Time Flies 122709

The 19th century was the age of the train. Steel rails circled globe. Produce arrived in the cities farm fresh. Romance and adventure rode the rails.

The 20th century was the age of the plane. Adventure took to the air. Air travel was a class act of fine dinning and service. Passengers arrived groomed and rested at modern terminals around the globe. Flying west they could even arrive before they departed.

Technology and bad management doomed rail travel. Railroads went bankrupt and greed raised fares as rails and service deteriorated. The grand stations became dark, dirty places outside urban growth. Management milked every cent for owners while choking maintenance and employees. Ultimately steel rails were torn out and beaten into horse-less carriages.

Airlines followed the rail model. Art-deco air terminals rivaling the 19th century grand stations were built and air routes linked the world’s major cities. Grass runways of feeder lines fed the need for more air travelers. Competition and larger planes drove many small airlines into bankruptcy. Bottom line greed stripped the glamour from flying as more and more passengers are stuffed into sardine can accommodations. The quest for greater profit saw aging air fleets, pay reductions and reduced services. Once free baggage, food and drinks could bring in more revenue. Management innovators began adding fees: booking fees, fuel fees, holiday fees, ticket fees, airport fees, landing fees. What goes up must come down except for the fees steadily rising.

Then came hijackings and need for sky marshals who proved ineffectual to prevent the world trade disaster. Politicians seeking to appear concerned added placebo security of unreasonable searches and seizures along with security taxes and fees to air travel. Hungry, thirsty passengers are now forced to remain in their seats with their hands folded. Air travel built on speed and glamour has come to a sudden halt. Passengers may now have to travel two or more hours to reach a terminal three hours before a scheduled departure that may be hours late in taking off on its 30-minute flight. At the destination delays in landing, deplaning, retrieving costly checked bags and another long trip away from the terminal. A 30-minute trip has become a degrading all day affair. The forecast is for even more closely packed passengers in even larger planes that fly faster but take longer to board, service and secure. These passengers will be dressed in surgical gowns, open in back, locked to their rough seats and allowed nothing to bring nothing on board. “Come fly with me,” has become distinctly unattractive. Fear and bad management is condemning air travel to a faith lower than rail travel, airplanes will be recycled into soda cans.

The 21st century may save future travelers in a virtual world that can tele-port people and cargoes even to distance planets. Bad management however is sure to disrupt the process, while searching for greater profits making, ‘Lost in space a real probability.” At least you may find your bag.

Slippery Slope 122009

Spin-doctors are on a oil slick slope as they attempt to distance politicians from the Iraqi invasion, occupation and impending disaster. According to after the fact sugar coating spin, there is now proof that the Iraq invasion was not about oil.

The Texas oilmen running the Bush administration may well be trying to placate American Oil INC. The Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal was quite vocal in assuring Congress and Big Oil that the Iraq occupation would be paid for with Iraqi oil and secure American energy for the future. There was even a plan to “secure” other foreign oil fields for America’s future requirements. This was an open admission that there was no intention to leave Iraqi oil fields once secured.

The difficulty emerged when nothing in Iraq worked as Rumsfeld envisioned. The invasion fractured the infrastructure of the country so the oil ceased to flow. Years after America was supposed to recoup the cost of war from Iraqi oil the flow remains a trickle that barely supports the broken nation.

Spin now cites as proof that oil was never an objective in the Iraq decision point to the fact that Americans companies were locked out of a new oil boom. It’s true, not because it wasn’t the objective but rather because a sovereign Iraq refused to award a single oil contract to an American company. Countries that opposed the invasion of Iraq will now shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. attempted to do with its Oil Law which it failed to push through Iraq’s parliament, foreign oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years. The oil will remain the property of the Iraqi State, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel. Exxon Mobil did achieve an 80 percent share in one field prior to the public auction process, but Iraq plans to exploit its technology to expand output for the country.

While it appears that the victor exercised no special claim on the spoils of war there is a more probable explanation. Iraqi officials say they are not awarding contracts based on political considerations, but it is sending a message, there is no reward for destroying a nation and killing its citizens.

Rumsfeld promised rich rewards following a short mission. He later admitted, “It is easier to get into something than to get out of it.” He also said, “There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it, and that's just a fact.” Sorry Don, you didn’t get away with it!

Sword for rent 121809

Long before there were swords there were warriors for hire. Highly skilled warriors were courted with promises of the best cuts of mastodon and most attractive ladies. The warriors’ job was to defend a group from man and beast. If it failed to deliver on its promises, or was outbid by a rival group, the warrior walked.

When groups became tribes and tribes, empires free warriors’ pay improved and they were called mercenaries, soldier for hire. Skilled mercenary armies were hired by rulers for defense, but more often offence. Professional mercenaries were so effective that opposing rulers often resorted to a strategy that if you can’t beat them, hire them away. Sometimes mercenaries never fought they just kept switching sides for higher and higher pay. During the feudal era epics were penned on the heroic exploits of wandering free warriors. England built an empire with colonial mercenary armies and lost it to the same soldiers.

Americans have also sold their swords. Following the revolution John Paul Jones marketed his battle skills to the highest bidder (Russia). After the civil war many veterans served various nations. During the Spanish civil war Americans were prohibited from serving on the politically incorrect side. During the nationalist era of the 1950-70s a number did support politically correct causes. There are common threads in these examples: mercenaries do change sides; mercenary armies often become stronger than national armies and overthrow their masters. When nations become dependent on mercenaries to fight their battles it is the beginning of the end for their culture.

Recently the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimated that slightly over half of DOD’s war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan is being preformed by modern mercenaries, contractors. Contractors perform such mundane task as washing dishes to combat operations. The national Army can no longer function without contract support. In the past soldier drivers, cooks and bakers mobilized to hold the line in times of emergency. Civilian contractors can’t perform this task because they lack the skills or it is not in their contracts. Expanding the contract requires prolonged negotiations and compensation.

There is a problem with the CRS report, it measures DOD’s reliance on contractors but other government agencies in the combat zone also rely on contractors for services once preformed by the national army. The report may also underestimate contractor numbers, prime contractors often subcontract tasks to cheaper labor from many nations. The use of contract soldiers provides political cover for administrations since contractor strength and casualties are not imprinted in public view.

The human cost of this war is hidden but the danger is that the real capacity of the nation to defend and protect itself is now dependent on its ability to pay mercenary armies. In the world of cash and carry warfare, economic downturns can lead to defeat. The bottom line is profit not ethics. There is a point where mercenaries begin to fight for their own interest rather than those of the state.

Terror rides 121509

History remembers the German GESTAPO and Soviet KGB as terrorist organizations. They were in fact police organization that evolved into political police, which freely used terror against their respective populations. Both services resorted to torture, domestic spying and citizen networks of informants to for some perceived greater good to the State. Just who defined the greater good became obscured by organizational self-interest. Ultimately the objective became protection of governing by total subjugation of the governed.

Today both organizations are condemned for their activities. Their methods however continue to be widely studied and adapted by other governments intent on retaining power. In the post war years many countries attempted to gain independence and freedom from the past. A democratic government in Iran exiled the autocratic Shah and attempted to gain a fair share of Iran’s oil wealth for social reforms. At the urging of the British, America staged a coup and returned the Shah to power. To retain the Shah as an anti-Soviet ally the Americans established and trained an Iranian secret police, SAVAK. The brutality of SAVAK contributed to his second overthrow and the establishment of a theocratic order. The new rulers discovered value in SAVAK and retained its agents under the names of SAVAMA>MOIS>VEVAK. Even religion needs to keep its flock in line.

America did not see that far down the line however, and established the School of the Americas (SOA) out of view in Panama. The SOA trained Latin American dictatorships in the methodologies of population control in the name a greater good of anti-communism. Latin secret police “disappeared” people and death squads freely roamed the streets. There were no trials and few official records of secret police activities. Ultimately the countries revolted over the oppression and today are still trying to determine the full scope of the abuse of powers.

The lessons of establishing secret police societies are that eventually they will resort to terrorism to support private agendas. The purpose of terror is not acquisition of information, but rather to terrorize, create fear and suppress popular dissent. The greater good becomes sustaining the powerful rather than protection of the peoples. Lessons ignored or embraced by the polmil?

The polmil is sending an intelligence battalion to train Iraqi security forces in the black arts of spying on Iraqi people. The polmil has also announced that it intends to take over internal investigations in Afghanistan while establishing and training another police force that will track domestic activities. Both of these efforts are not only violations of respective sovereignty of independent states, but also are aimed at suppression of democratic political dissent.

The final lesson is that secret police tactics inevitably leads to resistance movements, revolts and lingering animosity toward the foreign sponsors of corrupted regimes.

Converging history 121409

The decision is made and the polmil got most of what it ask for in Afghanistan. Importantly the polmil got a guarantee of their next promotions for at least two more years.

The President’s speechwriters were a little in error when he stated Afghanistan is not another Vietnam. Actually Afghanistan is becoming the second longest American engagement, the Philippines being the longest, on and off since 1898.

America built its Kandahar airbase in the 50s for support of its cold war strategy against the Soviets. It abandoned the base due to harsh conditions and isolation in favor of cold war bases in Iran. When Iran overthrew the Shah and ejected American interest in the 70s, the Kandahar base resurfaced as an outpost against Iran but the Afghans were not as friendly as they once were to the idea. In the late 70s and 80s Afghanistan became the battleground for a proxy war against the Soviets. When the Soviets withdrew in the late 80s the Americans abandoned its Afghan allies again leaving them in a well-armed power vacuum leading to protracted civil war. When Afghanistan became a preferred route for an oil pipeline from the former Soviet republics American again attempted to get its foot in the door, but the new Taliban government wanted a fair share of the action.

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Kandahar became the American staging area for Afghan invasion and occupation. This was a fulfillment of 50s fears of Afghan isolationists’. Now after almost nine years of occupation America is ramping up its spear-carriers (soldier power), while attempting to drag in more international support. Afghans see a corrupt American puppet government in Kabul, bleeding the country of foreign aid. The new American administration sees the same picture despite the polmil’s promises of victory with more time, more troops, more medals and more promotions.

The Administration finds itself in the same position as the LBJ’s administration during the Vietnam War. They are both in a war they did not want, trying to solve domestic issues while not appearing to lose a war. Both administrations faced a strident polmil seeking more power and destruction. Obama seeks a strategy, while Johnson sought tactics for victory.

Johnson left a major lesson for Obama. Attempting two costly programs (war and domestic reform) at the same time dooms America to runaway inflation, record deficits and declining power. Obama took office with record deficits, and a collapsed economy with inflation just around the corner even without a war.

Today’s spear-carriers have fancier weapons, miracle medicine and are better equipped than their Vietnam era fathers. Like their fathers, however, they still must pay the price in blood for bad policy, leaving a legacy of debt to their children and grandchildren. Despite all the spear-carriers’ blood, Afghan’s know America will soon desert them again. The Afghan’s have long memories of the cost of war from cultural invasions.

Friendship 102809

If you have friends you don’t need enemies. In international affairs this translates to conflicting agendas among friendly states where the powerful deserts its friends when they are no longer useful. Promises of enduring friendship are made, treaties are signed, aid and trade promised, then a new dynamic is courted.

This is called the Realist paradigm, which sees the suspension of all ethical rules and norms, is just in the pursuit of maximum benefit to the state’s greater good. Of course the greater good is a subjective concept defined by the state’s bureaucracy with the maximum benefit falling to its own self-interest. Businesses, governments and individuals express this as, “What is good for me is good for everyone.”

The greater the power the greater the betrayal is a foreign policy norm. Modern history is full of examples. Start with Hitler at Munich again with the Soviet Union, the Soviets and Finland, Britain and the French Fleet. The latter could be termed kicking a friend while he is down, which was followed by the French abandonment of post war NATO. Twice the United States put self interest ahead of the NATO alliance it created, with the unilateral diversion of committed forces to support its war in Vietnam and again to support its interest in the Middle East. NATO allies were livid and now the U.S. is forced to beg NATO to pull its chestnuts from the fires of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United States has a long history of treaty abrogation, just ask the American Indians or CENTO (aka METO) and SEATO states. (The U.S. is again trying to get the once abandoned southeast Asian states to sign on to new treaty promises.) Torn between two treaty obligation, the U.S. abandoned one friend to side with another in the Falkland war. Taiwan has strong views on the value of American friendship, as does Pakistan. Early in this century at the height of another Pakistan/India border dispute the U.S. deserted its traditional Pakistani friend for India. Then the events of post 911 forced America, hat in hand, to seek Pakistan’s help, who now demanded up front support over broken American promises.

That’s policy level, at the human level Americans are also distrusted. From the African proxy wars of the 50s and 60s people who sided with the U.S. were left to the mercies of their enemies. Philippine soldiers, who marched with Americans at Bataan, were ignored for decades. Fighters of Hungary, Central America, Vietnam and Afghanistan, who rallied to America’s call, silently watched American withdrawals. Tribesmen and villagers of Iraq and Afghanistan who welcomed American promises now watch more American withdraws. Tarred with the stigma of collaboration, they now wait alone for the mercy of the merciless.

It is little wonder that America has lost the trust and respect of the peoples as they come to realize they are only pawns for a great power Realist game.

Strategic energy 101809

Energy was a strategic resource long before there were states to fight over energy sources. Troglodytes (TROG-LO-DITES) had their fire keepers whose job it was to gather the fuel to keep the cave fire burning. Fire keepers were innovative energy managers when twigs around the cave became scarce they experimented with dinosaur chips. As men ahead of their time they saw the coming oil boom left by the dinosaur age.

Jumping a head a few thousand years America became center of energy supply, not yet the black gold but whale oil. New Englanders in the process of getting rich in whale oil almost extinguished the species, but whaling ships led to Yankee Clippers and American mercantilism. Control of energy sources leads to growth as demonstrated by American discovery of that black gold. Cheap oil fueled industrial growth, automobiles, planes and energy addiction. Over indulgence led to global warming, a dimming future and a search for another Trog ahead of his time who can see new sources of energy.

After 9-11 the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld (all Texas oilmen) administration quietly established an “energy security initiative.” Little was heard about this in America, but in essence the initiative stated that the U.S. had the right to seize oil production anywhere in the world to insure a steady flow of oil. This was a bombshell in oil producing regions most of which were friendly to America. The reaction was such that the administration backed away for the document but not the idea. (NOTE: energy security initiative has taken on new meanings today, not to be confused with the previous interpretation.)

The administration attempted to land a combat force to “secure” Nigerian oil field, only to meet with threats military resistance. To gain control of oil in the Gulf of Nigeria a coup/counter coup was supported in the Sao Tome Island group. A U.S. naval base was promised to Sao Tome for the protection of their claim to off shore oil. Morocco had illegally occupied its neighbor, Western Sahara. Morocco’s move was condemned by the entire international community, which refused to recognize the legitimacy of Morocco’s claim to the country. Under the initiative the Bush administration made a deal with Morocco to exploit Western Sahara’s oil resources. This in effect legitimized Morocco’s control of the country. Then there is Sudan with more proven oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. Unable to establish forces in that warring country American contingents are now established in surrounding countries.

Energy continues to be the center of national security strategy. However that focus is almost exclusively on oil, from the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan to the aborted attempts to control of Iran’s oil fields and those of the Central Asian States.

While the world waits for a new Trog with the perfect energy source, nations must coordinate advancements of existing technologies. At the same time seeking cleaner energy they must exercise a strategic vision that reverses global warming and prevent the excesses of the past. Is there hope for the individual, of course, just invest in the energy giants of today for they will corral the energy of tomorrow.

From a lecture

Oil 101809

The study of International affairs should be a study of interactive confluent, dynamic causations effecting international relations. Oil is a single causation but it is dynamic, and does interact with other factors effecting both domestic and foreign policies.

Oil (energy) most immediately interacts with business and government. The business dynamic is easily understood, let nothing get in the way of the bottom line. Whether it is the local gas station that jumps the price a buck a gallon at the threat of foul weather or Big Oil jumping its price 50 dollar a barrel on questionable justifications, it’s all about greater profit. The government’s motives are a great deal more complex. Governments must publicly face the hysteria and demands of their polity while negotiating behind closed doors with Big Oil. Somewhere lost in the dark bowels of government there is a pale, forgotten bureaucrat trying to craft a strategic vision for national energy policies.

Government policy is expediency and compromises until some disaster strikes then it become, scream and shout, run about. When the price of gas hits five dollars a gallon then the government grabs a scribbled note from the bureaucrat’s desk and claims it has the plan for energy security, and cheaper gas.

To understand the government and business complexity in energy policy a little history is necessary. In the public acclaimed trust busting days of the early 20th century the government broke up Standard Oil of New Jersey (1911). Ultimately the resulting three American companies formed a cartel with international oil companies that became known as the seven sisters. The cartel set prices and divided up oil production around the world. The world went into an economic nosedive in the 1930s that lasted until a world war demand for production and energy pulled the nose up. The end of the war however brought a new confluence of dynamics. Much of the world industrial capacity was destroyed, energy demands were down, while returning soldiers were demanding their own new deal.

Government, industry, Big Oil and public expectations became a confluent of dynamics. There was no grand conspiracy as there was no grand plan but there was conspiracy. Automobile giants could no longer profit from planes and tanks, the military market for petroleum was down, the government needed to prevent a new depression and the public wanted a freedom it felt it had earned. It was a mutual interest of government, industry and energy producers to not only pander to public demand but also drove its expectations. Oil and industry lobbied government for favorable legislation; governments built roads and suburbia as mass transit systems declined in an environment of personal auto transportation that allowed families to go when and where it wanted.

Today America fights pollution and competes over finite energy resources while trying to revive its mass transit systems. Emerging states look to the American experience as an ideal where everyone has a car and the freedom of the road. America however is a poor model in a world of increasing demand, global warming and antiquated energy production and utilization processes.

From a lecture

Books 100809

According to media reports the White House and Pentagon are trying to learn how to fight the war in Afghanistan after eight years of frailling away. Two books are at the center of debate. Vietnam, an American military and political disaster over 30 years ago is the subject of both.

One book’s thesis is that the military viewed the conflict as a quick victory and dragged the White House into all out war. The other book concludes that by 1972, after 16 years of fighting, the military had finally figured out how to fight insurgents, but the White House politicians ended the fight before the military could be victorious. This is similar to the German Army claims at the end of WW1, “The politicians betrayed our army.” The latter book is a current favorite of the American polmil.

The Bush administration also had favorite books choose to read orientalist tomes of an imperialist perspective. There is also Mao’s thesis “On War” detailing how a people’s war should be fought. Mao’s book was translated by a U.S. Marine officer in 1939 and ignored by the polmil until faced with another defeat to peoples’ wars. There are also books on the Persian, Greek, Mongol, British, and Soviet experiences in Afghanistan. The polmil probably ignores these books because they lost and can teach nothing of value. After eight years of war has an arrogant government just begun to do its homework, all these works were available before the invasion.

The polmil’s basic problem is that it still does not know who it is fighting. There are a great number of similarities between Vietnam and the Afghan War, but there are more differences. The Afghans are not Viet Cong, Chinese, Arabs nor Iraqis. The military is now attempting to impose its failed Iraqi strategy in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not Iraq, Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia. The Taliban is not al Qaida nor are all Afghan insurgents Taliban.

America does not have one war in Afghanistan but many different conflicts requiring differing strategies. The coalition has over 100,000 troops in country and the Afghan Security force numbers over 200,000 against a U.S. military estimate of 20,000 insurgents. That is a 15 to one superiority and the military wants to double its force? The polmil may well need increased troop strength just to guard its supply routes through increasingly hostile countries to its landlocked battlefield.

The polmil’s arrogant behavior in the surrounding countries is turning potential friends into opponents. The military may not recognize it yet but it is the Br’er Rabbit to an Afghan Tar Baby.

It is the guys with pointed sticks the Doughboys, Dogfaces, Grunts, Joe-tent pegs, that always pay the price on an arrogant polmil intent on medals and glory. The government must consider these soldiers who do the fighting and dying for undefined objectives. They deserve better from their leadership.

"G" who? 100409

Trying to decode world economic relations is more than a little confusing. For much of the latter half of the 20th century the G7 has ruled economic policies for the world.

Now here is the scorecard:
G6, A meeting of finance ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States, when Canada was added in 1976 it became the G7. Not to be confused with the more recent G6 of the United States, European Union, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia).

G8, The annual meeting of the heads of government of the above nations, plus Russia.

G8 +5, The above plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa (known as the outreach five.

G20, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States of America. The European Union gets the 20th seat. The participating countries represent 85% of global GNP, 80% of world trade and two-thirds of the world’s people. The G20 was established in 1999 to discuss key issues of the global economy to “reduce the world economy’s susceptibility to crises.” The G20 has become increasingly important as the leader in the economic decision process.

G33, Industrialized nations of: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. The G33 preceded the G20 but followed the G22

N-11, How did an “N” get in there? These are countries that Goldman Sachs considers to have a high potential of becoming the world’s largest economies this century: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. Interestingly most are not included in the “G” negoiations.

D8, Eight developing Muslim nations: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey.

G11, Back to the “Gs”. Jordan, Croatia, Ecuador, Georgia, El Salvador, Honduras, Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay and Sri Lanka a forum for developing countries who are desperate to get out of debt and lift their millions out of poverty.

G20, (Another one) A group of developing countries which currently it has 23 members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Its core leadership (the G4 bloc) comprises Brazil, China, India and South Africa.
G33, (Also another one) Developing countries: of Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Laos, Mauritius, Madagascar, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Senegal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, that coordinate on trade and economic issues.

G4, (Starting over?) India, Germany, Japan and Brazil for the purpose of supporting each other's bid for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. Not economics just a plea for power sharing.

G4, (Another one not to be confused with the above or the G4 bloc of the G20.) An American proposal to replace the G7 with an organization of only the largest global economies: America, China, Eurozone and Japan. Long time American supporter the United Kingdom strongly opposes losing its seat at the foot of the table. Germany is also reluctant to give up its seat and proposed that the G7 serve to guide the G20. Canada would also lose its seat but strongly support G20 policy dominance.

G2, The latest American proposal that places the United States and China at the helm of world economic affairs. This proposal has been strongly rejected by China who also supports a larger policy body such as the G20.

Gee, it’s no wonder the world’s economic system had a nervous breakdown. The recent breakdown began with the United States excessive domestic debt, which brought down foreign debt holders. It is probable that American policy makers were so busy rushing around the meeting and arguing contradicting policies at each “G” they failed to watch the home front. The last two proposal appear to be an American effort to institutionalize its roll as world economic arbiter before it to is forced to the foot of the table by growing 21st century economies.

It's The Law 100309

In the last several years a great deal of American ink has been spilled over the virtue of the “Rule of Law” for emerging nations and the international order.

International law as we know it originated when the Old World powers began attempting to bring some order in the anarchical system of states. However there are traces of an international legal order even before there were nation states. The Code of Hammurabi from around 1790 BCE served as a model for many nations’ legal development. The Persians, Greeks and Romans contributed as did the Quran’s laws on warfare that were not matched for another 1200 years by the western world. In the west the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia is recognized as the foundation of today’s international law.

For the next 300 year there was a slow evolution of rules between states. In the last 60 years however, there have been more new laws propagated than in the previous four millennium. It is more than coincident that this period coincides with the rise of the American Century. As the last great power standing at the end of World War Two America returned to pushing its Wilsonian vision of world order. The basics of Wilsonianism are:
* Advocacy of self-determination by ethnic groups
* Advocacy of the spread of democracy
* Advocacy of the spread of Capitalism
* Anti-Imperialism, in favor of intervention to help create peace and spread freedom.

Through a great deal of economic and military arm twisting America churned out reams of international laws applying to everyone but America itself. Some of these laws were good and served to maintain peace and spread equality; many of these laws however served only American interest. America embraces an even more ancient law, “Might makes Right.” As the world recovered for WW2’s destruction states began to rebel against American unilateralism. When America passed laws that it could arrest foreign nationals anywhere in the world the Iranian government passed a similar law that it could arrest American citizens anywhere. Following another American lead once powerful Spain passed its own version of the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, which holds that heinous crimes such as torture or terrorism can be tried in Spain even if they have no link to Spain.

America quietly applauded Spain’s move as long the focus was on its own enemies. Recently Spain has used its law to pursue current or former officials in Israel over its bombings in the Gaza Strip, in the United States over treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and China over alleged abuses in Tibet. Spanish jurist ran into trouble when they began to look back at the abuses of their Civil war. Like Spain America cries foul when international laws are applied to itself.

Law is an interesting concept, if it is to be considered just it must apply equally to all. It is even more important that the originator of laws must subject itself to their provisions. The whole world is waiting its turn at enforcement and looks for America’s stumble.

Questions 092209

The U.S. polmil in Afghanistan is lobbying hard for massive reinforcement to its deteriorating campaign. Resorting to fear mongering the military warns that without an immediate troop “surge” the war in Afghanistan will be lost within a year and al Qaida will have a safe base to launch new attacks against the United States. The military declares that the Taliban now controls much of Afghanistan, are rearmed and fighting with new skills. This brings up a number of questions.

Just what constitutes an American victory in Afghanistan? What are the U.S. strategic goals? Are more American troops to open new fronts or are they to replace withdrawing coalition forces? What is the probability that the central administration will now be able to form an effective government? Will sovereign Afghanistan finally be allowed independent freedom to steer its own course? What is fueling the strength of the Taliban? After torpedoing all Afghan attempts to negotiate in the last eight years will America now allow the Taliban to be included in a national solution? How is the friendless Taliban obtaining new weapons and learning new war fighting skills?

In eight years of American warfare in Afghanistan strategy has been redefine so often that all involved have become confused. The new American commander states "Time matters; we must act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress," According to the “new” or at least the latest plan all foreign troops will be pulled from the countryside to stabilize cities. Apparently a strategy to claim some quick gains.

This tactic surrenders the countryside to the Taliban. A force of 100,000 troops or even 500,000 is insufficient to secure cities from insurgent recruitment and attacks. It concentrates coalition forces into lucrative targets for insurgent attacks. Coalition reactions, in urban areas will result the disproportionate civilian casualties facilitating even more effective insurgent recruitment. Placing foreign troops in the city also reinforces the appearance that Afghan government officials are little more than American puppets. Such a move publicly tars the America with the responsibility for the rampant government corruption.

Insurgents have two primary sources of weapons, a deep pocket sponsor that ships in weapons or they seize weapons from their opponents. The Taliban has no friends among the surround countries. Iran provides limited support for the insurgency as an American distraction but most of Iran’s weapons go to non-Taliban insurgents. No data is so far published on the number of weapons lost by Afghan security forces (ANSF) or coalition. The Taliban’s improved battlefield performance is probably homegrown by skilled commanders but also may result from eight years of coalition ANSF training.

American troop buildup and increased training of the ANSF will likely be counter productive. More foreign troops will increase public friction and a probable fifth column will be trained within the ANSF. The legitimacy of the Afghan administration is already in question and more American troops will be seen as a continued prop to a failing administration. Wasn’t that the Soviet problem?

Plugged nickel 091009

When the Soviet Union collapsed scholarly debate considered the survival of great powers. As the surviving great power the United States became the focus of debate. Purely academic thesis gave way to two emotional hypotheses; the pending and inevitable collapse of the United States as a power, or the surety that it would continue to dominate as the sole world power.

Doom and gloom v. Sound of music in America’s survival and power. Doomers point to history and recent American missteps as proof of decline. Musicians romanticize Americanization and claim overwhelming military and economic power that can never be matched by any other nation. Various musicians claim victory over the Soviets was the result of: Christianity defeating Atheism, democracy over socialism, technology over antiquity, or our stick is bigger than your stick. The truth is that the Soviet economic central planning model failed.

America’s capitalist economic model just cracked loudly enough to be heard around the world. Musicians gleefully sing that the economy is rebounding showing it strength. It’s not strength or government intervention that insured its survival. The fact is that for the moment the world cannot afford to allow an American economic collapse on the scale of the Soviet’s.

Paraphrasing economist John Maynard Keynes a small debtor is at the mercy of the banker while he is at the mercy of large debtors. America has gone from being the banker to being a very large debtor. The international community owns to many dollars and too much American debt. If the American economy collapses so do the linked economies of the community. For sometime the community has been considering its economic options. The Euro is emerging as an economic reality of Europe along with its trading partners and the renminbi is becoming powerful in the Asian trading block. Russian trade is linked to both currencies by location.

Other trading blocks will probably emerge but it will take time for Euro, renminbi and others to mature into international reserve currencies. For the near future the dollar will retain its position as the reserve currency of the world economy but its days of dominance are limited. It will take considerable time for nations to divest themselves of American debt without damaging their own economies.

America will probably attempt to impede the rise of other competitive currencies. It is in the interest of America however to support a multilateral system of reserve currencies. With the world tied to one national currency it is held hostage to that nation’s economic hiccups. Every investor knows the value of diversification. A return to a multilateral system in merely diversification that moderates risk and reduces the possibility of a foreign bank foreclosing America. A multilateral reserve of currencies dampens wide swings in the reserve value. It also forces policy makers to act more responsibly to maintain reserve value than America has demonstrated. For the moment the leaky nickel has been plugged.

Sliding on ice 090809

Afghanistan, arguably a slippery slope, is rapidly becoming an ice-covered precipice for American foreign policy. This summer a new U.S. general arrived to straighten out the mess. August was supposed to prove the American success through a democratic Afghan presidential election.

Eight years ago the Bush administration installed Karzai as interim leader of Afghanistan. Propped up by American military Karzai was returned to office through two Jirgas and a less than pristine election. With this history Karzai had expectations that the Americans would again insure his return to office in August elections.

To Afghans however Karzai is perceived as a corrupt American puppet. Government corruption is wide spread and for the most part home grown. For most of Karzai’s administration he followed American dictates but in the last couple of years Karzai appears to have read Afghan history. Foreign puppet rulers have not faired well, with the probability of prejudicial termination the norm. Possibly fearful Afghan justice Karzai publicly began to distance himself from American actions.

Possible because the Bush administration’s continued support of Karzai, he decided to run again for president. With eight years to build his election machine and expecting continued U.S. support he turned on his machine. He failed to understand that the new administration in Washington was not tied to past policies. His machine may have modeled its tactics on 19th century American machine politics but Karzai’s were less than skilful in election fraud. Afghans not only see the corruption of the regime but also links America’s sponsorship of Karzai to the nation’s growing difficulties.

The new American general decreed an end to indiscriminate bombing but bombs continue to fall. Independent reports vary from 70 to 90 civilians killed in the latest incident with the America reluctantly admitting that some civilians might have been injured. The Afghans are use to American denials and cover-ups, which adds recruits to the growing insurgency. Not satisfied with bombs the Americans stormed a Swedish run hospital abusing the staff while reportedly searching for “militants”. Three major mis-steps in an election month underline policy failures for the Americans.

The military blames all insurgent activity on the Taliban to keep the American public focused on one demon while hiding the insurgency’s spread. Taliban activity was used to justify the latest bombing but the location was in American allied Northern Alliance territory, it is possible that other local insurgents captured the targeted tankers. The American military is becoming a victim of its activities and own propaganda as once friendly Afghans join the resistance to corrupt government and foreign occupation. Given the degree of corruption and election fraud Karzai’s ability to govern is questionable. America is faced with two bad choices, continue to prop up a corrupt regime, becoming the focus of growing Afghan resistance or let the government fall and face the ensuing chaos. Eight wasted years down the slippery slope with no hope.

Captain America 090609

Before there were countries or nations, there were warriors. These early warriors fought each other for survival but over time polities emerged and brought individual warriors into armies whose leadership applied force to their self-interest.

Over time leaders began to dream of armies of super warriors that could, without questions conquer all, to gain their political goals. These small armies battled each other with the victor consolidating vanquished spoils into countries. Early leaders of China, Japan, Persia, Greece, and Rome still dreamed of creating a supreme warrior race obedient only to them. In search of this goal children were drafted into a lifetime of training and warfare. Accomplished warriors were breed like cattle to achieve a super race.

In modern history the NAZI movement carried those dreams forward for a pure warrior race. They established breeding farms for their Nordic ideals and children were raised by the state. The Nazis failed, beaten by amateur citizen soldiers from around the world. America, established by citizen soldiers, provided most of the citizen muscle that defeated the evil Axis alliance but America had help from its own super warriors.

America’s super warriors however were comic book heroes who entered the war against the Axis even before its citizen soldiers. When WW2 began in Europe and Asia comic book super heroes were ready. In 1940 Captain America emerged to lead the fight against the Axis. Employing a weakling in chemical experiments for creation of an army of supermen the government created the ultimate super warrior, Captain America. Unfortunately the scientist who developed the magic formula died with its secret.

The Captain is fiction but in the 1950s the American military began secret drug experiments on real live American soldiers seeking to create super warriors possibly in the Captain America mold. These experiments eventually were exposed and the government dropped its program. Now over 50 years later the polmil is still dreaming of super warriors. This time possibly in the image of Ninjas who focused their minds and bodies to the accomplishment of impossible missions regardless of cost.

The Army intends to train over a million soldiers in the art of metal toughness through Warrior Mind Training (WMT). The highest levels of the military support mind-body programs to channel the soldiers’ energy to goals. The difficulty arises over who defines the channels and goals? It is possible that in the future mind controlled black clad soldiers will slink down dark American streets to accomplish mission in the interest of the polmil. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds for the military leadership has already sent soldiers into the streets on illegal missions. Congressional investigations in the 50s, 60s, and 70s uncovered some of these activities. The post 911 domestic, military operations have yet to be seen in the public light.

It is imperative that another public investigation begin before the polmil is able to field super warriors outside the control of a democratic society to terrorize that society.

Blinding the eye 090309

One of the revolutionary changes of the 20th Century was the emergence of electronic news media. For the first half of the 20th Century electronic media meant radio. Today the radio is overlooked in favor of television by those shaping opinions, but radio is far more powerful as it harnesses the listener’s imagination to the message.

Radio news came of age during World War Two and quickly passed its baton to television with victory. However during its short heyday it influenced world events more than Jefferson, Hearst and Pulitzer could ever dream. The NAZI regime used a fake radio report to justify the invasion of Poland. Churchill used radio to stiffen British backs while FDR’s sophisticated media manipulation sold his agenda.

The lessons of both Axis and Allies’ use of media were not lost in the post war years. It became doctrine of coups and countercoups to first seize the media. Seizing the media message also entered the clandestine world of democracies. At the height of the Vietnam turmoil the Department of Defense (DOD) engaged in an extensive plot to control the message. Exposed by the betrayed media in a 1971 TV special “Selling the Pentagon” message control slipped back into the darkness. Subsequent Congressional investigations led to laws to limit DOD’s ability to control the media.

Despite laws DOD continued its attempts to control the message through a series of small conflicts until something larger came along. After the 911 attack DOD established a dis-information bureau. Exposed again DOD claimed to have closed the office and media control again slipped into the darkness. The primary target of Axis, Allies and DOD’s media control is their own domestic populations.

Hoping to side step the law forbidding maintaining records on civilians, DOD hired contractors to create profiles of journalist and rate their positive/negative war coverage. Exposed again U.S. military official claim the program has been terminated. According to the report, the contractor was also attempting to “spin” positive coverage. It is fair to speculate that favored journalists were caught in the spun web, while less favored journalist had restricted access to news events.

Caught with its hand in the cookie jar again a DOD spokesman denying responsibility said,” That while the Pentagon makes the media policy for the military, commands around the world are able to make decisions on their own on how to approach media planning.”

Despite DOD denials the U.S. military controls the media in the best traditions of a third rate dictatorship. Over a year ago the military stormed the Iraqi home of a Reuters’ correspondent, seized his computers, cameras and disappeared the reporter. Reuters and international journalism organizations have been unable to secure the reporter’s freedom. An Iraqi court has ordered his release, but he remains in U.S. military hands without charges, rights or hope. That’s the first amendment military style.

Metrics Smetrics 083109

A new battlefront has opened in the Afghan War this one down Washington’s Pennsylvania Ave. At one end is the White House and the other the Capital. Congress, as it has every right to do, is asking questions of how do we know how we are doing in Afghanistan. Congress is about eight years late in exercising its prerogative but the White House is on the defensive.

Lawmakers set a deadline in the spring for measurable progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a condition for additional war funding. The White House is now in a race to come up with metrics to measure progress before Congress develops its own measurements. The high ground is not progress but rather who controls the message to the public.

The war in Afghanistan has repeatedly been compared to that in Vietnam and there are many parallels. Another benchmark in that comparison has just been reached. Before the United States became decisively engaged in what would become known as the Vietnam War then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara developed his own metrics. McNamara was a numbers and charts wonk; under his direction the entire military establishment developed new things to count and charted the uncharitable. His system analyst produced massive tomes stating that America had won in Vietnam before it had even begun to fight. The proliferation of metrics led to a piecemeal buildup of forces and a fighting withdrawal. In later years even McNamara admitted it was an unwinnable war, despite his great metrics.

Every graduate student, studying statistics learns how to lie with metrics; they also get a large dose of ethics on why not to lie. Unfortunately politicians and bureaucrats understand the numbers but not the ethics. It is easy to chart how many bullets are delivered and expended, not so easy to determine with what effect. It easy to count the number of soldiers receiving training, but not so easy to determine if they learned of even if they are loyal. Miles of road laid can be measured but do the miles serve the people or the foreign military. Dollars appropriated for civil infrastructure can be tabulated but not the waste and corruption. A decline in the numbers of civilian casualties can be charted, but past dead can’t be resurrected or forgotten.

The Afghans and Pakistanis have incredibly long memories and they have their own metrics. The White House is proposing 50 metrics and Congress will probably add a few more to the count. The question should be what are the local citizens counting as progress?

Progress will be decided in Shari courts, markets, local councils, coffee shops, bus stops and on pilgrimages. This is where progress will accurately be measured. America likes to shout down those that disagree with them, they will have to learn to do what is particularly hard for them, listen. They will have to moderate their belief in those that profit from the American presence. They will also have to objectively consider native opinions and ethically report those metrics to policy makers.

Quagmire 083009

The Obama administration inherited its Afghan Quagmire from its predecessor and now recognizes the war for what it is a muddy hole. President Obama also inherited a bureaucracy vested in failed policies and corrupted Afghan data, which skews his search for solutions.

Harvard Prof. Stephen Walt argues that the President’s justification for expansion of the Afghan war should be viewed with skepticism. The skepticism is not due to the President’s lack of desire for a solution but to the military’s recommended course of action of even greater buildup next year on top of this year’s total of 68,000 U.S. Troops. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated the situation in Afghanistan is “serious and deteriorating.” The President stated that, “The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight, and we won’t defeat it overnight.”

They are both right but the difficulty is that it was military policies that turned a victory into a growing insurgency. It is the rhetoric used to justify continued buildup that should be of concern. Its American State terror targeting American people with calls for arms against new al-Qaeda, attacks if the United States doesn’t defeat the Taliban. The Taliban began as a fundamentalist anti-corruption movement that brought a degree of peace and stability to a war torn country. The Taliban was never al-Qaeda nor did they have similar objectives but after eight years of occupation now share a common enemy. Many Afghan dissents and political interest are now sheltered under the Taliban unbrella. An umbrella that is an honest to God homegrown insurgency of many colors becoming more capable as a resistance movement against Americanization.

Insurgencies are hard defeat and America has wide experience and a great deal of frustration in its attempts. It took over 200 years to defeat the Indian and that by total war on a peoples. America continues its over 100 year, on again off again, struggle against Philippine insurgents. It took over 20 years for America to finally declare victory in Indo-China deserting its indigenous friends to an enemy it could not defeat. In each of these insurgencies as well as the present one the objective was to social engineer little American governments without regard to local customs or the desires of the people that democracy is suppose to represent.

Many Afghans look nostalgically at the Soviet occupation as more benign than the current American one. The Afghan people will determine the fate of Afghanistan. It is probable that Russia and China will continue their rolls of Afghan friends and the American post war roll will be limited.

Is it possible to turn things around? Of course but not by a military solution. The military destroys things well, roads, bridges, villages and friendships. The sooner the administration realizes this the more chance there is of an Afghan acceptable lasting solution to insurgency. Successful counter-insurgency doctrine is equitable negotiation rather than force. Voices of the all Afghans must be heard not just the voices of those that profit from the occupation.

Political terror 082109

The Bush administration’s immediate reaction after the 911 attacks was SCREAM & SHOUT, RUN ABOUT. Wild pronouncements confused and terrorized the American public. The Administration speculated on speculation in the absence of facts and went to emergency powers that elevated fears even further as even shopping center rent-a-cops began to arrest terrorist. The ensuing panic resulted in a Constitutional crisis that continues today.

The administration proposed and Congress approved outrageous legislation that violated not only citizen civil rights but also many international laws that the United States had originated. The administration’s Attorney General John Ashcroft and his staff wrote politically correct opinions, legalizing the illegal for the administration.

Following the example of previous floundering political administration Bush appointed a Czar to take the heat. Elevated to Cabinet level the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) captured all agencies that might have some capacity for emergency services. Throughout the country upward mobile bureaucrats flocked to the new department to benefit from its money and power. Not satisfied with their piece of pie these bureaucrats ravaged the budgets of its incorporated agencies while safe from oversight.

Hiding behind executive orders, secret courts, and permissive legislation DHS began a campaign of terror. Terror, targeting the public at large. DHS announced terrorist warnings almost daily. The color-coded warnings seemed to ebb and flow on the rise and fall of political polls. Eventually the public began to lose interest in the colors of the day. DHS became a bloated black hole for public money and its TSA the beltway joke.

In a new book former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge says administration pressure to raise the nation's terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election convince him it was time to quit working for President George W. Bush. Former administration officials of course deny this allegation. If true the Tom Ridge should be commended for a demonstration of ethics in an administration known for a lack of ethics.

This is not the first case of an administration attempting to terrorize the public for political gain. The Lincoln administration considered declaring war on Mexico to prevent succession. Teddy Roosevelt escalated an African colonial dispute to justify his “Big Stick” intervention. JFK coined a non-existent missile gap to win the 1960 election and LBJ used the bomb to terrorize the electorate.

Being the big bully for almost a century America has made numerous enemies around the globe. Out of powerless frustration some of those enemies are resorting to terror tactics. Administrations however have focused on only one enemy, the American people. The people are the target of state terror through creative dis-information and rationalization that a terrorized population can be controlled for political advantage.

Capitalist engine 082409

Most of America’s airlines now charge exorbitant fees for every checked bag. According to industry analysts these fees add over $600 million to airlines’ bottom line. Airlines also limit the number and size of carry on bags to the point that a change of underwear requires at least one checked bag. This is highflying capitalism’s engine for economic recover.

Airlines are sharing their economic innovations. By losing up to 50 percent of checked bags passengers are forced to buy new clothing for important meetings or strolls on vacation beaches. Because they are strangers in town without transportation they buy at inflated prices in airport and hotel shops. Searching for discount clothing entails a cab, a fuel surcharge and a tip while trusting the cabby to find the nearest “bargain.”

All these new purchases drive economic growth as merchants, truck drivers and manufactures get a piece of passenger pie, or is that hide? Taking the new duds home requires a new bag (luggage industry must get its share). When checking out of the hotel the airline delivers the lost bag so the passenger now has two bags to check and the second at a higher cost.

If 20th century passenger rail had been as creatively capitalistic it might not have failed. Airlines continue to innovate exploring the possibly of no seats allowing passengers the freedom to stand during flight. Possible future innovations could be all nude passengers with no bags for expedited boarding and no lost bags.

Truing the record 081909

It appears that the Cheney/Rumsfeld School for polmil (political militarist) has again been caught manufacturing information. A recent investigation by intelligence agencies and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee finds that estimates of the Taliban’s profit from the drug trade are wildly inflated.

The report concluded that the estimated amount of drug money flowing to the Taliban is only about $70 million a year. The report went even further by stating that “there is no evidence that any significant amount of the drug proceeds go to al-Qaida.” Even this figure may prove to be inflated as the polmil continues to report great disruption of al-Qaida/Taliban financing every time the U.S. military captures a kilo of drugs.

While this information may be disconcerting to those who bought into DOD’s disinformation it begins to vindicate those long vilified regional professionals.

Ideological Taliban leaders, as fundamentalist Muslims, never supported Afghanistan’s drug trade. When Taliban finally gained control of government they officially banded opium production. This could be expected of a fundamentalist movement aware of over 1300 years of Islamic doctrine. Opium production fell to almost zero in part due to their draconian punishments and to trafficker stockpiles from previous over production. Opium production continued in the region controlled by the Northern Alliance.

Since the United States over threw the Taliban government opium production has grown even larger providing over 90 percent of the worlds opium supply. Opium poppy cultivation has also spread across the country outside of the traditional growing areas. The explanation of this resurgence is that while Taliban fundamentalists still oppose opium, there are many opportunists who joined the movement for its protection and power that are profiting from that protection. As in Christianity, in Islam there are those that choose greed over faith. It is problematic as to how much of the estimated $70 will actually end up supporting Taliban fundamentalist objectives.

The Senate report states that the United States contributed to the resurgent drug trade by backing warlords and drug traffickers in its drive to oust the Taliban. "These warlords later traded on their stature as U.S. allies to take senior positions in the new Afghan government, laying the groundwork for the corrupt nexus between drugs and authority that pervades the power structure today."

The Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai has continuously been linked to corruption and connections to drug trafficking. Despite these links the U.S. polmil has supported the Karzai presidency through four “democratic” processes and appears to be supporting his current run for reelection.

This begs the question, is Afghan Taliban or the United States military more responsible for the worlds opiate addiction?

Fuzzy Vision 081209

What’s wrong with this picture, Afghanistan version? U.S. generals are pushing to reinforce defeat in Afghanistan. In eight years of combat they have managed to resurrect the moribund Taliban and send al-Qaida to the power of ten. Now the general most responsible for the Afghan/Pakistan hole in which we are to dump more troops has been appointed Ambassador.

Another general has been appointed to investigate waste, fraud and corruption. He can’t find any, in an American program that may ultimately prove to be more corrupt than the civil war and subsequent Tammany Hall scandals.

The Ambassador is demanding 2.5 billion dollars for support of civil activities. As U.S. commander in Afghanistan he oversaw the diversion of State Department foreign aid funds to military priorities.

It is estimated that the war in Afghanistan so far has cost over 200 billion dollars with money flowing out of the country so fast that Bernie Madoff appears an amateur. Labor and supplies are incredibly cheap allowing local construction for a few thousands of dollars. Comparable American construction projects cost several million dollars.

The U.S. is now proposing an expansion of the Afghan security forces to the level the Afghan government called for in 2002, which the coalition vetoed from fear of local force. The U.S. military needs thousands more American trainers for these security forces. The U.S. has been training Afghan security forces of highly qualified and combat experienced officers and NCOs for eight years, and they are still unable to train their own personnel? The Afghans repeatedly complain that the coalition allows them only token participation in stability operations. They also complain that of coalition’s failure to consult with them on combat operations or take advantage of both their culture awareness and on the ground battle experience.

As the American buildup continues and permanent bases are built it appears that the U.S. military is intent on keeping at least one war going long enough for the increasing supply of colonels to become generals. The cost of American continued support for corruption is greater resistance. The expanded training program in all probability will be training resistance fighters. A change in American tactics is to little to late, for the Afghans are astute with long memories of broken promises, betrayal, abuse and occupations.

We can’t reverse eight years of military blundering but the path out is to return assistance to civilian control, neither condone nor contribute to corruption, allow the Afghans to manage their own affairs and treat the people with honor and respect. It should be remembered that the Taliban (students) banded together as an anti-corruption force with the support of the people. While the U.S. blames the Taliban for all resistance it has really become the umbrella for diverse resistance movements. A mobilization that opposes foreign occupation, corruption and frustration over independent, proud peoples’ sense of powerlessness is the road to great power decline.

Exit Strategy? 080709

While the American civil administration is seeking a strategy to get out from under the previous administration’s ill-advised wars; the American military is planning a long occupation of Afghanistan.

The U.S. operational force buildup is now more than ten times its strength a little over a year ago. Part of this build up is to replace coalition forces that are quitting the flimsy fiction of success. The rest of the buildup is U.S. military self-delusion that although its tactics failed in Iraq they will succeed in Afghanistan. Despite more lucid military minds’ arguments that Afghanistan is not Iraq, military bureaucrats are winning the argument that greater troop strengths will win the battle. Vietnam however proved that you can win all the battles and still lose the war.

Bureaucratic project managers are promising that their new techno-remote weapons will end insurgency with minimal collateral damage. Collateral damage is mil-speak for dead and wounded non-combatants, women, children and friendly forces. Survivors of collateral damage however provide even more recruits to the growing insurgency.

The buildup of operational troops will live the Spartan life common to combat soldiers for thousands of years. The military bureaucrats however will have all the comforts of home in new 220 million-dollar permanent U.S. bases. These new bases are in addition to the permanent U.S. bases already built in Afghanistan.

The new U.S. bases exceed the needs of the Afghan military, that already has permanent bases of its own, and it is doubtful that the Afghans requested the construction or was even consulted on the construction. It is interesting to note however that from these bases the U.S. will be able to project its power into the Central Asian States, China, India, Pakistan and Iran. This fact has not escaped the attention of Russia, China and India the regional powerhouses. It should not be ignored by administration planners that the surrounding countries are all nuclear equipped. U.S. occupation bases could become the ground zero for a series of nuclear constructed lakes in central Asia.

The U.S. military’s attitude seems to be: “We don’t need no stinking exit strategy, cause we ain’t leaving.” The DOD should remember however that these new bases are also land locked and access dependent on the targeted nations. While America seeks an exit strategy DOD continues to implement the Cheney/Rumsfeld strategy, already proven a failure.

AF Again 080409

A Time Magazine article asks, “Does the U.S. Have an Exit Strategy in Afghanistan?”
(By Tony Karon Monday, Aug. 03, 2009). Despite politically correct rhetoric it is unlikely that the Western powers have even grasped the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan. The U.S. and those nations it could coerce into and appearance of an international coalition entered Afghanistan without a strategy of victory and no understanding of the country or its people.

Eight years later the U.S. Military still lacks understanding of Afghanistan’s people, culture or history. The military ignored promising diplomatic initiatives when it invaded and began sweeping up everyone with a beard as terrorists. American prisons were soon filled with bearded farmers, street vendors and a few so-called “terrorist.” After a prolonged period of intense foreign interrogation the newly terrorized captives were quietly released back to their country. At home they told their stories of horror becoming local heroes and recruits in growing resistance movements.

To the military resistance was proof of terrorist activity to be destroyed by remote aircraft and massive bombing. Thousand pound bombs were dropped on public telephones suspected of being used by the resistance. Weddings were bombed, villages destroyed and populations became refugees, wintering in the open. The military publicly announced that the civilians deserved what they got for harboring terrorist and the resistance won more recruits. The military can destroy well but is ill equipped for the processes of “nation building” and civil government.

The U.S. military points back to World War Two as proof of its ability to govern civil populations. The truth however is that the GIs who established military governments were in fact draftees and volunteers with civil experience, not professional soldiers. The military governments did provide some civil services but the missions were to secure the military’s rear areas from civil disturbances. These military governments ceded control to local authorities as soon as civil governments could be reestablished.

The present Afghan government, established in the wake of a foreign invasion that overthrew the Taliban’s theocratic government, finds itself in predicament. It must defend its constitution against the foreign invaders it needs for support. In 2002 the newly established government advocated bringing moderate Taliban leaders into the new administration. The foreign military supressed all attempts to negotiate with the shattered Taliban. The Afghan government and its military now must ward off attempts by coalition forces to establish military government in the country. Faced with internal corruption, foreign military dictates and growing resistance the administration has been unable to establish central authority across the country. According to coalition figures, resistance movements now control over half of Afghanistan.

A suggested exit strategy is for the foreign military to back off and allow inclusion of dissent elements, including the Taliban, in governing the country. National police and military must be allowed to secure the nation rather than foreign militaries blundering operations that drive more recruits into resistance.

The only other exit strategy is to follow the British model of three previous failed Afghan invasions, fight on for a while then declare victory and flee Afghan justice.

Human traffic 073009

Legal slave trade was eliminated for most of the western world in the 18th century. In mid 19th century slavery was banned in the United States. Most of the world slowly banned slavery so by the 20th century slavery was no longer an issue, right? WRONG.

Slavery never ended it merely adapted to new dynamics and governments turned a blind eye to the problem. Now in the 21st century trafficking in humans is the number one international crime. In some cases governments themselves are party to continuing slavery. During World War Two the United States officially imported unskilled workers who were exploited and often held in appalling conditions by Agri-businesses and factories owners. At the end of the war most of these workers were rounded up and ejected from the country without any recourse to justice. Post war Germany sanctioned importation of Turkish “guest workers” who, without rights were exploited by businesses. This practice continues today in many parts of the world as governments seek “cheap labor” to support domestic industry and public works.

The tentacles of human trafficking now reach into virtually every country either in exploitation or supply of cheap labor. Traffickers recruit among the poor, with grand promises, for stoop laborers and the sex workers. These traffickers often add a twist by extorting payments from the victims for the privilege of being of trafficked. Attractive young men, women and children are recruited only to end up as sex workers once in a strange land. As in the 17th century others are captured and sold to traffickers by human dealers in poorer regions of the world.

Once in a foreign land without friend, papers or language trafficking victims are easy prey. Even if they are rescued from traffickers along their odyssey victims may fall into the hands of corrupt officials who trade on fear. Victims have to fear retaliation, attacks on families, criminal charges, deportation and official abuse back in their home countries.

According to the International Labor Organization (ILO) an estimated 8.1 million victims of forced labor in the world today are denied more than $20 billion due to the perpetrators of human trafficking. These opportunity costs, or "stolen" wages, are incurred largely in the developing world and most significantly in Asia and the Pacific, which accounts for $8.9 billion, or almost half of forced labor's costs in the world. As wages denied and not remitted to workers’ home countries, these costs can be viewed as an impediment to economic development.

Unlike immigrants who eventually work themselves up and take their place in new societies victims of human trafficking are lost in a quagmire that sucks their soul into oblivion. The black market cost of human trafficking is measured (above) but there is another cost that must be considered. Both the supplying and exploiting countries are ignoring the probable potential and future contributions those who are traded as a labor commodity may make in open societies. As nations once learned global societies must learn again that the cost of slavery can not be supported.

Global warfare 072109

Recent media reports are that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is deteriorating with more refugees, deaths and greater intensity in the conflict. This is received with some surprise by the current American administration operating on previous administration’s plan for success. The previous administration should have been able to warn of the deterioration based on its failures in Iraq, but it never learned any lessons.

Administrations change, but the military continues to subscribe to the Cheney-Rumsfeld model for world conquest. To mid-level military bureaucrats continued conflict is the road to promotion and bodies are only promotion points. Destroyed villages are like monopoly houses, chips on the road to winning the game. The military axiom is that although its strategy of more troops and firepower didn’t work in Iraq it will work in Afghanistan.

The Cheney-Rumsfeld model was a failure before its first shot was fired. World conquest is an idea two centuries out of date. It has taken that long for proof of failure to be easily to found. World wars for territory and resources can be dated from the American Revolution where modern great power conflict crossed oceans. The Napoleonic era carried warfare to around the world reaching full global conflict for the first time. The sun finally set on the British Empire in the 20th century. An Empire built through a series of global colonial wars that served as the basis of the Cheney-Rumsfeld model for resource exploitation. That model however was built on a failure to learn, a series of false assumptions and one glaring error in fact, despite two hundred years of death and destruction world conquest has not been achieved.

The Bush administration’s group of Texas oilmen saw an opportunity to cheaply seize vast Mid-east oil reserves. Unsatisfied with only the prospects of oil from Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan the model included Africa, South America and world oceans. A techno-war was to be funded by the sale of capture oil creating a great power win-win situation of forcing the vanquished to pay cost of defeat. A page out of the Versailles Treaty, which not only forced the losers to pay for WWI but also created and subjugated the states of the Middle East. In the decades following Versailles the new states were able to eject their colonial masters creating western resentment and eastern suspicion.

Under the cover of falsified information the former colonial masters’ Christian west again invaded the Muslim east expecting easy victories. The western techno-warfare appeared victorious as it quickly annihilated regional forces. The apparent victory soon turned sour, as victors became occupiers intent on new colonialism. Domestic power struggles hide the emergence of resistance movements and the colonials blamed everything on Islamic radicals.

Using western military data it is interesting that there are now thousands more “foreign” radicals than when the conflict began. While the bureaucrats see this as opportunity, it fails to correlate foreign military buildup and their excesses with increasing regional resistance. The Afghans long view has resisted the world’s best militaries for centuries.

Lessons learned 070209

Lessons learned 070209

It has been said that governments always fight the last war. There is some truth to this but in America’s current wars the generals are reaching even further into history. They attempt to lay a technological veneer over old wars, but looking at their words and deeds quickly demonstrates that they learned the wrong lessons from the past.

The ringing rhetoric of “War on Terrorism” disguised the fact that the (then) administration embarked on an old fashion 19th Century colonial war. Colonial wars are wars of conquest and exploitation of foreign resources. Under the cover of fighting terrorism the national strategy was to secure energy resources for Texas oilmen. The plan was to occupy oil producers everywhere in the world. It appeared that the United States’ plan was to occupy Afghanistan with a mercenary force while invading Iraq with the majority of American troops then turn and attack oil producer Iran from both sides. This would leave America in control of Iraq, Iran and Afghan oil and gas fields but also pipelines from the CAS while threatening other oil producers with displayed force. The plan began to unravel when friendly oil producers refused American occupation of their oil fields and promised resistance to American attempts at occupation.

Fighting on the same British colonial battlefields of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan the Americans borrowed heavily from British policy and tactics of the 19th and 20th centuries. Their grasp of history however failed to note that all three countries established resistance movements that were ultimately successful in ejecting British control. But like America the British are slow learners and the Afghans had to eject three British invasions. With little understanding of regional issues and culture the Americans listened to the British and attempted to establish colonial rule across the occupied territory. It surprised the Americans that resistance movements began to emerge and ally with diverse terrorist movements. Terrorists are fractured ideological competitors unlikely to cooperate among themselves or other ideologues except against a common enemy.

With inflated expectations and little understanding of the regional dynamics the military soon came to recognized that they would be unable to stage a successful invasion of Iran and worse, they had failed in Iraq. The American generals did learn one successful tactic from the British, loudly declare victory and just go home, a tactic that is now being attempted in Iraq with little success. Faced with failure in Iraq the Americans refused to recognize failures of policies and are now attempting to apply their same tactics to Afghanistan, with assurances that failed tactics will work in that country. Unable to see beyond misinformed preconceptions to face the reality of a vast region of diverse cultures loosely aligned by a common religion the war is now expanding into Pakistan, China, CAS and Africa. While it is unlikely that China will ever allow an American occupation forces on its territory the other areas are unable to resist American coercion and local dissent groups are now scattering the seeds of resistance.

There are two types of military, there are the troops who fight and die and then there is the military bureaucracy claiming credit for the sacrifices of the troops. The bureaucracy learned one lesson from Vietnam. During the Vietnam War the public blamed individual soldiers for the government’s flawed policies that carried the country into war. In the present war the bureaucracy used the public’s guilt over the treatment of Vietnam veterans as a tactic of deception. The government mounted major campaigns for public support of the troops as a cover up of even more flawed policies. According to the bureaucrats to question policy is denigration of the troops’ sacrifices, which silences political debate in a cloak of Vietnam shame.

Vietnam makes an interesting school for lessons learned. There is the lesson of body counts, “Every dead body is an enemy body and a battle success.” While history identified flaws of body count policy, it has again been adopted as policy. Vietnam also provides the lesson that big bombs make impressive holes. Thousand pound bombs dropped on Afghan mud huts creates a fine dust that covers lots of bodies for the count. Repeated investigations proved that many of these bodies are in fact non-combatants becoming collateral damage in military speak. In 2007 the military announced with great fanfare that it would no longer drop 1000-pound bombs on villages as a humanitarian gesture. It the future they would only drop increased numbers of 500 pound bombs. Villagers soon saw that smaller but more bombs destroyed more of the village and increased the civilian body count.

Vietnam also restated many lessons on resistance and insurgency right out of Mao’s thesis on war. It is interesting that Mao drew on American Indian resistance and the American battles in the Philippines along with classic resistance to the Romans, Napoleon and the British in developing his thesis. In modern history the American have faced insurgencies and resistance movements more than any other country with the exception of Britain. One of the lessons is that a foreign nation can support an internal insurgency but can not create a successful insurgency that supports its own policies. Occupation of territory by a foreign power, no matter how benign, will generate a popular resistance. Eventually frustration will drive resistance to prolonged insurgency, a lesson that the Afghans have been teaching centuries of occupiers.

While the lessons of the past are there for all to see powerful governments attempt to reinvent the wheel in their favor. The American military, born by resistance, with all of its experience in counter-insurgency express surprise when faced with resistance. In the present wars American General Petraeus re-published counter-insurgency lessons but they appear to fall on deaf ears as more troops and bombs continue to fracture Afghanistan. Again the American policies are spreading resistance where the past will haunt the future of the powerful. A major unlearned lesson is that the military is ill equipped for nation building.

Government policies can not ignore that in true education, lessons must be honestly applied rather than recited for a grade. For international policy today the grade is cooperation rather than 19th/20th Century conquest. The greatest lesson is that self image is never the world’s image of self.

Generation of greatness

Passing 061509

My father died yesterday, he was over 100. It was an expected death and he went fairly quickly and easily so it wasn’t such a shock. Looking at his death with some perspective this morning it brought home the passing of the 20th century, the American Century.

My father lived through most of the century and saw change in land, the people and the world as a whole. I wish I had listen more closely to his conversations with his contemporaries when there were some who understood his time. There were a few stories that stand out, as a teenager he drove the family across country before there were highways or maps to show the way. He learned to fly in an old WWI Jenny and hopped freights during the depression he was not unique for his time there are many such stories of his generation.

His was a generation of giants that built a new culture they grew up when a man’s word was a bond, honest work was the norm and invention and discovery carried the nation from conquering forest to conquering space. These old men fought two world wars and numerous minor wars where not only they served again but their sons also. They survived the great depression, dust storms and industrial migrations that changed the nation. They invented and manufactured cars, planes and communications networks that bind the world today. It was their honor and hard work that carried America to respected great power status. They had vision and overcame obstacles, solved problems and created new solutions to achieve their visions.

Theirs was a hard scrabble life that shaped their character. They passed their values to a new generation but it became diluted for they wanted their children to have a better life without the challenges and struggles they had experienced. As generations multiplied the culture and values began to erode. It lasted for most of the 20th century as the Giants built a New World and controlled the development of the American Century for almost all of the century. They began to die off, from the wars, from their hard work and finally from old age.

The Giants left a legacy for the 21st century, their R&D and inventions continue to be exploited well into this century. Their greatest contributions to society however are being lost. Their values and their culture that made them Giants of the American Century are rapidly disappearing. These Giants who survived the challenges to old age may not have been happy with the direction of those changes but they were to old and tired to lead the nation to greater innovations and back to a respected place in the world.

My father was not a great statesman or a captain of industry but like most his generation a man of vision, invention, backbreaking labor and honor. I’m grateful to have known not only my father but also so many other 20th Century Giants, I wish I had paid more attention to their teachings.

My father outlived most of his generation, in the end missing the companionship of his generation of Giants. The passing of my father signals the passing of our greatest era.

great game 052209

052209 Great Game

In democratic societies as administrations near the end of their tenure they begin to worry about how history will view their legacy. Administration “spin” and dis-information bombards the public, public records disappear, and open source files become classified in the “national interest.” Their interpretation of national interest being prevention of political embarrassment.

History, unlike the administrations, takes a long view of success and failure. History also looks beyond era public pronouncements of politicians and self-serving officials. In the past historians could call on period journals, not meant for publication, as keys to truth. Today the truth is a little more difficult to find in the vast information ocean electronically manufactured by spin-doctors. Administrations’ egos ignore that the information age cuts both ways, allowing publication of both their official politically correct pronouncements as well as contradicting documentation. In recent years administrations have shredded files and erase computer memories in vain attempts to leave history only favorable views of their regime. Linked computer workstations and the Internet however have insured that obscure accurate records remain as flotsam and jetsam on the information ocean to be salvaged by future historical researchers.

US administrations count on the public’s short attention span to enhance their image, disseminated PC sound bites in place of factual dialog. Sound bites are catchy buzzwords that hang on in a disinterested public’s mind. Honest explanations of events are papered over by Sunday morning talk show sound bite spin, which set the agendas for the coming week’s amplification. More substantive analysis and discussions of current events however condition the international community’s views and it like historians have long memories of both words and actions.

Public long memories also consider more than an administration’s waning months in evaluating legacies. Actions and rhetoric undertaken early in the first few months in power defeat slanted legacies requiring redefinition. As embarrassing documents bob to the surface of the information ocean member of the former administration attempt to cover up, deny and spin but without a forum and following to legitimize their ossification of responsibility.

This year’s change of American administration keyed on two lost wars, failed policies, declining power and an economic melt down. These are historical indicators of great power decline. Instead of contributing to reversal of this trend, members of the previous administration are attempting to justify their failed policies, which have carried to country to crisis. Lost wars and failed polices will eventually reside in dusty archives but the economic melt down and fall from power will impact a generational culture change long remembered by the international community and those that have lived through dynamic change.

terror 2

042609 terror

Government officials who are the practitioners of State terror come to believe their own propaganda that it is legitimate to use any means to achieve their goals. They fail to recognize that terror generates terrorism.

When legitimate political dissent is characterized as terrorist activity dissidents are forced into the roll of resistance and even insurgencies. Dissidents begin to mirror the State by grasping the tools of terror out of frustration in their sense of powerlessness. The State seizes on this resistance to justify imposing greater State terrorism. The State uses its power to legitimize detaining people with out charges: torture to terrorize detainees becomes a norm. Innocents and dissident are both swept into a broad state network of terror.

Dissidents develop a political agenda that embraces terror as a tactic to achieve their goals. Their acts of terror fall into two categories first direct attacks on the government and second attacks on the population. Attacks on the government generate an even more oppressive State reaction. Attacks on the population generate fear and distrust in a government unable to protect its citizens. These attacks also bring recruits to the dissent movement; they may also generate additional dissents that immediately embrace terror as the way to advance their own agendas.

Both the dissent groups and the State develop splinter groups that are more radical extremist in the use of terror. Terror generates ever more brutal terror until the objective is no longer political change but rather terror for the sake of terror. Nearly a hundred years ago the Soviet Leon Trotsky said that the purpose of terror was to terrorize. Trotsky was speaking of State terror and as practiced by the Soviets was successful at the cost of millions of citizens. Ultimately Soviet terror failed as dissents rejected the Soviet system. The collapse of the Soviet Union generated competing criminal terrorist groups as well as regional dissents employing terror for a share of political power.

Foreign terrorists attack in other countries in today’s linked international community because the community supports oppressive home countries. International terror hopes to generate pressure for change and cut off support for oppressive regimes. International terror however generates terrorist activities as the international community embraces terror in the name of counter terrorism.

Whatever the type, terrorists are difficult to defeat and counter terror generates reactive terror. Terrorism however can be prevented or defeated by understanding the dynamics that generate political dissatisfaction with the current government and giving dissent a voice. This requires enlighten leadership in states and the community of states.

Terrorism 1

042309 terror

For all most a decade the political buzzword is terrorism and claims that terrorist are everywhere poised to destroy civilization. Radical right politicians justified bad legislation as defense against terrorism, while prosecutors capitalized on the new anti-terrorism laws to avoid due process by charging local crime as terrorist activity.

It is apparent that there is still a lack of understand of terrorism. The fact that an individual is terrified does not make a conspiracy of international terrorism. Terrorism falls into three broad categories there is “State terrorism”, political minority tactical terrorism, and organized crime terrorism.

Criminal terrorism is easy to understand criminal elements terrorize local populations into acceptance of criminals as de-facto rulers of a neighborhood or city. Terrified citizens are afraid to walk the streets or speak out against criminal elements. Examples abound of gang control of “turf”; drug dealers using terror to control markets, in some cases organized crime uses its power to terrorize in order to gain control of elected offices and become the government. Criminals terrorizes for power over the population and profit by that power.

State terrorism is more difficult to identify or understand for States have immense power over its domestic population and in the international community. The goals of State terror are to leverage existing power into total power and control. States target their own population through disinformation that frighten citizens into acceptance of loss of freedoms and insure the governing party’s stability. Political dissent is quickly labeled a threat to stability and dissidents as terrorist intent on overthrow of the existing social order. Governments utilize their legitimacy to establish disinformation bureaus, which reinforce the party line to establish public acceptance of abuse of powers.

Once the domestic population is sufficiently terrorized by its government, that government is free to use terrorism on the international community. Force and threats of force are used on smaller states to gain political control of their decision processes and control populations. States ultimately come to believe it their right to use the tools of terror against other states in order to gain more power. A State may justify invasions, concentration camps and even torture in the name of security and counter terrorism. Domestic opposition is muted in the fury of official disinformation that conceals the illegal nature of State terror. That same disinformation is also directed at international and human rights organizations, naming them as supporters of terrorism even as terrorist.

When State terrorism has been legitimized in the minds of the governing it becomes a dynamic. Members of the government begin to follow their own agendas of rational maximization. They push state terror activities to extremes for the maximum benefit to their careers. These activities begin to become crimes against humanity protected only by the power of the State. Once that power is compromised then the State will face the fury and accountability of the international community.

note 020109

Most of my life has been spent in federal service in one form or the other. The young and talented gravitate to federal service from idealism of making a difference, or prospects of quickly becoming powers behind the throne.

The federal government gives every appearance of moving and shaking but the movement is circular and the shaking is bureaucratic fear of new, innovative ideas. All governments ultimately fall victim to their own propaganda of greatness. Governments are where the clueless many plagiarize the creative solutions of the few. Governments, foreign and domestic, employ “spin”, create foreign threats and generate domestic enemies to deceive their respective polities on the governments’ inept efforts to govern. Governments’ ethical standards fall victim to rationalization that maximum benefit to self is non-compliance in the best interest of the state. Whether a theocracy, democracy or autocracy the ultimate enemies of governments are the people they govern.

After a long and frustrating career in government I looked forward to a time when I could publish my thoughts under my own name. In the last few months I’ve discovered my mortality, of no great interest to most, and realized that I’ve waited to long to accomplish all that I’d planed to say and do.

The point to this is that these polemics are about to become much broader in scope reflecting my experiences and observations of macrocutures. It is probable that I will wander from subject to subject as current news trigger my interest. In short this is about to become more of a journal than academic dialectic.