A Couple of Questions for James Mattis

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee Defense Secretary-designate James Mattis made two statements that would benefit from further examination and elaboration.

In documents submitted to lawmakers prior to the hearing, Mattis identified Iran as “the primary source of turmoil” in the Middle East. “Its policies are contrary to our interests.”

Turmoil is a rather broad term.  For national security reasons, I would like more definition.  What actions constitute "turmoil"?  What form do these actions take.  What American interests are at risk from these actions?  What risks to our allies' interests and how are those interests aligned with ours?  are the specific risks to the United States?  To our allies?  What are our options for mitigating those risks?

Simply casting Iran (a nation which has its own claim to exceptionalism) as the "primary source of turmoil" no more useful to creating effective American diplomatic and military policy than are Iran's own denunciations of the US as "the Great Satan" for developing its own policy.  Futher elaboration is essential for Americans to understand what our leaders are doing with tax (or borrowed) dollars and, most importantly, the casualties that often result from our actions.  So, give us more and let us discuss it as informed citizens.

Repeatedly, the nominee made reference to the need to improve military readiness, blaming years of budget cuts for an erosion to technology and manpower.

Mattis identifies a single cause for erosion:  budget cuts.  Along with those budget cuts the multiple wars the US is fighting are also a big source of that erosion.  Personnel, ordnance and equipment get chewed up in war.  If we weren't fighting all of those wars(*) and garrisoning the world the military would not be eroding.  So again I ask why?  To what purpose? How do these wars, special operations and empire of bases contribute to American and world security?

We've been doing this sort of thing since World War II and while it may have been sustainable in the past these days must be evalulated in terms of America's  21st century economic prospects and national priorities.  Even if Congress was inclined to tap this country's vast and concentrated wealth, Americans may well find that other needs, like infrastructure or a cost-effective health care system may well be a higher priority.  In order for us to make that decision, we need complete information if we are to make good use of the funds we do allocate to the military.

That brings me back to my questions about Iran, General Mattis.  I can ask you the same questions about each war and about American interests in each region and each country.  I'm sure that your new position can offer a lot of answers to these questions.  But remember that you will need real justification and explanations not just platitudes and catchphrases.

____________
(*)  NPR identifies Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Lybia.  The US is also active in African wars and in Yemen.

The Most Revealing Statement in the Washington Post In-Depth (And Really Long) Report on American Intelligence Activity Since 9-11

A high-ranking official of the National Security State acknowledges a limit.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, who was also interviewed by The Post last week, said he's begun mapping out a five-year plan for his agency because the levels of spending since 9/11 are not sustainable. "Particularly with these deficits, we're going to hit the wall. I want to be prepared for that," he said. "Frankly, I think everyone in intelligence ought to be doing that."

If we're lucky, the idea will spread.

The New Black

When I was a lad, America was afraid of communists. They were everywhere. Or could be. You never knew. Even worse, they had rockets and bombs that could destroy America. Constant vigilance was essential. To call someone a communist in those days was tantamount to calling someone a traitor or Enemy of America.

These days "terrorist" is the all-purpose enemy, the constant danger. Brand someone a "terrorist" and that someone is suspect, their civil liberties restricted, even forfeit, in the interests of national security, of public safety. Most recently, respected Colombian journalist Hollman Morris was denied a US visa because of "terrorist activities". His transgression: associating with a rebel group while reporting on Columbia's long-running insurgency. Now America will not allow him a visa to accept fellowship for journalists at Harvard University.

Morris' reporting has embarrassed the Colombian government security forces which most likely assembled the allegations to torpedo Morris' visa. It may be a frame-up but the frame that worked was "terrorism".

America. Land of the Fearful.

Meet the New Boss

The Washington Post goes all ga-ga over General Patraeus' assuming command in Afghanistan:

Seizing the flags of U.S. and NATO forces Sunday morning, Gen. David H. Petraeus formally took hold of the war in Afghanistan and began the daunting task of turning around an ever more deadly and unpopular conflict.
[...]
A general with a sterling reputation for military creativity and political acumen, Petraeus, 57, struck a determined tone in his remarks to fellow officers, foreign diplomats and Afghan officials, insisting "we are in this to win."

The accompanying photo shows a smiling Patraeus clutching a green flag. He looks happy to be where he is. Afghanistan is his chance to do what no American general has ever done: finally win the Vietnam war. No wonder he's smiling.

Read Patraeus acceptance speech and you will see the same words used four decades ago to keep America locked into an extended war that had no legitimate purpose. Those fine phrases are all back, along with international terrorism and "America, be afraid" hyperbole. Rhetoric and national pride prolonged the Vietnam war by at least five years after public support turned against the war. Rhetoric and national pride will do the same for this war. The Big Lie has a long shelf life.

The loss of public support for Vietnamwas not opposition to war as policy but simply the realization that there was no point to it, especially at the cost of my son's life. At that point, the Big Lie evaporated like the Wicked Witch of the West. And it still took years to finally end that war. That's why we have a "volunteer" military--to keep the public sufficiently removed from the most direct consequences of war so they won't be so quick to object. That combined with fear tactics has buttressed support for military action after the 9-11 attacks. Only now are most Americans beginning to look at the never-ending war as simply not worth it.

Now comes David Patraeus to show Americans that the effort is not only worth it but will succeed. For a general, there can be no greater opportunity.

This time we'll win it! It's just a matter of _________ (fill in blank).

Never Ending Vigilance

Yesterday's Washington Post reported what I call the Drama of National Security, detailing the round the clock vigilance of American national security officials from Leon Pannetta to Janet Napolitano. It followed the flow of information and decisions from around the world to the highest echelons of the US government and the president. The story is certainly a positive one for the Obama administration. It tells the nation that this administration is on target, 24/7.

What the report lacks is a realistic context for all of this drama and watchfulness. Instead we learn only that officials struggle with the "details of plots that realize the nation's vague, yet primal, fears...an accumulation of all the dangers hidden in the dark" Among the dangers is "growing terrorism activity at home". Not to mention two wars and CIA operations that are "some of the most aggressive actions in the agency's history". In the end, it all comes off as "Be afraid, America, but also be confident that your country will protect you".

But if I read the story carefully, though, it undermines the rationale for large scale, extended military operations, the hallmark of US foreign policy for the past decade. Defense Secretary Robert Gates describes the "actual physical threat" to America these days as "worse than the Cold War", his worst nightmare a "terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction." His nightmare may be possible but his theat assessment is complete hyperbole. The physical threat to America was far greater in the Cold War where we faced an adversary with the capability to wreak wholesale destruction on much of what is now The Homeland. Gates' terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction is at best, a one-off attack, a ghastly possibility but not the stuff of Cold War Armageddon.

And like the 9-11 attacks, which was Saudi nationals, organizing in Germany and learning to (sort of) fly in Florida, Gates' nightmare can originate just about anywhere in the world. Not necessarily Afghanistan or Iraq where America has poured blood and treasure since 2001. And not something at which main force military units are particularly adept. Fighting terrorism, real or imagined, is not something happening in any of America's two military wars and agressive CIA operations.

Joint Chief chairman Michael Mullen further demonstrates the futility of the wars. He is fighting an "evil that doesn't believe in anything we believe in", people who "don't value civilization". As Ranger Against War has consistently pointed out, a successful military operation requires a defined objective. Fighting evil and bringing our idea of civilization are not the stuff of clearly defined objectives.

No wonder they call it the Long War.


postscript

In contrast, look at the objectives for another high pressure, round-the-clock operation: figuring out how to cap the Deepwater Horizon blowout. These guys know when they will win. The well will be capped well before an entire undersea reservoir of petroleum spews into the world's oceans.

Littoral Combat

Did you know that the United States Navy is building a fleet of littoral combat ships, ships designed to operate in the shallow waters. A littoral is defined as "the region or zone between the limits of high and low tides". Here in the northwest, a littoral combat ship would prowl deep into the farthest reaches of Puget Sound and could come within easy range of the Capitol Building in Olympia.

Here's one now.



Close in naval combat is not exactly a new idea. In Vietnam, the US deployed the now infamous swift boats for combat in the Mekong Delta and other shallow waters. But compare the swift boat below to the littoral combat ship above and the difference in scale and capability is obvious.



All this came to mind when I spotted an ad from the LCS contractor, Lockheed Martin, on a Washington Post webpage touting the ship. The ad used the term "littoral combat dominance" which has echoes of the the US military's "full spectrum dominance" concept. Obviously, the Navy is planning to get its share of the spectrum with the ability to bring its destructive capabilities right up to the shoreline.

The DOD press release describes full spectrum dominance as forward thinking:

"We should not expect opponents in 2020 to fight with strictly 'industrial age' tools," the report states. "Our advantage must ... come from leaders, people, doctrine, organizations and training that enable us to take advantage of technology to achieve superior warfighting effectiveness."

The technology and capability may be 21st century. War is hardly new.

History Lesson

A review of An Artist in Treason: the Extraordinary Double Life of General James Wilkinson in the New York Review of Books tells a tale of a highly self-serving man. A paid Spanish agent even as he served in America's highest military offices at a time the US was contending with Spain for control of the continental heartland, Wilkinson is described as "maybe the most unscrupulous character in all of American history". His extraordinary career included facing "...three military tribunals and four congressional investigations into allegations of misdeeds. Yet he was never found guilty. No wonder it was said of him that although he had never won a battle, he had never lost an inquiry."

Not exactly a figure of worthy regard. Except for his opposition to a standing army. As Jefferson's commander-in-chief, Wilkinson was the only officer supporting Jefferson's efforts to reform the army, with preference for state militias over a standing army. By dint of a scoundrel supporting a president with an agenda, the US was spared a standing army for its first eight score and ten years.

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that the Constitution does not establish or require an army. Article 1, section 8 requires Congress to provide and maintain a Navy but simply authorizes Congress to raise and support armies. The framers were certainly conscious of the need to provide for a common defense but were well aware of the dangers of standing army.

That circumspection ended after World War II. America has had a substantial standing army throughout my lifetime. Like any well well entrenched institution, the US military/national security establishment has its own perspectives and interests. If you have any doubt that those interests do not necessarily serve the nation's interests, look at the military budgets that include weapons systems that either do not work or are irrelevant to the international threats this nation faces. Read James Carroll's House of War. Or ask yourself why America's foreign policy is discussed largely in terms of military action.

Only one president in my lifetime actually saw through the veil of military obfuscation and self-interest: John Kennedy. And even he didn't have the nerve to fully act on that knowledge until after he was safely re-elected. Too bad he did not live to act on his knowledge.

America is unlikely to give up its standing army under any circumstances. We could probably live with that if we really believed and acted with serious attention to civilian control of that standing army.

Best Argument for Obesity Ever

In our very own schools.

(Recent) History Lesson

In this 20th anniversary year of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the tumultuous change in Eastern Europe, I came across Michael Meyer’s first person account of those events, The Year That Changed the World: the Untold Story Behind the Fall of the Berlin Wall. It’s a fast-paced, gripping account of that heady time, an account that also challenges the myth that America “won” the Cold War by Ronald Reagan’s steely determination to stand up to the “Evil Empire” of Soviet Communism. In Meyer’s telling, the fall of Soviet Communism and the liberation of Eastern Europe came about when Mikhail Gorbachev was no longer willing to enforce Soviet hegemony beyond its borders. Ronald Reagan figures in the narrative as Gorbachev’s partner rather than adversary and America’s greatest achievement during the transition was restraint and common sense.

As central as Gorbachev’s actions were in 1988 and 1989, events on the ground were guided by a local forces and individuals. Meyer reports that by 1988 Eastern Europe was becoming an economic basket case (as George Kennan had predicted 40 years earlier). Communist regimes were desperate for something that would work. In Hungary, the solution was to allow Party members who had previously called for reform, to take power in hopes of handing them the blame for the worsening situation. Instead, Miklos Nemeth and his allies began loosening the binds of the old regime, creating political space for debate and organizing outside of the Communist Party. In Poland, Wojciech Jaruzelski, who in 1981 led the crackdown on the Solidarity Movement, turned to the men he had imprisoned for a way out of the worsening economic situation. Changes in these nations forced a crisis in East Germany. And the Wall came tumbling down. Or so it seemed.

It wasn’t quite that simple. Meyer’s account begins in 1988 and shows how events took unpredicted turns and everybody was uncertain how the Soviets, would react, despite Gorbachev’s assurances. Experience from earlier reform attempts—1953, 1956, 1968 and 1981—offered grim warnings toward would-be reformers. The Tiananmen Square massacre in June 1989 was an all too pointed reminder of the possibility for state violence against citizens calling for change. That’s where Gorbachev figures so prominently. His unwillingness to intervene with Soviet military force or to back hard-line resistance to change gave reformers openings to pursue ideas that heretofore been anathema. The openings allowed sheer luck and determination to create further change and additional opportunities. Meyer chronicles these events in detail and time, quoting liberally from interviews with just about everybody.

Not part of Meyer’s story is the notion that Eastern Europe rose up in response to American challenges to the Soviets. According to Meyer, change came from within the system, from reformers with long time Party credentials who skillfully exploited opportunities to overcome resistance from entrenched Communist ideologues. Change also came from the people, it welled up from citizen frustration and impatience with failed regimes. Many streams of thought, passion and hope became a transnational movement whose consequences surprised the entire world. Meyer credits the US for its restraint and willingness to let events unfold; to do otherwise would have changed the dynamic and given the hardliners weapons to discredit reform. He contrasts that restraint with the subsequent belief that America had become the “indispensible nation” and that all America had to do was to stand firm and its enemies would wither and collapse. It is a strong point, one that most Americans have not considered much since 1989.

Meyer’s account is decidedly first person. He had the opportunity to be most everywhere in Eastern Europe in 1989 to witness events. He describes his unique vantage as both blessing and curse. It was a blessing to see the many ways that events played out across different cultures and nations, a curse to be so immersed in the action. Meyer makes the best of his experience and the passage of 20 years to offer a nuanced account of a momentous time. The lessons he draws from those events are well informed, as important today as they were in 1989. Meyer’s lively reporting is far more informative than the Triumphalist portrayals in the mass media this past fall.

Writing this, I began to think of Michael Meyers as a latter day John Reed. Where the two seem most similar is their sympathy for the change they witnessed. Meyer is considerably more objective than Reed but Meyer, too, is definitely excited about what is happening. Like Reed, Meyer tells us what it was like for participants at all levels, how it felt and about their hopes and fears. Unlike Reed, Meyer’s enthusiasm is tempered with the benefit of 20 year hindsight. Reed did not live to see the full results of the change he welcomed.

Dollars and Sense

I love it even more when someone talks like this.

Only professional liars could cite concern about debt as reason to oppose a health care bill reducing the debt -- and then vote for debt-expanding defense budgets. Unfortunately, professional liars are the norm in today's politics, not the exception -- and they're leading America off the fiscal cliff.

Health Care Financing Solved

Reading commentary about health care reform in the US, I am staggered by the unwillingness of pretty much everyone who wrings their hands over the high cost of the proposed proposals (up to $1.6 trillion over 10 years) to look at the most obvious source of funds in the federal budget for the needed funds. That $1.6 trillion comes to $160 billion per year. This country spends almost that much on the unnecessary wars, not to mention the endemic waste and redundancy in the so-called "defense" budget that exceeds $1 trillion a year. I have no doubt that a good budget analyst/program evaluator could carve 10 percent out of that budget without endangering military security one iota. Apparently, that option is not only not on the radar, the radar isn't even in place.

Of course, the hawks and military will object mightily and point to all sorts of potential dangers to protect their budgets, but the reality is that America's pathetically unequal health care system is every bit as dangerous to our national well being as any potential enemy.

Houses of War?

Yesterday during the Friday peace vigil, a woman yelled to us from a passing car that "Without war you wouldn't have a place to live", a truly odd statement. Certainly better than the occasional upraised finger but puzzling. I'm thinking that she is referring to defending the "Homeland", the idea that foreign aggressors will attack and force me out of my home. For an American, though, that possibility is pretty remote. But the conflation of war and security is pervasive. As long as people believe that others want to dispossess them, the rationale for war will be strong. And since Americans have everything while many others have little or nothing,we will always be on guard lest "they" take what is "ours". The yelling woman believes that her home is at risk and the only way to defend it is by killing others.

Since I am not a pacifist, I can understand the utility of using force against an attacker. If you physically attack me with harmful intent, I WILL respond with equal and quite possibly greater force in order to stop the attack and preclude further danger. The same is true of nations; I don't gainsay that responsibility. But just as it makes sense for me as an individual to work with others to create an environment where we all are free from threats and the likelihood of attack is nil, so too do nations have the same responsibility to create a secure international environment.

If I could have an extended conversation with the woman, I would point out that war often creates just the opposite result: people without homes. The world has plenty of people displaced by war--Iraq, Darfur, Palestine Pakistan and many others. War seems to have done little for their living conditions. My own experience in war was of not having a place to live. Sure, I had a place to be for about a week out of each month but the rest of the time I was just wherever I was at the moment and still alive. When the war finally ended four years later, it didn't change the fact that I had a place to live.

Of course, looking back on it, the US has been at war in one form or another during my entire lifetime—Korea, Vietnam, Central America, the Middle East not to mention the Cold War and all its clandestine operations and near catastrophes. Maybe that’s what has kept a roof over my head all these years.

Ya think?

Hardcore

Last week a friend, whose judgment and honesty I respect, said something like, “You know, I have to give credit to George Bush for his silence since leaving office. It shows some class.” I gag at the thought that anything about America’s Worst President ™ can be said to have class but I have certainly enjoyed his silence and near invisibility. He’s almost invisible as Cheney was in office. With Bush, maybe the best way he can show class is by disappearing. If only he could take the disasters of the past eight years with him.

Hearing Cheney barking into the news this week makes me think that Cheney, the very rare vice-president no to run for president, has a different plan, probably hatched well before 2000. Unelectable on his own, he serves as vice-president and chief Metternich for “a regular guy”, “have a beer with” president who has absolutely no intellect or curiosity and wholly believes that he embodies “true American values”. George W. Bush provided the perfect combination of arrogance and ignorance, a dangerous combination easily manipulated by the more clever Cheney and the neo-con vulcans. From his vice-presidential bunker at an undisclosed location, Cheney commanded the defense against the Ever Present Danger against which any and all oversight of the National Security State is suspect. George Bush did the Aw Shucks Shuffle for the public.
.
After eight years reconfiguring the US government into the service of large corporations and transferring immense wealth upward, the institutional pieces are in place and the American consciousness has been locked into fear mode, Private Citizen Cheney can now continue warn against an always dangerous world where strength and action are the only protection. He will a ready forum at the Committee for the Present Danger and Fox News. He long ago stole America’s patriotism to lock the nation into indefinite wars that will count on a certain support from Americans who believe that once committed, we must continue the fight to (choose one or more): protect America, bring democracy to the world, not waste our troops’ sacrifices, control the world’s resources in our own interests, other______.

Cheney doesn’t need to be president. He will do what he has always done. He simply dismisses last year’s electoral repudiation as just wrong-headed. Cheney has been an operator in and out of government for over thirty years. He has wrought a serious form of corporate-military-absolutist government that benefits him and his class. He is unlikely to want to see that arrangement damaged. Barak Obama may be president but Dick Cheney has connections, money and years more experience. He is not going away.

And George Bush no longer needs to do anything. No wonder he’s so quiet.

It Used to Be MAD. Now It's Just Mad

In today's news:

Both the congressional panel and the Council on Foreign Relations task force agreed with Obama's view that prevailing conditions do not allow the elimination of nuclear weapons. They agreed that a safe and secure U.S. nuclear force is needed to reassure America's allies, which without that protection would seek to develop their own weapons. (emphasis added)

We have nukes so that other nations will feel secure and not build their own. It's a dirty job but that burden is America's gift to the world, or at least that part of the world that agrees with us. Several of these allies--Israel, Britian and France--are so thankfully secure that they built their own nukes anyway. And nations that don't agree with us, well, they'll build nukes too.

So it all works. Or not.

Still Again Into the Breach

Another story about strategy in Afghanistan leaves me still wondering why the United States is fighting a war there. If I recall, we attacked Afghanistan to drive destroy al-Qaeda and replace the Taliban government that gave Osama bin Laden a sanctuary. We oppose al-Qaeda because they attacked Americans in 1993, 1998, 2000 and most spectacularly, 2001. We succeeded in toppling the Taliban government, with whom we had been content to deal, and forced bin Laden and AQ headquarters into hiding in the Pashtun homeland that straddles the Afganistan-Pakistan border.

That was then. What the US has not done is provide a government that has legitimacy with the majority of Afghans. The primary reason for this failure is the simple reason that only Afghans can provide a legitimate government. The structures and leaders who have ascended to leadership in Afghanistan during the American occupation have limited credibility and compete (often unfavorably) with warlords and a resurgent Taliban for the loyalty of people who simply want to make a living in the place they call home.

So here we are, seven years later, looking at an occupation that has no end and the very real prospect of further draining our shaky economy. And I am still asking “Why?” We took out al-Qaeda HQ only to learn that a decentralized, clandestine network can metastasize and continue its deadly work in the absence of any top leadership. For all of our efforts in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda is still out there, still dangerous but is also not a threat that poses the kind of existential threat to the United States that calls for endless war.

American policy in Afghanistan is certainly part nation building—the idea that we must create a stable nation that will not harbor our enemies. Seven years on, billions of dollars and many thousand Afghan casualties, we have probably created more hostility toward the US among Afghanis than al-Qaeda could ever hope for. Afghans who welcomed the American overthrow of the Taliban now support Taliban fighters as indigenous nationalists and the one organization that can provide effective, if brutal, security.

In the end, then, Americans are fighting Afghans who do not support the government we installed. Why is it that America has any right to tell Afghanis what and what is not a legitimate government?. After all, we subscribe to the idea that government derives its power from the consent of the people. Afghanis have clearly withheld their consent so why is it that our troops, bullets and bombs have any role in that political process?

Oh but Afghanis are intimidated by the Taliban, you say. Their acquiescence is merely acceptance; they would willingly embrace real democracy if only given the chance. Simply leaving them at the mercy of the strongest guns denies them their unalienable rights as human beings. Besides, look at what they do to women and girls, denying them education and forcing them into a male-dominated semi-existence. Surely, Americans cannot simply withdraw, leaving Afghanis stuck in the 15th century.

This line of reasoning is the same specious logic that sent and kept America in Vietnam for almost 30 years (I count from the day the US agreed to allow the French to re-occupy their former colony after WWII). We conflate two equally unachievable missions—a stable, pro-western government and individual personal liberty—into a “noble cause” that is not necessarily consistent with local traditions and preferences. It is indeed a recipe for endless war. And endless war is what we will get, to no one’s benefit except the military contractors and the local elites whom we purchase with our largesse and ability to neutralize their competitors.

If I were in charge, I would leave Afghanistan to the Afghans. Only they can sort out their differences. Only they have the legitimacy to create their own government. Our military has no legitimate role in that process. Our legitimacy lies in the force of our ideas and our technical skills—“30,000 engineers and scholars instead of 30,000 troops” in the words of one Afghani. Afghani self-determination may be ugly and Afghan women may be a long time (if ever) in finding liberation, all unfortunate but all outside of the United States or any outside nation to control or dictate. Seven years of war should have taught us that lesson.

The real threat to the US and the rest of the world in that area is Pakistan with its nuclear arsenal, increasingly anti-American population and growing Islamic radicalism. Like Afghanis, Pakistanis have seen their nation played as a pawn in the Great Games of major powers, to their own detriment. That hostility does not diminish with American attacks inside Pakistan. Nor are we likely to send troops to “stabilize” that nation. (It would be a bad idea even if we could afford it). The threat is much larger than Afghanistan—it’s regional and involves nuclear armed nations. Simply sending more troops to Afghanistan does nothing to address that threat. Sending more troops and escalating our covert war in Pakistan is a recipe for endless war.

Apparently we prefer it that way.

The "Good" War

Obama has made it clear that he considers Afghanistan to be more of a problem than Iraq and has pledged to draw down American forces in Iraq in order to pursue al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. His solution: more troops and extended commitment to a war that most Americans still support. After all, "they" attacked us. Remember? Well, actually, it was their friends but that's close enough.

Never mind that Afghanistan is a place hostile to foreign intervention with a geography that that favors guerrilla tactics, the graveyard of empires. Instead, Obama will dive in, to build something that looks good to Americans that the locals don't really want and will in all likelihood resist. Not a good foundation for sustainable policy in my view.

But don't take my word for it. Tom Englehardt offers a very sober analysis of America's precarious situation in Asia Times. So does Jim Lobe. Robert Dreyfuss offered a similar analysis in The Nation which also carried a good article about the highly diverse forces that Americans call "the" Taliban.

If all that left-wing analysis doesn't convince you, then read about a month's worth of posts at Ranger Against War. Ranger brings a tactical and operational perspective that demonstrates wyhy Afghanistan is likely to be the tarpit of American ambition.

Trading a bad war that Americans support for an even worse wart that Americans no longer support is NOT an effective solution. Why in the hell do Americans not understand that.

Oh, right. Everbody is watching television.

The Weight of War

Today's Washington Post reports on increasing injuries to soldiers from the weight of their gear. Equipment loads--weapons, body armor, ammunition and communications gear--range from a 97 to 125 pounds, according to one study.

That's a hell of a lot more than I carried in Vietnam, a load that was plenty damn heavy, maybe 65 pounds for the three days until the next resupply chopper. I never learned how to lift that pack on to my back--I had to sit down, put my arms through the shoulder straps and slowly stand, using my M-16 as a crutch. About three months into my tour, I transferred to the company command post to carry a 20 pound radio strapped to the top of my pack. I no longer had to carry a 200 round belt of machine gun ammo but the radio and spare batteries were definitely a net wieght gain. The radio was at least interesting; I certainly was better informed.

So I know what it's like to carry a shitload of gear. Harder to imagine is functioning with all that encumbrance (the Romans called it impedimenta). In Afghanistan soldiers are operating rugged terrain at high altitude against a lightly clad, highly agile adversary. My adversary in Vietnam was also light and agile. So were our best forces but mostly we were the cumbersome, lethal US Army. Commanders are asking for lighter gear--a technical fix. That was the default solution in Vietnam also. Not an encouraging portent. Just as individual soldiers find their bodies breaking down at the long, heavy loads, the American polity is as likely to suffer from overload.

Backpacking guides recommend pack weight at no more than one-third of body weight. I keep mine at 25 percent. It's still noticeable but doesn't kick my ass like the 65 pound packs I carried on some of my early long hikes. My experience has been far more pleasant since I cut the pack weight so dramatically. I recommend that America take a hard look not only at the loads individual soldiers carry but also at the weight of its fears.

What the General Did Not Say

Wesley Clark has an op-ed piece in the Washington Post today about relations between Democrats and the military. One passage caught my eye:

Finally, let's put aside the partisan legacy of Vietnam once and for all. We all grieve for the losses there and for the needy, homeless vets today. But almost no one now in uniform served in that conflict, and most of the Democrats who will be moving into offices at the National Security Council, the Pentagon and in Congress are too young to have been part of the bitter national debates over the war. Iraq just isn't Vietnam, and the debates over a U.S. withdrawal need not tear the country apart -- especially if we in the military recognize that the Democratic Party that I have been associated with is every bit as patriotic and service-oriented as any other group in the United States. (italics added)

The general is correct that re-playing history into the present does not constitute serious discussion of contemporary challenges; we should certainly not allow ourselves to be trapped into some ironclad historical model.

That's why I say that if we want to put the partisan debate about Vietnam behind us, we also must discard the polarizing specter of Munich and the even more damaging concepts of American Exceptionalism and Triumphalism. Munich tells us that all negotiation with an adversary is appeasement, that adversaries are always evil and that evil only responds to force. is the only real solution. Exceptionalism and Triumphalism insist the United States exists on its own plane with rights, privileges and exemptions from the lessons of history.

General Clark offers good advice about ways Democrats and the military can work together to serve America. As far as thad advice goes, it's a positive step. An even greater step would be for Americans to discard our myths and fears about our place in the world and to learn how to compete in the world as it is and will be.

The piece is also notable for acknowledging the passing of the Vietnam Generation. We're almost history and certainly the rancorous legacy of that war should be forever interred. But I for one will not go quietly if I think the grievous errors, lies and distortions are not exorcised from our national debates as part of that interment. I earned that right and that duty in Vietnam

Neo-Cons Old and New

I finished reading America's Rasputin and was unsurprised to learn that the author sees his subject much the same way I described Rostow in a previous post. Rostow's career as policy maker self destructed in 1968 but he never quit believing, insisting that America's effort in Vietnam was necessary and beneficial. The Epilogue clearly ties Rostow's certainty to the current generation of American Crusaders.

Just as predictable as the failure of the Neo-Con imperial fantasies will be their future insistence that Iraq and Afghanistan wars were right and proper.

Fuckers.

A Positive Opening

Here's something that could restore my faith in the political process if it actually comes to pass:

According to a story by Bryan Bender in the Boston Globe, the Defense Business Board, a senior advisory group appointed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, recommended huge cuts in the military budget, noting that the current level of spending on weapons is "unsustainable." Several private and congressional defense analysts have been making this point for a few years now; the U.S. Government Accountability Office recently calculated that the Pentagon's 95 largest weapons systems have accumulated cost overruns amounting to $300 billion (that's just the overruns, not the total cost, which amounts to many hundreds of billions more). It's also clear, from the Pentagon's own budget analyses, that well over half of the $700 billion-plus budget has little if anything to do with the threats the United States faces now or in the foreseeable future. The past seven years have been a free-for-all for the nation's military contractors and service chiefs; the number of canceled weapons projects can be counted on one hand; they've otherwise received nearly all the money for everything they've asked for. Even many of the beneficiaries realize that the binge is coming to an end; the nation simply can't afford it. Obama's fortune is that he can order the cuts, invoking not his own preferences but the sober-minded urgings of a business advisory group in the Bush administration.

The original story is less sanguine about the chances for this to actually occur. Still, the idea that large portions of the military budget can eliminated without affecting America's safety and security is not something that normally sees print in a major media outlet.

Kaplan's Slate article reminds me, too, why I think he is the best writer on national security issues. His work is based on a healthy amount of realism and a definite respect for what the actual work of "projecting power" means to the man or woman at the point of the spear. I like that he is always skeptical about the utility of using lethal force in America's relations with other nations.