The Russians Are Coming

Given what we know about Russian activities in the 2016 election and the opacity of the so-called Trump Administration, I have no reservations about a thorough investigation of those activities and Russian connections with the Trump campaign.  Nor would I limit that investigation to just the election.  How much of America's polarization and mistrust is influenced by false information spread by Russian state media and trolls?  Beyond the meddling, Russian nationalism and aggression are also cause for real concern.  And, of course, Putin is a thug.  Whip all of that into America's consciousness and Americans have every reason to be wary of Russia and to seek answers.

What we have no reason to do is to hate Russia or its people.  I've never been to Russia and I have been exposed to negative stereotypes of the country and the people my entire life but I have studied Russian history, including first-hand accounts of life in Russia.  What I have learned is that Russians are as patriotic as any American and take great pride in their history and culture.  Like us, they want peace and security.  Unlike us, Russians have endured privations and hardships that Americans can hardly imagine.  Russians are human beings endowed with the same inalienable rights that we claim as Americans.  Russia has its share of miscreants, bullies and opportunists--just like America--but everything I've learned about the country and its people tells me that Russians deserve my respect. 

To read the news these days, it would seem that the Russians are the archenemy, engaged everywhere, a threat to everything.  Concern over possible election meddling gives creedence to American militarists who see Russia as nothing but a naked aggressor.  But Russian history offers plenty of clues for understanding and defusing its aggression.  Simply put, Russia is insecure.  Always has been.  Tsar, Commissar or Oligarch, it makes no difference.  Russia feels exposed without control of its "near abroad".  The devastating German invasion in WW2 cemented that need into modern Russian consciousness.  Stalin built the "Iron Curtain" ut that fell apart with the collapse of Communism.  Now Vladimir Putin is trying to assemble his own version of the near abroad.  It's what Russian leaders do.

American and NATO policy since the fall of Communism have given the Russians reason to feel exposed.  Not only did the countries of its near abroad abandon Communism, but many Soviet republics that had previously been part of Imperial Russia became independent and hostile to all things Russian.  If that were not enough to unsettle Russia, many of its former allies joined NATO and turned their weapons east.  At the same time, the free marketeers and capitalists were looting the country in a fire sale of state assets to privileged insiders while destroying the economic security all but a privileged few.

Russians look back on the past 25 years and see disappointed hopes and lost greatness.  This is clearly evident in Svetlana Alexileivich's excellent collection of oral histories, Second Hand Time, that covers the years 1991 to 2012.  That sense of loss gives rise to a politician like Putin who can reassert Russian authority and restore a degraded society.  Putin has been clever enough to manipulate Russia's weak democratic institutions to create a new autocracy.  Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy's Mr. Putin:  Operative in the Kremlin provides a good analysis of his thinking and his methods.  

History offers a cautionary tale for our times.  WW1 ended with a vindictive treaty that set the stage for Hitler and WW2 two decades later.  WW2 ended with a settlement that accommodated Russian (if not Eastern European nations') interests and lasted for half a century.  The Cold War ended with Americans and the West dancing on the Soviet Union's grave and the impoverishment of many Russians.  Why is anyone surprised that Russians found that unacceptable?  Russians have long memories.  The West will be a long time earning the trust and respect of Russians.  Trust and respect are work both ways, after all.

Donald Trump is absolutely correct in seeking improved relations with Russia.  That's a no-brainer.  What is difficult is understanding the Russians and bridging our differences with them.  I realize that is always challenging and have no easy answers.  The one answer I can offer is to demilitarize and avoid war.  It's not easy and certainly runs counter to trends in Europe these days that more resemble 1914 than what we hoped for the 21st century.

Another answer is to investigate Russian attempts to covertly influence American elections and policy.  Like Russia's assertion over its near abroad, its covert activities are nothing new.  They've been doing it in one form or another for close to 100 years.  These days the methods are more sophisticated and its reach vastly multiplied by the internet, but the basic function is unchanged:  to thwart adversaries and create an environment favorable to Russia's interests.  That is unlikely to change.  What an investigation will do is tell us its extent, methods and how best to protect our democracy.

Freedom isn't free but the answer is not always a bullet.

Don and Vlad Share Some Traits

I'm reading Mr. Putin:  Operative in the Kremlin by Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy these days. Some of their descriptions of Putin's personality traits and operating methods are not far off the mark for Donald Trump.

In speeches and writings...Putin has set out to determine  which groups' history will be part of the inclusive Russian myth and which groups risk finding themselves outside the collective history if they do not conform or [if they] withdraw their support for his ideas or policies.  The ultimate implicit threat is the risk of groups (like opposition protesters during the 2012 presidential election campaign) finding themselves designated as "them"--chuzhiye (aliens)--rather than "us", nashi (ours).  Putin's various performance pieces as a biker, an outdoorsman, a firemen, and his meetings with workers on factory floors or in factory monotowns simultaneously embrace diffferent Russian groups and social classes as nashi and appeal directly to them for political support.

Not an exact match but both are performers and willing to exclude entire groups of citizens from the the body politic in order to achieve their goals.  I can see why our alleged president likes Putin so much.  Everything I've read so far makes me think that given Donald Trump's susceptibility to flattery,  Putin will play him like a master. 

Maybe someone at the State Department could help out here?  Oh, wait...they're all gone.

A Veteran Looks at His Country's New War

This time the veteran is Russian, a veteran of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. 

"Every soldier who was there thought about life and death," Vladimir recalls. "We all thought we might not make it out alive. I felt such a need to leave something of me behind on this Earth. So I began writing songs.
"The main lesson of Afghanistan is that politicians should think twice before getting involved in a military conflict. War is always bad. It shows the weakness of politicians."\

No matter the flag or the language, war is the failure of political leaders.

Reading accounts of the diplomacy--all the shuttling, meeting, back-and-forthing--surrounding the separatist rebellion in Ukraine reminds me of the run-up to World War I.  Merkel and Hollande have gone to Moscow.  Ministers, Secretaries and even US Senators meet in Munich.  Unlike WWI, though, the guns are already firing in Ukraine.  The fight is on. 

I would like to think that today's diplomats and world leaders can do better than their 20th century counterparts.  On big difference from then is the addition of a woman to the discussion.  Angela Merkel's statements are a change of pace from the usual military solutions and reality.

The BBC has the best quote: 

Mrs Merkel said she could not "imagine any situation in which improved equipment for the Ukrainian army leads to President Putin being so impressed that he believes he will lose militarily".

An accompanying analysis added that in her remarks to the Munich Security Conference she insisted that more arms would lead to more victims.  The analysis notes that there was "...significant applause at these remarks, though noticeably neither US Vice-President Joe Biden or the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko were clapping."

The Washington Post expands on the debate.

In one exchange, Sen. Corker (R-Tenn.), who is among more than a dozen members of Congress at the conference, challenged Merkel about German reluctance to agree to provide Ukraine lethal, defensive weapons.

She answered the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee bluntly: “Well you see, I am firmly convinced that this conflict cannot be solved by military means.” If weapons were provided, she said, Putin would likely up the ante, providing far more superior weapons to separatists. “I understand your viewpoint and also the discussion that is going on, but the progress that Ukraine needs cannot be achieved by more weapons,” she said.

I don't know if or how much Merkel's gender affects her thinking.  She understands that war has victims, which is the first step toward ending war.  I just hope that she's sufficiently skilled to turn her views into effective policy soon.  The American dogs of war are barking, Ukraine understandably feels threatened, and Russia under Putin is paranoid and expansionist.  It's a toxic mix.

And while all this talking is going on the guns continue to fire.

Crabs

From the obituary of Robert Oakley:

He said a Vietnamese journalist once told him: “You know, you Americans look on us as if we were just a basket of crabs. You don’t really care what the crabs are doing in that basket as long as they don’t escape or as long as someone is not stealing the basket away from you.”

Mr. Oakley later added, “I thought then that he had that right. Our motives were often quite selfish even when disguised in very noble terms.”

 Got that right.

Meanwhile On the Ground

From an eye level view of life under the Islamic State:

Every day they [IS members] increase in number, hold new positions and consolidate their presence, undeterred by the air strikes from coalition forces which do nothing to change things on the ground. It it is actually our reality which has changed and become even more horrific.  (emphasis added)

Airstrikes don't mean much if no one is on the ground to take advantage of the bombardment.  Otherwise it's all just another pointless military charade in the Endless War.

What's In a Name?

An earlier post referred to US "military operations against ISIS" rather than its official name, "Operation Enduring Resolve" which is a pretty honest statement about what Obama is leading America into.  Despite the honesty the name still sounds pretty hokey to me insofar as it suggests that the operation is somehow highly desirable. 

An even better and equally honest name is Operation Fool Me Twice which was suggested as an entry to the Name That Operation contest in the Washington Post a while back. 

I'll stick with that one.

What Rory Fanning Said

Not long ago I wrote a post about how little the rote phrase "thank you for your service" means to me as a veteran.  Today I read Rory Fanning's post on the same topic at TomDispatch.  Mr. Fanning takes the idea much father than I did and I could not agree more.

Still Paying the Pottery Barn

 According to the Washington Post, ISIL fighters are about to overrun Anbar Province in Iraq, putting themselves within artillery range of Baghdad.  This would give them effective control of western Iraq to the Syrian Border and provide an uninterrupted  supply line from bases in Syria.  It would also bring two key Iraqi military bases and supplies under ISIL control.

Prospects for thwarting ISIL's advance look poor.  US airstrikes have not stopped ISIL's momentum.  Sunnis will object to Shi'ite militias fighting alongside a Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi Army in the Sunni homeland of Anbar.  For their part Iraqi soldiers have no love for the countrymen or the government they are supposedly defending.

“For days we begged for airstrikes and they never came,” said a 38-year-old soldier who survived the onslaught at Saqlawiyah....  The leadership doesn’t care about us, the people there [in Anbar] don’t care about us. They called us Shia dogs, How can I fight for any of them after this?”

The Sunnis have cast their lot with ISIL, just as they did with al-Qaeda during the American Occupation until they became fed up with al-Qaeda fundamentalism and lured by American case and promises to switch sides.  Maybe they think they can pull off another pivot after the Iraqi army is defeated but ISIL may not be easily ditched.

As I noted earlier, about the only thing likely to stop ISIL is a well-trained military force that is motivated to fight back, well supplied and supported with air assets.  The US and the "coalition" can certainly provided supplies and air support but it seems that no member of that coalition has the wholly unalloyed goal of defeating ISIL.  Sure they all want ISIL gone but each has their own separate agenda that limits their support.  The one thing all agree on so far is that no one wants to commit ground forces against ISIL.   That leaves the out gunned Kurds and some Iraqi army units.

With Baghdad in range of ISIL artillery I can already hear the neo-con war mongers accusing Obama of "losing Iraq" since they believe that somehow our success in buying off the Sunni tribes after 2007 was some sort of vindication of their decision to invade Iraq and to destabilize the Middle East.  If Baghdad falls to ISIL, it will be the unintended consequence of Dick Cheney's decision to invest American lives and treasure in Iraq.  Maybe the Obama Administration can and the American military can somehow come up with something to stave off disaster.    

If not...

The Nitty Gritty

Fom a Washington Post article on Qatar: 

“Washington may not like everything we do, but we have been there to help again and again,” the well-connected Qatari analyst said. “You need a friend who is friends with people you don’t want to be friends with.”

This Is The Next War That I'm Already Against

I've been pretty quiet about America's latest military adventure in the Middle East but my silence should in no way be interpreted as support for the bombing campaign against ISIS.  As an infantryman and a student of history, I know that the only way to defeat a force like ISIS is to match it force for force, to destroy and degrade its capabilities and to take and hold territory.   Can't do that from the air no matter how often the flyboys say they can.  Holding territory means "boots on the ground".

Right now the boots on the ground in western Iraq and eastern Syria are mostly ISIS.  The Iraqi Army pretty much disintegrated in the Sunni regions and with the exception of the Kurds,  a few Iraqi units now fighting for their Shi'ite homeland, some Iranian Revolutionary Guard advisors and (now) US advisors, ISIS doesn't face much likelihood of being forced to give up territory any time soon.  Meanwhile, the US does what it always does--bomb, bomb, bomb.  Which might do some good if there were any forces on the ground to follow up the aerial attacks. 

Locals, the ones most at risk from ISIS are the most logical source for those boots on the ground to resist ISIS.  No others have quite the same motivation that the locals do.  Sure, other countries in the region and beyond may have interests and concerns about ISIS but for the time being, those concerns are somewhat remote.  Locals are fighting for their homes.  In this case the locals--Iraqi Sunnis--have chosen ISIS over the central government.  They feel far less threatened by ISIS than they do by the Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government.  Until Iraqi Sunnis change their mind, ISIS won't encounter real resistance, our bombs and rockets notwithstanding. In the meantime, those bombs and rockets will give proof to many of those locals that the US and the West are waging war against Islam.

That's one reason to object to the latest strategy--I don't think it will work and is likely to exacerbate the problem.  A second reason is that America's interests are at little risk from ISIS.  ISIS is not an existential threat to the US; their fighters will not be soon behead people in American town squares.  ISIS jihadis, with US passports may pose some risks but those risks are often countered with effective intelligence and good police work. 

Dropping bombs in the Middle East does nothing to reduce those risks.  It may well worsen them.

What Veterans For Peace Said

A draft of my thoughts on Obama's war against ISIL was rendered moot when I read the statement issued by Veterans For Peace.  So I will simply quote my brother veterans who say it well.

Veterans For Peace is disappointed but not surprised by the so called strategy President Obama presented last night. We are disappointed because it is more of the same. The U.S. will continue to be “the greatest purveyor of violence” on the earth. It will continue to follow a failed policy of war-making in the Middle East.  It will continue to waste precious financial resources which should be directed toward human needs and to support the U.S. economy.  It will continue to put U.S. service members into harm’s way when other solutions are possible and it will continue to take the lives of innocent people, most of whom will undoubtedly be women and children who are always disproportionately impacted by war.

We are not surprised because it has been made clear to us that our leaders are not interested in finding solutions other than war to solve international conflicts.  After thirteen years of war what has been accomplished? Iraq and Afghanistan are in shambles, the Taliban has not been defeated, al Qaeda has further decentralized to at least thirty countries, ISIL has emerged as a power of sorts in Iraq and Syria and a State Department report outlines that terrorism increased by 43% in 2013. By any objective measure, U.S. foreign policy in the Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush to Obama has been a failure. Yet more war is put forth as the answer, even though President Obama himself in the recent past said there is not a military solution to the violence in Iraq and last night explained that ISIL does not pose an immediate threat to the U.S. Why then do we continue down this path?
[...]
President Obama outlined a strategy no different from what the U.S. has done for the past thirteen years. It is not a plan for success, it is a gamble that war will work this time when it has spectacularly failed thus far. We at Veterans For Peace challenge the American people to ask whose interests does endless war serve? Who is paying for these wars, whose children are dying in these wars and who is getting paid to finance and provide weapons for these wars? We the people are being driven by manipulated fear to support polices that are not in our interest. Peace is harder than war, but it is cheaper in blood and treasure. After thirteen years it is time to take another path, the path of peace.

If only...

Preparing for War

Anne Applebaum assesses Russian actions and intent and asks if the west and its preminent superpower shouldn't be preparing for an all-out war.  The question is sobering  Too much fighting, destruction and death has already occurred in eastern Ukraine and evidence suggests that Russian forces are intervening directly in support of separatist rebels.  Applebaum quotes any number of Russian exceptionalists (yes, they have them, too) along with Vladimir Putin to support a reasonable conclusion that war is likely and the world should prepare for it.

Her logic is hard to dispute.  It's certainly consistent with my understanding of Russian history and culture.  Her conclusion has a hard reality:  if you think someone is out to harm you, it's prudent to be ready to prevent that.  All that makes sense.

But given that the threat arises from historical and geopolitical relations among ethic groups and nations, its underlying causes will not easily be resolved by war and re-aligning borders.  War may, in fact, further inflame the conflict by sowing new resentment and division among people already suspicious of one another.

For me, seeing a situation spiraling into violence means the most logical policy is to find ways to stop the spiral.  I expect my government leaders and other nations' leaders to be smart enough to figure out how to work with all parties to stop the spiral and find alternatives to war.

That is the best preparation for war.  That may seem like a hopeless dream given our bloody human history but the alternative is to accept the inevitability of war as a constant.  I am not willing to accept that.

Call me a dreamer.

I Didn't Fucking Lose Iraq

The Unholy Trio--John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Kelly Ayotte--is demanding that President Obama let loose with American weaponry in Iraq to stave off the the onrushing Islamic State of Iraq and Syria which threatens Iraq's national existence.  They bark at Obama for failing to leave behind a residual force to give the Iraqi army some spine, saying that Obama has squandered the glorious victory achieved by his predecessor and Wonder General David Petraeus.

Fucking bullshit.  If Bush and Petraeus achieved anything, they managed only to tamp down the civil war unleashed by the American invasion and occupation.  It's rather like a fine piece of china that had been sitting safely in a cabinet and tossed about is now sitting on a precipice.  Definitely better than being tossed about but still much worse off than when in the cabinet.

What is especially arrogant of these so called foreign policy thought leaders is their harping on their warnings about a complete American withdrawal from Iraq when, in fact, they ignored the most fundamental warning of all:  DON'T INVADE IRAQ!  Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, John McCain and Lindsay Graham lost Iraq the minute they decided to initiate their splendid little war.

Of course, the whole idea that Iraq is America's prize to win or lose is a pretty offensive concept to me.  That suggests that Iraqis are of no consequence compared to America's interests.  I'm not at all surprised that my country deigns itself to be the arbiter of all interests--as the leading capitalist hegemon on the planet, I expect no less--but I consider this viewpoint an unfortunate national character trait.

Deja Vu All Over Again

Sabers rattling, troops moving and accusations flying back and forth between rival powers in Europe.  Who'd have thought that the world would mark the centennial of The Great War by replaying the the event with a live-fire re-enactment?

Apparently, the world didn't learn much from the horrors of the 20th century.

United States of Fear

The United States has denied a visa to Iran's newly-chosen ambassador to the United Nations.  The ambassador, Hamid Aboutalebi, participated in the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran after the takeover in November 1979 and is, therefore, so persona non grata that the United States will violate its obligation as the host nation for the UN to allow access for nations' ambassadors and other representatives.

How dare those cheeky Iranians taunt Americans by choosing a person who is forever with such a grievous insult to our national pride!  Why the very idea threatens the foundations of the Republic. Or so it would seem from the American brouhaha about the new ambassador

From the Iranian side it looks different.  Ambassador Aboutalebi took part in an important national event; the embassy occupation was part of the Islamic Revolution which looms as large in Iran's history as the American Revolution does in ours.  Whatever other nations' doubts may be about the results of Iran's revolution, the Iranian government has every reason to hold its participants in high regard.  If one of those persons has skills that may serve the nation, why would the government not appoint that person to a responsible position?  If the position happens to require a visa to attend the United Nations, the US should honor its obligation to provide that visa.  I mean, it's not like Ambassador Aboutalebi was a leader of either the embassy takeover or the Islamic Revolution. 

The United States would do well to remember its own history in this matter.  The first American ambassador to Great Britain was John Adams, a man who had without a doubt participated in the American Revolution.  Despite the all-too-recent open warfare between the two nations, Adams was received by the Court of St James.  They did not refuse his commission.

21st century America should be so open.

Best Comment About US Policy on Crimea

Dr. Wes Browning:

Particularly funny is the possibility that the United States and the European Union might enforce economic sanctions. Not only Putin, but all of Russia with him, are thinking, “You are joking, right? Sanctions? Who cares?”

Never mind that they lived through Stalin (Well, those that did, did.) Never mind that they got hit by a giant meteor last year, and listened to the radio while they watched it hit, and when it blew out windows said, “Let us that do not have arteries cut by shards go out in the -20 C weather in our shirtsleeves and smoke cigarettes on this occasion, and wonder what that was.” Never mind that a day of economic sanctions is what they call Tuesday.

Russians have a calendar filled with Tuesdays.

Call Me Isolationist

For as long as I've studied history the term "isolationist" has been more of an epithet than any representative of any kind of systemic thought.  It conjured up images of Americans naively believing their nation had no interests or responsibility in the larger world, foolishly attempting to ignore the rest of the world.  The proof of Isolationist folly was fascism and World War II.  The Cold War only made Isolationists even more irrelevant, we were told. 

I came across a book review and a follow-up letter (actually the other way around) in The Nation that gave me an entirely different understanding of the opponents of American international engagement in the first half of the 20th century, the many who were derided for their views.  Promise and Peril:  America at the Dawn of the Global Age by Christopher Nichols offers a far more nuanced view of the Isolationists than is acknowledged by the conventional wisdom.  The money quote:

Isolationism, as Nichols insists, “did not entail cultural, economic, or complete political separation from the rest of the world.” On the contrary, “the inner logic of isolationist arguments turned on the inner life of the nation and on visions of national self-definition, serving to reinforce many, albeit limited, forms of international engagement.” Isolationists were not provincial bumpkins; they were cultural cosmopolitans who distrusted the impact of empire—not only on “native” populations abroad but on US society and character at home.

[...] 

 What became known as isolationism was by no means an effort to wall off the United States from the rest of the world; it was the basis for a foreign policy strategy that encouraged cultural and economic involvement with other nations while discouraging political and military intervention—even as it recognized that such interventions might occasionally be necessary. This was hardly the ostrich-like caricature created by its critics.

That last paragraph sums up my world view.  If that be Isolationism, then I am an Isolationist and will proudly join the company of Thomas Jefferson, William James, W.E.B. Du Bois, Randolph Bourne, Eugene Debs and Jane Addams, all of whom understood the value of engaging with other nations but questioned military engagement. They had a different view of America in the world.

Many opponents of foreign military engagement recognized the inherent danger of a militarized society, which is the reality of America in the 21st century.  They feared the corrosive effects of a standing army. So did the the men who wrote the Constitution.   Article I, Section 8 requires Congress to "provide and maintain a Navy" while only authorizing Congress to "raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation for that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

The Framers were men who understood the dangers of standing armies and powerful executives.  So too, did many Americans--the Isolationists--in the early years of the last century.

Twenty-first century America would do well to remember.

 

Good Questions

Walter Pincus, who gets into the federal budget better than any reporter I know, reports today on the US Navy's Special Forces budget request.  The request funds "wet" and "dry" operations using underwater and shallow water combat submersibles.  Also included is $1.3 for a Mobile Landing Platform in 2015, to be followed by the  Afloat Forward Staging Base for which no amount is specified.  It's a mind-boggling array of technology all needed to, as stated in the budget's forward, "...build and sustain tailored capabilities appropriate for counterterrorism (sic) and irregular warfare.” 

It's also part of the Navy staying in the game.  The Army and Air Force have a Special Operations Command, which means the Navy will need to do same.  No branch of service wants to miss out on the current war.  Recall that even the US Coast Guard served in Vietnam.  War is a time of opportunity for the military, especially for the military bureaucracy; rank, budget and prestige grow during war time.  "Counterterrorism" is the name of the game and the Navy wants to keep its hand in.

Pincus asks the right questions:

How are all these Special Forces capabilities in all the services being integrated? How many overlap? How many are needed, and how many can this country afford?

 I would add only a follow up to the how many are needed:  Why? 

Can We Possibly Do Worse?

Ten years of American government building in Afghanistan and this is what we get?

“Afghans and the world’s Muslims should rise against the foreigners. We have no patience left,” said an Afghan police officer at a checkpoint in central Kabul. He looked at his colleague, who stood next to him, nodding. “We both will attack the foreign military people.”“Afghans and the world’s Muslims should rise against the foreigners. We have no patience left,” said an Afghan police officer at a checkpoint in central Kabul. He looked at his colleague, who stood next to him, nodding. “We both will attack the foreign military people.”

We are so fucked.