Geopolitics – Page 23 – The Wrongologist

October 30, 2014

What’s Wrong Today:

This year, Republicans did not put up a challenger in 37 House races, while Democrats did not field candidates in 32 districts, according to the Cook Political Report. Another 8 House districts will see no contest between the main parties, because of the “top two” primary system used in California and Washington state. These 77 single-party House races are a high number by recent standards. In 2012, there were 45 of them.

In today’s Democratic Party, challengers seldom see a primary attack from their left, while Republican incumbents often fear attacks from the right. The Economist quotes Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA) who is running unopposed: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

In politics, Republicans are like dogs, working as a pack [while] Democrats are the cats.

Few races for the House are closely fought. Roughly 80% of the 435 members have little or fear on election day. Given the very high costs of getting elected, there are fewer opposition candidates in historically safe House districts.

Turning to the Senate, in July 2014, 42 Senators (41 GOP and 1 Dem) succeeded in killing Bill S2569, which would have repealed the corporate tax break for shipping American jobs overseas (you need 60 votes to overturn a Filibuster). And on Nov 4th, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) and all the other Senators (running in this cycle) who voted against the Bill will be re-elected.

DC insiders think that this is a feature, not a bug. Would voters tolerate a Congress with hundreds of uncontested seats?

Thursday linkage:

If they show you a chart, apparently, you will believe whatever they are saying.

Independents favor Republicans by 20 points: Republicans have discovered that a sufficiently united party can obstruct everything and anything, but largely escape blame for the resulting gridlock.

The most politically engaged states: This study shows the most engaged states had a more highly educated population, higher per capita economic output and fairer tax systems. Massachusetts and Colorado were #1 & #2. West Virginia was #50.

The US is developing better relations with Iran: If permanent, the shift could drastically alter the balance of power in the region. If the nuclear issue is resolved, this could be Obama’s greatest legacy. But, it risks alienating key US allies, like Israel, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.

Dubai police to use Google Glass with facial recognition to ID bad guys: Well, last year Dubai announced it would supply its police with $400,000 Lamborghini’s for use at major tourist sites. Cool cars and stupid glasses.

Some of Bach’s masterpieces were composed by his wife: A documentary film, “Written by Mrs. Bach” makes a case that Anna Magdalena Bach actually composed some of works attributed to her husband, Johann Sebastian Bach. And she had to cook and clean.

Home ownership rate in the US fell to the lowest rate in more than 19 years: Entry-level buyers have been held back by stringent mortgage standards and slow wage growth. The share of first-time buyers was 29% in September for the third straight month, compared with about 40% historically.

Who is watching the World Series? Apparently, fewer of us than ever: The last time the World Series averaged more than 20 million viewers was in 2004 when the Boston Red Sox defeated the St. Louis Cardinals to take their first title since 1918.

Your Thursday Music Break:

Ebola: Oh My God, We’re All Gonna Die!

Why is it that so many pundits feel the need to tweet/talk/bloviate in a way that sounds like they’re proven right when there is a new case of Ebola? Why did Bill O’Reilly feel the need to say that he knows better than the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about how to keep Americans safe from the Ebola virus? The greatest cost of our rampant corporatism may be the continued chipping away at our trust in public institutions.

Even though spreading panic is great politics, if we need to reevaluate our protocols for healthcare workers caring for patients with Ebola, fine, but if you live in another state from the person infected in Dallas, you’re gonna be ok.

Let’s remember that Thomas Duncan, the sole Ebola fatality in the US, spent 3 days at home with a fever of 103. He was infectious for the 3 days he was at home with the illness, and he could have infected someone else in the household, but he did not. Apparently, his family took great care not to be exposed, and they seem to be on the verge of succeeding, since the incubation period is up to 21 days. Duncan showed symptoms on Sept. 24th. If we count from then, the family still have a day or two before they are out of the woods. If we count from Sept. 28th, when he was vomiting and went to the hospital for the 2nd time, they would be safe on Saturday.

Most of the Americans flown to the US with Ebola were healthcare workers. The person who died from the disease in Spain was a healthcare worker. Many who get it in Africa are caregivers or healthcare workers. So, again, this indicates an ongoing risk for those who care for patients with Ebola, but the average American’s risk for catching the disease is still near zero.

That said, this report in Scientific American by Judy Stone, MD and infectious disease specialist, speaks to the problems with both process and culture in hospitals:

One hospital I am familiar with has Powered Air Purifying respirators (PAPRs), purchased with bioterrorism preparedness grants, but neither stethoscopes nor other dedicated equipment for isolation rooms. So nurses and docs gown up to go in the room of a patient with a “superbug” but take their stethoscopes into the room and then on to other patients, perhaps remembering to wipe it down first.

This New York Times blog post & graphic on the procedures for healthcare workers caring for people with Ebola echoes Dr. Stone’s discussion and shows how hard it is to be careful.

Here is a chart by Dr. Stone on of our expense for Public Health Preparedness spending since 2001:

This shows that funding for preparedness efforts have fallen by a cumulative total of $2.4 billion since the high point in 2006. The chart shows that the deepest cuts came in GW Bush’s second term. Since then, substantially more has been cut from the programs. Starve a program designed to educate and isolate a deadly outbreak among public health professionals and then blame the government when something goes wrong. Thanks Mr. O’Reilly.

Politics, as usual, is the fly in our soup. Unfortunately, next month Americans again go to the polls and at least half of them will vote for the very people who are doing everything in their power to eliminate public health care.

Isn’t it strange that public health policy is being decided based on economic beliefs about free trade and travel rather than mathematics and science? We in the West offered no assistance to immediately help control the initial Ebola outbreak in Africa. We said, let it burn itself out, like it has done before.

But, the New York Times reports that the new head of the World Bank, Dr. Jim Yong Kim, was among the first to see the need to move quickly against the Ebola threat. He committed $400 million to fight Ebola, and $105 million has already been disbursed. In September, he said to Dr. Margaret Chan, the head of the World Health Organization:

You have the authority to act in this emergency…so why aren’t you doing it?

Now, in October, she seems to be finally on the case.

Here at home, Republicans are vying with each other to shame the Obama administration into implementing a travel ban against Ebola-affected countries. That wouldn’t be an unreasonable suggestion if it could stop the spread of the disease. But it won’t. Here’s why:
• There is a de facto private ban already in place, since US-based airlines stopped flying to Ebola-afflicted countries two months ago (to protect their crew and passengers from exposure — and themselves from lawsuits).
• Delta and United offer direct, nonstop service between the US and West Africa—Delta to Lagos, Accra, and Dakar, and United only to Lagos.
• No travel ban or quarantine will seal a country completely. Models predict that even if travel could be reduced by 80%, new transmissions would be delayed only by a few weeks.

And health-care workers who become ill would not be able to get out for treatment, and the international health personnel needed to quell the outbreak would no longer be able to get in.

Despite the fear-mongering, we know what needs to be done. We have organized the deployment of 3,000 troops and have begun marshaling a wider international response that is tragically slow. With the announcement of the Dallas case, hospitals across the country are now scrambling to get their procedures up to snuff.

We need to have the boots in Africa to help manage the probable local panic as well. It is a linear investment by the US that could have an exponential payback.

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.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – October 5, 2014

Our country is hated abroad, and frightened at home. We have reached a point where we could reasonably refer to the great American Republic in the past tense. We have edged into a post-constitutional era, no longer a nation of laws, but an autocracy run by law evaders and law ignorers, a culture in which corruption is no longer a form of deviance, but the norm.

We all live in a Mafia-run neighborhood:

By now, everyone knows about the evils of bankers and their Washington facilitators: Wall Street lobbies Congress for favorable deals, Congress then approves them at taxpayer expense. When things are this bad, the very structure of our society is threatened, and voters have to stress fundamentals over issues. We need to move beyond the divisive cultural issues, all the single issues, even critical things like the environment, war and peace, and the “economy”, and focus on structural issues. We have to leave the culture wars and even big political differences behind, and make alliances among voters–because right now, none of us are being heard.

Will White House security improve with new leadership?

However, a new threat jumped the fence:

For months, the Ebola outbreak was confined to West Africa, a region more than 8,000 miles away. But this week a patient was diagnosed with the deadly virus in Dallas, Texas, bringing Ebola hysteria right on home. We have heard typical reassurances from the CDC, while some politicians have engaged in fear-mongering. But, unless lots of Americans plan on exchanging bodily fluids with people who live or work in West Africa, we’ll be fine.

Politicians talk about terror and say: “we could all be killed”. They speak about Ebola and say: “we could all be killed”. Mothra could also come back, and you know the nation isn’t prepared for Mothra. Where will we get enough Raid? Do we have Godzilla’s cell number? OK Obama, what are we supposed to do?

Meanwhile, the actors in the Middle East continue to mis-hear each other:

And in HK, not only no hearing, there is no listening:

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.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – September 28, 2014

The Saudis make its relationship with the coalition very clear:

We learned this week from the Wall Street Journal that Mr. Obama made a deal with the Saudis. They will lend legitimacy for our attacks against ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra). Then, the US will move against the Assad government in Syria. The neocon editors of The Economist are doing victory laps. Here is the “Obama Accomplished” photo from The Economist story:

Despite the new strategy, Obama is not sleeping well:

America sends troops to Africa, Cuba sends doctors and nurses:

Finally, in new analysis from the Pew Research Center, fewer Republicans believe in evolution today than did in 2009:
• 43% of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54% four years ago
• 48% say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39% percent in 2009.

How unbelievably stupid does one have to be to believe that evolution is a hoax? It’s only a guess, but it is probable that a poll would show a higher percentage of Americans believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. Here are the data:

Never let facts get in the way of a good belief system.

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:

We Have No Syrian Strategy

The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on Tuesday about the US policy to combat the Islamic State. It featured testimony from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey. You can find transcripts of their testimony here. During their pitch, they called each other “Chuck” and “Marty”. What happened to “Mr. Secretary” and “General”?

Is this the level of professionalism these guys show in the field, or with our allies?

Anyway, the idea of the hearing was for Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey to explain to the Senators how we will conduct the “degradation and destruction” of ISIS. It didn’t go well for those of us who think we should really have a strategy before we head off to Iraq and Syria.

The headline from the hearing is that the disconnect in the ISIS strategy, that we saw when Mr. Obama said we had no Syrian strategy, remains. We still have no Syrian strategy, at least no strategy that has a high probability of working.

Aside from the air strikes that you know about, there was a discussion of training a new force to go into Syria. General Dempsey expects that we will recruit 5,400 previously untrained Syrians from refugee camps, send them to about a year’s military training in Saudi Arabia, organize maybe a few more contingents in later training cohorts, and then send them into Syria, where they will defeat ISIS, and then move against Assad.

That’s believable. Hope you didn’t think we should be doing something sooner, because no other ME country will be sending actually breathing, trained troops to help out against ISIS in Iraq or Syria.

The Obama strategy reads as a multi-track effort. On the one hand, we will combat ISIS; then we will effect regime change in Syria. That’s a maximalist strategy, but is it realistic? The plan has additional risks, (American boots on the ground, quagmire, and creation of additional Islamists who hate America) plus, there is little chance it will work. Too many moving parts.

Maybe Mr. Obama’s real plan for training 5400 Syrians to become a new kind of “Bay of Pigs Brigade” (that didn’t go well) is to delay having to do anything about Syria and Assad, and leave that decision to his successor. The peril is, should the Bay of Pigs Brigade fail, McCain & Co then have a better reason to call for an all-out invasion of Syria, because Assad just killed off our 5400 trusty unicorns.

And because America would lose face if we let Assad get away with it.

Today in the NYT, Tom Friedman finally makes some sense:

Here’s another question: What’s this war really about?
“This is a war over the soul of Islam — that is what differentiates this moment from all others,” argues Ahmad Khalidi, a Palestinian scholar associated with St. Antony’s College, Oxford. Here is why: For decades, Saudi Arabia has been the top funder of the mosques and schools throughout the Muslim world that promote the most puritanical version of Islam, known as Salafism, which is hostile to modernity, women and religious pluralism, or even Islamic pluralism.

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Category: Geopolitics