorant side of the American psyche that gets us into trouble. It is the myth of American exceptionalism. It bleeds into our politics, our popular culture, and much of our military. You only need to look at Tuesday’s Concert for Valor to see how deeply we are infected by the Exceptionalism myth.

We need a debate. What are we doing in the Middle East? Andrew Bacevich, a professor and retired army colonel has said: (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…

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

Mr. Obama’s bet — the same bet made by each of his predecessors, going back to Carter — is that the application of US military power would solve the dilemma of the moment. All of them were wrong, and so is he. Without a real debate, when the 14th campaign runs its course, a 15th will be waiting.

One thing worthy of debate is whether we should return to a universal service based on a mandatory draft. Richard Nixon replaced the draft with a lottery. That morphed into our all-volunteer armed forces. And thus, the ideal of the citizen/soldier was another casualty of the Vietnam War.

Non-professional soldiers would assure that we debate what we are doing militarily. It would engage the public in our foreign military strategy, unlike their current engagement with an all-professional military.

Will Congress ever agree to a commission to examine our grand strategy in the Middle East? Not without real civilian pressure. Who in their wildest imagination, after Vietnam, would have thought we would commit to a military strategy and a foreign policy that produced the debacle we now have in the Middle East?

Then again, how long will Sisyphus continue to roll that rock up War Mountain?

Wednesday Linkage

What’s Wrong Today:

We have the methods, materials, and expertise to handle any of our major problems, be it with economic growth, war/peace, income inequality, social malaise or, outbreaks of serious infectious disease. Our problem is that in all of these areas, we have chosen not to use our abilities to solve any problems that involve use of the commons because the Congress won’t agree that the commons can be used for these things, except in an academic sense.

In America, when push comes to shove, it is you and the people you feel are part of your clan or tribe that count–never mind that we live on a finite planet with finite resources and carrying capacity–that is irrelevant to the vast majority of us.

Now, along comes Ebola, and, collectively, we have chosen to ignore the problem, to slow roll vaccines that could treat it, because, capitalism.

Are we going to realize that simply following our own self-interest may not be in our self-interest? That maybe the culture of narcissism may not be all it’s cracked up to be? The Ebola diversion from real election issues will not stop, however. If it does, the media will simply find a new shiny object.

Could our leadership class be motivated enough to actually be responsible, and not just to APPEAR to be responsible?

Here is some Wednesday linkage:

Music playlists for Euro soccer teams: a few surprising choices for 20 & 30-something profession athletes.

Tokyo has way fewer homeless than NYC. Why? The Japanese Constitution guarantees its citizens “the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living.” That document was drawn up by Gen. MacArthur during our occupation after WW II. So, because of the US, the Japanese have a stronger safety net for their citizens than we do in our own country. Ironic, or what?

Palestinian women are protecting the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound from Israelis who want to take it over: There are attempts on most days by Israelis to enter this mosque and lay claim to it. Older Palestinian women work to keep control of it. This will not end well.

Reuters reports that the US Army is quarantining soldiers who provided Ebola support in West Africa for 21 days: Despite the fact that current Defense Department policy allows troops with no known exposure to the virus to return to work and interact with their families after coming home, as long as they have their temperature checked twice daily for 21 days.

Baby Boomers are seeing a tsunami of products aimed at “helping” with problems of aging: Check out Depends in designer colors and the cane made from bull penis. Corporations are bringing sexy back to the 60-somethings.

Health Watch:

Corporate Wellness programs are ineffective: The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) survey found that 36% of firms with more than 200 workers, and 18% of firms overall, have wellness programs. The Upshot says they rarely work. Quelle surprise!

States that have expanded Medicaid as part of health reform expect their share of Medicaid spending to grow more slowly than states that have not expanded, a new KFF report finds.

Hospitals are now taking their cues from the airlines and the auto industry. Now your healthcare price comes unbundled, with additional fees and options. At least auto salesmen negotiate with you while you are conscious and not impacted by meds and pain.

Your Business Trip:

Legal marijuana is a growth industry, with annual revenues forecasted to be $35 billion by 2020.

Business Insider says maximizing shareholder value is bad. OMG, what would Mitt say? James Montier, a behavioral finance writer, believes that companies should be required to focus on running their businesses, producing quality goods and services, treating customers and workers fairly, and creating shareholder value as a by-product, not as an objective.

Blinded by Science:

Genome study shows humans bred with Neanderthals. And not just on Saturday night in college!

The new Afghanistan President gets violent reception from the Taliban. According to an AP tally, there have been at least 10 incidents in Kabul (including inside the Green Zone) since Ghani Ahmadzai’s inauguration on Sept. 29th, killing 27 people.

Your music moment:

The Rolling Stones were filmed by Martin Scorsese at NY’s Beacon Theater in 2006. The entire documentary was released in 2008. The film’s title, “Shine a Light” is from a Stones song by the same name. Here are a few minutes behind the scenes with Scorsese, the Stones and Bill Clinton:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9fXphmuGk

Oil: Our Latest Middle East Bombing Run?

Oil has now become another front in the competition between America’s friends and enemies in the Middle East. On October 1st Saudi Arabia, the OPEC cartel’s dominant producer, pumping around a third of OPEC’s oil, or about 9.7 million barrels a day, unilaterally cut its official prices. The Economist reports on the surprising price of oil:

Since June the price of a barrel of Brent crude oil—the global benchmark—has slumped from $115 to $92, a decline of 20%, and the lowest for more than two years.

Here is the Economist’s graph of Brent crude prices:

They report that the drop is partly due to economic weakness. Growth is slowing, particularly in China and the Euro zone, bringing with it a reduction of oil consumption. The WaPo reports that prices have fallen in the US as well: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

Crude oil prices are…down to the lowest level in 17 months in the US. Gasoline prices have [also] been sliding.

Reuters reports that Saudi Arabia told the oil market it would be comfortable with prices as low as $80/barrel for a period of up to two years. Reuters says the following about the Saudi strategy: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

The Saudis appear to be betting lower prices – which could strain the finances of some members of OPEC – will be necessary to pave the way for higher revenue in the medium term, by curbing new investment and further increases in supply from places like the US shale patch…

This drop in prices will give a short-term boost to the US economy and US consumers, who will view cheaper gas prices like an increase in take-home pay. But it could put a dent in revenues in countries such as Russia, and Iran, where oil exports play an enormously important role in supporting economic growth and government finances. Russia’s Finance Minister has already announced that lower oil revenues could force the curtailment of its military spending:

Between 2004 and 2014, Russia doubled its military spending and according to the newly adopted budget, it will further increase it from 17.6 percent of all budget spending this year to 20.8 percent, or 3.36 trillion rubles ($84.19 billion), in 2017.

But the new Russian budget, which envisages a deficit of 0.6% of GDP over the next three years, is based on oil prices of $100+ per barrel, not the high-$80’s seen this week. On Monday, President Putin signed a law that would allow the government to tap one of the country’s oil windfall revenue funds, the Reserve Fund, for the first time since the aftermath of the 2007-8 global financial crisis. The Fund contains $90 billion. While it is doubtful that this will change Russia’s stance on Ukraine, it might influence Russia’s position on Syria.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Iran has a higher per barrel break-even price than other Middle East oil producers. Here is the oil per barrel price required to balance each country’s budget:

Iran, faced with lower oil revenues and the highest break-even price, could be forced to limit its nuclear program, or even its support for Iraq’s battle against ISIS.

But before we have a party and celebrate, lower prices also affect oil production in the US. The Economist quotes David Vaucher, an analyst at IHS, who says that to achieve a realistic internal rate of return on investment of 10%, a typical new shale-oil project in America requires an oil price of $57 a barrel, but some still require between $75 and $110.

The Obama administration held detailed discussions in September with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. While it was clear that one outcome was an agreement by the Saudis to participate in air attacks on ISIS, it is clearly possible that the plan to use oil prices as a tool in the fight was also on the table. It wouldn’t be the first time that oil price (or availability) has been used as a weapon. Oil was first used as a weapon by the US to stop Israel, Britain, and France from retaking the Suez Canal in 1956.

And as Michael Klare says at Oilprice.com, the “oil weapon” was used in 1973 against the US. We hated OPEC’s war on our economy back then. Skip ahead four decades, and it’s smart, it’s effective, and it’s the American way. We of course, used that very same old oil weapon when we embargoed oil sales by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Oil is again the centerpiece of our Middle East strategy.

Is Our Politicians Learning? The Answer is “No.”

Even as the American public, politicians, and pundits speak of putting boots on the ground in the Middle East, yesterday, Counterpunch posted Tariq Ali’s interview with Patrick Cockburn on ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Cockburn speaks about why the Iraqi army failed in Mosul in the face of a few thousand ISIS fighters. The point he makes is that the Iraqi army was set up as a corrupt organization. His reporting showed that when the Americans set up the new Iraqi army, they insisted that supplies should be outsourced: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

So immediately a colonel of a battalion nominally of 600 men would get money for 600 men, [but] in fact there were only 200 men in it, and [he] would pocket the difference, which was spread out among the officers. And this applied to fuel, it applied to ammunition…

At the time of the fall of Mosul, there were supposed to be 30,000 troops there. Cockburn estimates that only one in three were actually physically present. From Cockburn: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

Because what you did was: you joined the army, you got your full salary and then you kicked back half that salary to your officer, who spread it among the officers. So I remember about a year ago talking to a senior Iraqi politician, and who said ‘look, the army’s going to collapse if it’s attacked’. I said surely some will fight, he said: ‘no, you don’t understand. These officers are not soldiers, they’re investors’!

Cockburn goes on to say:

They have no interest in fighting anybody; they have interest in making money out of their investment. Of course you had to buy your position. So in 2009, you want to be a colonel in the Iraqi army, it’ll cost you about $20,000, more recently it cost you about $200,000. You want to be divisional commander, and there are 15 divisions, it will cost you about $2 million.

Finally, the conclusion by Cockburn:

Of course, there are other ways of making money. Checkpoints on the roads act as sort of customs barriers and a tariff on each truck going through would be paid. So that’s why they ran away, led by their commanding officer. The three commanding generals got into a helicopter in civilian clothes and fled to Erbil, the Kurdish capital. And that led to the final dissolution of the army.

So, the Iraqi army didn’t become corrupt. It was set up to be corrupt from the start.

If Cockburn knew this, and the Iraqi general he interviewed knew this, then the US authorities in Baghdad knew this as well! It also begs the question of where the money went that we were spending to train the Iraqi military: If it was a fake army, why was Washington spending all this real money?

We need to keep this in mind as the drumbeats build for troops on the ground.

Let’s draw an inconvenient parallel. Robert Farley, Professor at the University of Kentucky Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, observes that the Obama administration has decided to rely on air power in its efforts to limit the power of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and asks whether air power could have won in Vietnam:

Taking a look at the strategic, tactical, and joint aspects of the use of air power in Vietnam, we can get to an answer of “Maybe, but…” with an emphasis on the “but.” The US could have used airpower more effectively in Vietnam than it did, but even the most efficient plans likely could not have saved the Saigon regime.

The South Vietnamese government did not have legitimacy and support of its population. If US airpower had been used in the most ‘effective’ possible way, Vietnam might have survived longer than it did, but a corrupt regime that lacked widespread legitimacy with its own population was not going to survive in the long run.

Iraq is analogous to South Vietnam. It is a corrupt regime that lacks support of a significant minority of its citizens. To the Sunni community, amounting to about 20% of Iraqis, ISIS is a better overlord than the Iraqi army or the Iraqi Shia militias.

However, tactically air power may be more successful in Syriraqistan. It can slow ISIS from taking new territory, but it’s not going to dislodge them from where they sit, without killing a lot of civilians.

The question still comes down to “How many civilians are we willing to kill?”, because the first thing an enemy with no air defense learns is not to hang around in the open where they make easy targets. Indeed, today, the White House acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from US drone strikes will not apply to US military operations in Syria and Iraq.

Obama’s problem was saying the objective was to “destroy ISIS”. We can’t “win” the war against ISIS. We can keep them bottled up, and that’s where bombing can help. We can destroy ISIS’s fuel, weapons supplies, and vehicles.

If we do that for long enough, ISIS could collapse on its own – it’s a creature of war and expansionism, and its crowd of foreign and local fighters will get restless and start turning on each other if they can’t conquer new areas.

If boots are required, they will have to come from the neighborhood.

Turkey’s Role in ISIS Oil Smuggling

The US and its allies aim to degrade the power and influence of ISIS, and that means reducing its flow of oil money. According to a New York Times article, US diplomats are pressuring Turkey to cut off the stream of oil smuggled across its border.

ISIS is producing between 25,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd) in Iraq. Since they cannot sell this oil legitimately, they sell it on the black market. The Times quotes energy analysts who think ISIS is pocketing between $1.2 and $2 million per day. Luay al-Khatteeb, a fellow at the Brookings Institute’s Doha Center, told the Times:

The key gateway through that black market is the southern corridor of Turkey…Turkey is becoming part of this black economy.

Oil Price reports that smuggled oil could be a pivotal issue for the US and its coalition as it seeks to destroy ISIS. The militant group sells oil at a reduced price – around $25 per barrel. Initially, it sold the oil to middlemen, who moved the oil to Iran, Syria, Jordan and Turkey. From Oil Price:

But as ISIS’ operations grew, they forced out the middlemen, beat back other militant groups, and are now providing security to their own convoys of oil tanker trucks heading out of their territory to market.

This raises the question of Turkey’s role in the oil smuggling. They apparently do not condone it, but have done little to stop it. Al-Monitor reports that smuggling is a well-established tradition across Turkey’s southeastern borders with Iraq and Syria. Oil is expensive in most of Turkey, but cheap in the south. This has created an illegal, but widespread south-north trade route. The smuggling economy is not just about oil, however. It also includes other popular items and commodities, such as tea. Al-Monitor:

If one orders tea in southeastern Turkey, the servers often ask, ‘Do you want normal tea or smuggled tea’?

Overall, cutting off this source of revenue has as much strategic value as the effort to take out weapons systems (tanks and artillery) that ISIS seized in the move against Mosul. Turkey can be of help to this effort through better control of its borders.

This raises a more basic question: Where exactly does Turkey stand on ISIS?

This is a matter of controversy between Turkey and the West. The Turkish government has been criticized on three main points: that it has not done enough to close its borders to the flow of foreign fighters joining ISIS; that it has not done enough to curb radical groups at home that recruit for ISIS; and that ISIS makes much of its money by selling oil via Turkey.

These criticisms were not openly discussed before the Sept. 20 release of 49 Turks held by ISIS, who were taken hostage in June when ISIS captured Mosul. The Turkish paper Daily Hurriyet reported that there was a swap with ISIS: The Syrian rebel group Liwa al-Tawhid, another offshoot of the al-Nusra Front, released 50 members of ISIS, including the family of a slain ISIS leader.

Prior to their release, the Turkish government argued that its hands were tied, that it could not join the US-led coalition against ISIS. Now, with the end of the hostage crisis, Ankara must think more concretely about the threat just across its southern border.

In fact, Turkey has just closed its borders to ISIS militants who want to move into Syria to become fighters, while continuing to allow Syrian Kurd refugees into Turkey. However, it still has a major problem with ISIS recruiting inside Turkey. The Daily Hurriyet has traced ISIS in five Turkish cities. They report that 4,000 Turks have joined ISIS in Syria.

The NYT quotes Juan Zarate, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

Turkey in many ways is a wild card in this coalition equation…It’s a great disappointment: There is a real danger that the effort to degrade and destroy ISIS is at risk. You have a major NATO ally, and it is not clear they are willing and able to cut off flows of funds, fighters and support to ISIS.

Unlike the US, Turkey actually has to live right next door to ISIS and Iraq. The Turkish army is big enough to help cripple ISIS and is close enough to do it. They want to see Syria’s Assad leave power. They know how to deal with terrorists and have done so successfully for decades. Turkey is a NATO member. Strictly speaking, ISIS hasn’t attacked a NATO member, so Turkey can be remain coy about their ultimate involvement with the current coalition.

The success of the effort against ISIS depends as much on Saudi Arabia and Iran as it does on Turkey, but we should expect more than Turkey is currently providing to the coalition.

Is a New World Order Coming?

In the prologue to his 1987 book of essays, Hidden History: Exploring Our Secret Past, historian Daniel Boorstin wrote about “the Fertile Verge”, a place where something and something else, something unexplored, meet.

A verge is like a frontier region, a place where ecosystems, or ideas, mingle. Verges between land and sea, between civilization and wilderness, between state and national governments, between city and countryside – all are a part of the American experience. Boorstin said that the movement westward by colonists into the American continent was a verge between European civilization and the culture of the American Indians.

America is clearly now on the verge of something new, possibly a big change in the world order. The old rules are broken. New states may emerge out of conflict in the Africa and the Middle East. Our old allies see their future drifting away from ours. The old order is rapidly disintegrating. But is there a new order that will replace it? Will it happen only in America, or will it be a global change?

Consider the following about America:
• In August, the Wall Street Journal reported on an FBI database that contains a file on one in three adults, or 77.7 million Americans.
• Our schools aren’t succeeding,
• Our infrastructure is crumbling,
• American corporations are heading for the exits (to tax havens).
• 45 Million Americans live in poverty, and that number hasn’t changed since 2010.

We are taking on some of the trappings of a police state. And there is no reason to suppose that the FBI’s (and the NSA’s) increased sophistication in domestic spying, and data storage and retrieval will do anything but make that trend more efficient, and penalties more severe and long-lasting. That is not a prescription for maintaining a united Homeland.

Our coffers are shrinking, yet we march off to one risky war after another, with all of those billions going where, and for what? Our Republic now seems to want only compliant workers and consumers. All others need not apply.

Last bit of history; the Principate, (27 BC – 284 AD) was the first stage of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire succeeded the Roman Republic. The Principate was characterized by a concerted effort by its Emperors to preserve the illusion of the continuance of the Roman Republic. And just like the Principate, the illusion of the American Republic is what now remains.

The order of things that underpinned our era is in crisis. Part of peoples’ concern is the sense that the old order isn’t holding, but we’re not quite yet able to see the terms of any new order, one that may be based on different states, different global powers, or on different principles.

So, what’s next for America? A nation founded explicitly on an idea of individual freedoms and representative governance, the US has always identified its success with the spread of liberty and democracy. Today, those very rights are threatened here at home.

The post-WWII bipolar world ended when the USSR collapsed under their own weight. That brought about a different world order, a uni-polar era, with the US as the sole superpower, possessing the only military strong enough to deter any other potential rival from engaging in aggressive war.

Even that order is ending. We are on the frontier of something completely new in global politics in addition to change in our domestic society. Consider what is happening around the globe:
• Our people see what’s happening in Ukraine; what’s happening in Syria, with what Assad has wrought on his own people; in Iraq, where Sunni, Shia and Kurd fail to compromise, even in the face of invasion; the war between Israel and Gaza; the challenge of ISIS.
• Libya is in civil war, Pakistan is close to one, and Afghanistan’s democracy may be on the verge of paralysis. Egypt again has a military-dominated government.
• Add to these troubles the relationship between the US and China, that bounces between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination.

In Africa and the Middle East, the 21st Century has collided with the 8th Century, and the 8th Century is armed with 21st Century weaponry, so it is winning on the ground. An entirely new paradigm for deciding our priorities is required.

What will that new paradigm be? The most important questions to ask are – what is in the best interest of our country?
• What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary, alone?
• What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by a multilateral effort?
• What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance?
• In what should we not engage, even if urged on by a “responsibility to protect”, or by a multilateral group or alliance?”

All of our intermediating of trouble in the world has weakened us. Continuing to do so will only hasten our eclipse as the indispensable power. Our role in the world depends on a strong economy and few structural/societal problems at home. Shouldn’t taking care of the Homeland be our primary concern?

We may feel that a new “Fertile Verge” is almost upon us, but no one knows yet what it will be, or if we will make it across to the other side.

Or, if crossing to the other side will be better for America.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – September 22, 2014

Will this be the Military Service Patch for our never-ending involvement in Iraq?

The Old Lady from South Carolina (OLFSC), on Fox a week ago: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

This is a war we’re fighting! It is not a counterterrorism operation. This is not Somalia. This is not Yemen. This is a turning point in the war on terror. Our strategy will fail yet again. This president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back here at home.

He said the same thing a decade ago. Then-freshman Sen. Lindsey Graham (OLFSC) worried that Saddam’s (nonexistent) cache of nerve gas “could kill millions of people”.

Some people think Arabs are an existential threat, but climate change is a myth?

The Arab Nations really are backing our ISIS effort…Really:

We will see if we truly have an exit strategy:

In other news, independence remains elusive in Scotland:

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Category: ForeignPolicy