Controlling the Debate

Political debate in America these days is more like dueling talking points. We seem not so much to be discussing ideas as bludgeoning the other side with them. I, of course, am the exception, willing to listen to opinions and ideas different from my own and to use that information to clarify my own thinking. Of course I am!

In that spirit, I will point out that I agree with BushCheney that America is at risk from terrorists. I’ve said this before which means that I accept the notion that the United States must protect itself, its allies and its interests from those who would do us harm. This is pretty basic, it’s in the Preamble to the Constitution.

So I will listen when BushCheney discusses his foreign and military policies. I want to understand the thinking behind those policies and how they will contribute to the common defense and promote the general welfare. Tuesday’s speech to the Military Officers Association of America described Osama Bin Laden as the modern equivalent of Vladimir Lenin and Adolph Hitler, a totalitarian threat that demands a vigorous response in order to protect America. For that reason, BushCheney says that Iraq is not a distraction from the War on Terror but rather a central front.

His words conjure up a an enduring threat to America. I won’t disagree. Osama Bin Laden and his ilk have made no secret about their hostility toward the US and its allies in the world, including numerous Muslim states that he believes are insufficiently fundamental and/or US lackeys. But I differ with BushCheney on the nature of this threat and the best means for combating it. Readers of this weblog should know by now that I consider main force military action to be one of the least effective strategies for combating terrorists. So I take issue with BushCheney on the Iraq War as the central front in the war on terrorism. Although some similarity may exist between Islamic fundamentalists and 20th century totalitarian ideologies such as communism or fascism, the fact of the matter is that today’s terrorists lack the resources and organization to threaten the US in anywhere near the fashion of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

No, the threat posed by al Qaeda and its fellow terrorists is far more subtle. Osama Bin Laden articulated his strategy in 2004 when he said his plan was to bleed America into bancruptcy.

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations."

Bin Laden’s model is the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's, where a determined resistance wore down the Soviets' will and drained their resources. So, yeah, he is a threat but not one likely to be deterred militarily in any way other than well-planned, specifi operations. In fact, large-scale military action is exactly what he is seeking. He wants the US to deploy forces around the world, to spend vast sums to suppress small scale actions. Mind you, some of these actions can be terribly destructive. The 9-11 attacks killed around 3,000 people and had significant economic impact at a relatively small cost–$400,000 to 500,000–to the attackers, according to the 9-11 Commission. But the terrorists work on the cheap and we respond in the hundreds of millions. Following that logic, it’s not hard to wonder about the sustainability of our current policy.

BushCheney is trying once again to recast his war of choice in Iraq as part of a larger war on terror. That was clearly evident in Tuesday’s speech and the one he gave Wednesday. He wants to continue massive military spending, domestic spying and limiting Constitutional liberties, claiming that these actions will make America “safe”. He may have some success but America may be the loser in the long run.

postscript

Katha Pollit at The Nation has an even better take on BushCheney’s latest attempt to sell the Iraq War: control the language, control the debate. It’s that simple.

Unhappy Beaver

Dave at The Galloping Beaver has some unkind words for US air support that killed and wounded Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Year of the Militias

This week’s firefight between the Mahdi Army militia and Iraq Army units in Diwaniyah and the month long war between Israel Defense Forces and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon leave me with the distinct impression that the militias will not be easily defeated. Hezbollah demonstrated a high degree of proficiency and organization against the much more powerful Israeli Army, even luring Israeli tanks into a killing box ambush at one point. Hezbollah suffered serious losses in territory and fighters but showed a clear ability to stand against a much larger force. It’s clearly a force to be reckoned with, especially given that it is indigenous which gives it the power of defending members’ homes and families.

Compared to Lebanon, the Diwaniyah clash was small scale but showed the Iraqi Army to be less than potent. Polish troops and an American fighter bomber backed up the Iraqis. The Mahdi Army captured and executed Iraqi forces and remained in control of at least two neighborhoods at the end of the fighting. Definitely not a successful demonstration of BushCheney’s “Iraqis stand up, American forces stand down” strategy. Even more disconcerting is the prospect that this clash does not represent the efforts by an Iraqi national army against a militia but rather two militias fighting for control.

Diwaniyah is run politically by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and likely its police and security forces have been heavily infiltrated by the Iran-trained Badr Corps, the paramilitary of SCIRI.... So a lot of the struggle is probably actually best thought of as Mahdi Army on Badr Corps faction fighting. Although SCIRI and allies won the provincial elections of January, 2005, since then the Sadr movement has been gaining adherents and influence in this and other southern Shiite provinces. New provincial elections were scheduled but have never been held, in part for fear that the Sadrists would sweep to power in provincial statehouses.

Rather than creating a stable, democratic Iraq, BushCheney’s war of choice has opened a venue for factional infighting among Shi’ites, given birth to a determined Sunni resistance and created an environment where international jihadis can attack foreign and indigenous infidels. Hardly an opportune result.

The Iraqi militias will be more than difficult to eradicate. They are locals, based on tribal and sectarian loyalties and to a large degree, provide services and support that is not available from a weak central government. Iraq has always been more of a coerced federation than a nation, held together only by Strongman leaders. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, now that the Shi’ites have achieved power, the idea of an Iraqi nation seems very remote. Iraqis are standing up, alright, but they are pointing their weapons at each other.

With Hezbollah and Lebanon the situation is equally, if not more, complicated. Hezbollah grew out of resistance to the 18 year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Its fighters are Lebanese, its representatives support Lebanese communities and it members are part of the Lebanese government. Now Hezbollah has demonstrated its ability to stand up to the Israeli military. Even if Israel gets its act together and strengthens its military, it cannot eradicate Hezbollah un less it is willing to re-occupy southern Lebanon, something its previous occupation showed to be untenable in the long run. Aerial bombing will not work.

Militias are a reality in the Middle East and represent forces that cannot be easily dismissed or marginalized. Neither the US nor Israel, with all their military might, can defeat the militias militarily or politically in the long run. Perhaps it is time that every one start talking seriously rather than hurling bullets and bombs.