Now that the "realists" have ridden into town gleefully consigning the Bush doctrine to the ash heap of history, everyone has discovered the notion of interests, as if it were some new idea thought up by James Baker and the Iraq Study Group.
What do people think we've been doing for the past five years? True, the president's rhetoric has a tendency to go soaringly Wilsonian, e.g. the banishing-tyranny stuff in his second inaugural address. But our policies of democratization in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon have been deeply rooted in the most concrete of American interests.
If we really had been in the grip of "idealism," we'd be deep in Chad and Burma and Darfur. We are not. We are instead trying to sustain fragile democracies in three strategically important countries Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon that form the geographic parentheses around the principal threat to Western interests in the region, the Syria-Iran axis.
We are trying to bring democracy to Iraq in particular because a pro-Western government enjoying legitimacy and popular support would have been the most enduring means of securing our interests there. Deposing Saddam & Sons was essential because they posed a permanent strategic threat to the region and to U.S. interests. But their successor the popularly elected Maliki government has failed.
#1
The United States should be giving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a clear ultimatum: If he does not come up with a political solution in two months or cede power to a new coalition that will, the United States will abandon the Green Zone; retire to its bases; move much of its personnel to Kurdistan, where we are welcome and safe; and let the civil war take its course. Let the current Green Zone-protected Iraqi politicians who take their cue from Moqtada al-Sadr face the insurgency alone. That might concentrate their minds on either making a generous offer to the Sunnis or stepping aside for a coalition that would.
All difficulties aside with respect to supplying what would be our northern-based troops in the Kurdish area, this solution would provide the quickest results with the least impact upon the Coalition.
Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker asks whether Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will have another corruption issue in caucus leadership. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) served as ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies and under normal circumstances would take the chair from Frank Wolf, the current Republican chair. However, Rood points to an ugly conflict of interest that would immediately present itself if he does:
The FBI's probing Mollohan for possible violations of the law arising from his sprawling network of favors and money which connects him to good friends via questionable charities, alarmingly successful real estate ventures, and hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarked funds.
The investigation appears to be active and ongoing. We're told that the Feds continue to gather information on the guy. Yet the Democrats look poised to make Mollohan the chairman of the panel which controls the purse strings for the entire Justice Department -- including the FBI. ...
"Mollohan should definitely be recusing himself from all appropriations decisions regarding the Justice Department, including the FBI," said Melanie Sloan, director of the left-leaning D.C. watchdog, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). For Mollohan, there is the danger of even appearing to manipulate the Justice Department's budget in response to its probe. For the FBI, it creates possible charges of soft-pedaling their investigation in exchange for favorable funding, Sloan said.
Pelosi ran on the winning message that Democrats could clean up corruption in Congress better than the Republicans. Yet even before the new session of Congress begins, the Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated that reform takes a back seat to the acquisition of power. Pelosi herself has been the worst of the lot, backing porkmeister and Abscam-tainted John Murtha as Majority Leader, followed by her support for Alcee Hastings as Intelligence Committee chair despite his impeachment and removal from the federal bench for corruption.
It's not as if Mollohan flew under the radar before the election. The FBI investigation has been widely reported, and the issues appear rather serious. It hasn't received the kind of coverage that William Jefferson has, but then again, the FBI hasn't found $90,000 in cash in Mollohan's freezer. In any event, the appointment of Mollohan to any leadership position would show a distinct pattern of corruption in Democratic leadership.
If Mollohan is allowed to chair the subcommittee that handles the budget for the law-enforcement agencies that have him under investigation, that pattern will become breathtaking. Rood mentions the potential for mischief on both sides; Mollohan could act to choke off funds to the FBI to pressure them to drop the investigation, or the FBI could pressure Mollohan for budgetary favors in exchange for a lower priority on their investigation into his actions. The former seems much more likely than the latter, and the subcommittee should be concerned about the FBI's ability to accuse them of malfeasance with every unfavorable ruling they deliver to the Department of Justice.
Mostly, though, the arrangement stinks, and everyone aware of the situation will realize that. Nothing would demonstrate the emptiness of the Democratic pledges of clean government than putting the target of a criminal investigation in charge of the budget of the Department of Justice. If the Democrats do not remove Mollohan from the panel entirely, they will have made a collosal political error. If they allow him to chair the subcommittee, they will show themselves complicit in corruption, and we will have to expect more of the same for the next two years.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- India's successful test of its own anti-ballistic Prithvi missile Monday still leaves the country a long way from fielding its own, home-produced short- and intermediate- range BMD systems. But it wasn't chickenfeed either.
In the test, as the Times of India reported, an upgraded version of the Prithvi shot down a conventional Prithvi at high altitude over the Bay of Bengal. The interceptor was launched from India's Integrated Test Range at Chandipur-on-sea and the test rocket from Wheeler Island in Orissa.
The success came as an enormous relief to India's long-embattled and much criticized Defense and Research Development Organization, or DRDO. As we have noted in these columns before, over the past three decades, DRDO has invested billions of dollars into high prestige, ambitious long-range ballistic missile, high-tech light combat aircraft, a new main battle tank and even a touted nuclear submarine with almost nothing to show for it.
We also monitored earlier this year the embarrassing failure of a test of India's ambitious Agni III intercontinental ballistic missile which, if successfully developed and deployed, would give New Delhi the deterrent capability to fire nuclear warheads at any city in China including Beijing.
Rajiv Singh in an authoritative analysis published by the b-domain.com Web site Wednesday gave important details about what wa sine ffect a new Indian-developed ABM interceptor.
"According to DRDO officials, the new missile had inertial guidance in mid-course and active-seeker guidance (i.e. a radar-seeking warhead) in the terminal phase," Singh wrote. "While the first stage of the interceptor was similar to the Prithvi missile, its second stage was a totally new segment. The yet to be named "high supersonic" interceptor missile has been developed by the DRDO as part of an 'exo-atmospheric intercept system' designed to 'hit-to-kill' incoming ballistic missiles."
Singh noted that DRDO officials told reporters the new ABM could detect a target in less than 30 seconds and launching an interceptor at it within 50 seconds. "According to the officials, many technologies, like high-maneuverability of the interceptor missile, were validated in the test. The flight time for nuclear capable missiles launched from Pakistan is a bare 5 to 8 minutes," he wrote.
Monday's successful test was also an excellent omen for A. K. Anthony, India recently appointed defense minister.
However, as Singh observed, "Defense analysts at home (in India) adopted a prudent posture with regard to the development. They had sufficient reasons to be prudent given DRDO's patchy track record in developing high-tech defense systems for the country's defense services."
He noted that the DRDO had previously "failed to operationalize the much touted 9-kilometer (5.4 mile) range Trishul and the 25-km (15 mile) range Akash air-defense missiles. These missiles have been undergoing 'successful' tests for as long as anyone can remember."
Nevertheless, as Singh acknowledged, "The successful missile interception test now allows India to stand alongside a few countries, such as the U.S., Russia and Israel, that possess a missile defense capability."
The upgraded Prithvi ABM interceptor appears to rank with the U.S. Patriot PAC-3 system, Russia's S-300 and Israel's Arrow in its intended ability to intercept short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. However, the Patriot, the S-300 and the Arrow are all deployed, much tested systems. Even after the extremely positive results of Monday's test, the upgraded Prithvi ABM still clearly as a long way to go to achieve that status.
Indeed, the United States has been trying to sell the Patriot to India as part of the increasingly close strategic weapons cooperation between the two nations. However, so far the Indians have balked at that. Also Singh noted what he called "informed speculation over the years ... that India may already have deployed a few batteries of the Russian S-300 system as an interim arrangement."
Given the continuing warm ties between India and Russia, the huge high-tech weapons orders that the current Congress-UPA dominated government and the previous Baharataya Janata Party-led one have both given to Russia and the exceptional enthusiasm for Russian aerospace technology shown for so many years by long-time Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes, that "informed speculation" seems extremely likely.
Singh noted that the Prithvi-I, "first tested in 1988, has a range of 150 km (90 miles) and deploys a conventional or low-yield nuclear warhead for use against troops or armored formations. Its two variants, Prithvi-II and Prithvi-III, with lesser payloads, have an increased range of 250 km (150 miles) and 350 km (210 miles) respectively. While the Prithvi-II was first tested in January 1996, Prithvi-III underwent its first test firing in October 2004. The Indian Army has already inducted Prithvi- I and II into service."
At the end of the day, when all the cautions, caveats and qualifiers have been made, a crucial underlying fact remains: India has now shown its capability to home produce an effective anti-ballistic missile prototype. France, Britain, Germany, China and Japan have not yet developed the capability to make one of these by themselves, though Japan will certainly is on a crash program to do so with extensive U.S. cooperation and China is already lavishly supplied with S-300 systems, and possibly others, bought from Russia.
The strategic balance of the world therefore shifted on Monday. India took a very large step indeed and served notice that it has much to give, as well as to receive, in its strategic weapons and BMD cooperation with the United States.
Posted by: john ||
12/03/2006 06:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
Food for thought here. I don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Kasparov says, but he makes an interesting point.
By Garry Kasparov
For the past few years, the dictators and terrorists have been gaining ground, and with good reason. The deepening catastrophe in Iraq has distracted the world's sole superpower from its true goals, and weakened the U.S. politically as well as militarily. With new congressional leadership threatening to make the same mistake--failing to see Iraq as only one piece of a greater puzzle--it is time to return to the basics of strategic planning.
Thirty years as a chess player ingrained in me the importance of never losing sight of the big picture. Paying too much attention to one area of the chessboard can quickly lead to the collapse of your entire position. America and its allies are so focused on Iraq they are ceding territory all over the map. Even the vague goals of President Bush's ambiguous war on terror have been pushed aside by the crisis in Baghdad.
The U.S. must refocus and recognize the failure of its post-9/11 foreign policy. Pre-emptive strikes and deposing dictators may or may not have been a good plan, but at least it was a plan. However, if you attack Iraq, the potential to go after Iran and Syria must also be on the table. Instead, the U.S. finds itself supervising a civil war while helplessly making concessions elsewhere.
#2
Thanks for posting this, Steve. I've seen some of Kasparov's other op-eds (esp. in the WSJ) post-9/11, and there's no doubt whatsoever that he's on the side of the good guys. About the only thing his analysis is missing is why GWB and Co. failed to anticipate the damage the fifth-column media would cause to both the Iraq campaign and the larger GWOT.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
12/03/2006 0:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It is an interesting analysis, but I don't buy it. Viewing the world as a chess board neglects the fact that foriegn policy has many participants that can influence outcomes, beyond the two players at the board.
Taking the chess analogy a little further, imagine being a player whose pieces can have their capabilities restricted by defensive rules of engagement. So your queen can suddenly only move left to right, your bishop can only move one square at a time, you can only move every second pawn, and only when there is a black pawn less than 2 squares away. pretty screwball way to play chess, but our ROEs limit the aggresive use of combat forces in exactly this way.
Imagine being the white player, but some of your allies are black pieces, and you don't know which. And there are some other colours that pop onto your board every now and again and take out your pieces, and players from other boards keep telling you how to play, and squares on the board randomly explode every now and then.
Imagine that the spectators in the chess stadium can't really see the board, so they make up whatever they like to explain what is happening. But they make it up in a way that they think will impress their friends "back home". And it does, even though it has nothing to do with what is actully happening on the board.
#4
To expand on Bunyip's analysis: What if I walked up to one of the chess players and sawed his head off with a scimitar while making a "lulululululu" sound. That's going to screw-up a well planned Lucena position...
#6
Viewing the world as a chess board neglects the fact that foriegn policy has many participants that can influence outcomes, beyond the two players at the board.
Remember, "Almost everyone who has been around me turned out to be a secret agent working for the Jews, working for the CIA... The Jews have planted so many of their Jew agents and CIA rats all around me. So many people... Girlfriends, lawyers, everybody almost, turned out to be working for the CIA and the Jews! Unbelievable but true."
Yes - I really believe this!
Posted by: Bobby Fisher ||
12/03/2006 9:11 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Not smart enough to spell my own name.
Posted by: Bobby Fischer ||
12/03/2006 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
lol "Bobby". Somehow I just knew you'd make an appearance
(the bonefish told me so)
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/03/2006 9:16 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Hmmm..Obsessed With Iraq, We've Lost Sight Of The Rest Of The World
America has always been accused of losing 'sight of the rest of the world', before, during, and most likely after Iraq. Maybe we pay attention to things we think are important to us! Wow, what a concept, not like any other nation seems to ignore what seems important to some people. Like I see all the hard work being done on Darfur by others. Maybe, our attention wouldn't be necessary if others actually started carrying the load and not simply pass resolutions and make proclamations about numerous and various crisis around the globe.
#11
Those of us who watched President Reagan and Elliot Abhrams export US model democracy and prosperity to Latin America, have to wonder why the leftist wreckers are returning to office. The model worked, and I saw it in person in Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia and Central America. Unfortunately, Latin Americans are buying quick fix Jimmy Carter snake oil. Could anything have been done to maintain Reagan-Abhrams?
#12
Politics is not chess, it is poker. In this case the player holding the Cards (bush) has folks yelling his cards and demanding to know every move prior to any move.
Mostly a vanity post, I was amused by this coherent, well-reasoned one-star review of Robert Spencer's new book:
In my opinion, it is crystal clear that this book was written by its unfortunate author only to twist the facts in order to twist the minds of the uneducated readers. This is clear even before you start reading the book. It seems, the book's language is just like this review's language with all the obvious intentions to demote this extremely historical fugure (Muhammed) with 1.3 billion followers in the world. It is ironic to assume that all these followers of the religion are following a "convict". For that, author of this book must have a straight, clear intention for writing this book, which is to show his uneducated take of the religion to other uneducated readers.
Another call for the group Brillo pad please ...
I attended a dinner party recently in Ohio with a number of young American couples - successful surgeons, homemakers and lawyers who had small children and bright hopes. They were Muslims - quite appreciative of their American home and quite assimilated, speaking with great enthusiasm about the latest college football ranking controversies, real estate prices and the "Borat" movie. I am sure none of them will support Sharia Courts for Muslims in their state.
While flying home to Los Angeles the next day, I began to wonder: Could Osama bin Laden and America's right-wing zealots be in cahoots? It seems both parties want these families to accept that they cannot be truly American and truly Muslim. Polls of Muslims in the West consistently report that their primary identity is based on their forced indoctrination to the Islam cult.
During the pope's recent visit to Turkey, he spent time making amends for arguing that Christianity is compatible with modern civilization in a manner that Islam cannot hope to be.
Many Westerners wish he hadn't shifted his rhetoric from divisive to reconciling. Such persons are as dangerous to long-term peace as are fanatical Muslim hillbillies, because they help shape the policy of the world's lone superpower.
And the overblown "clash of civilizations" could thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That "prophecy" has been fulfilled.
Ann Coulter's post-9/11 suggestion that we "invade" countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" resulted in her dismissal by a conservative publication. Five years later, the Coulter Hydra effect is evident among the loyal fan bases of provocateurs such as Mark Steyn and Robert Spencer and the lively hordes on Web sites such as Little Green Footballs and WorldNetDaily... What about Rantburg? Zenster might want to sleep with Ann Coulter.
#2
Count the number of women with head coverings, Mr. Asghar.
Posted by: ed ||
12/03/2006 2:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Article: Such persons are as dangerous to long-term peace as are fanatical Muslim hillbillies, because they help shape the policy of the world's lone superpower.
This writer is a moron. And he has something against hillbillies - he would presumably shrink from thinking of blacks as scum - but hillbillies? No problem for him.
Whatever this moron thinks, the sad reality is that hillbillies are not the people who plague us. All of the 9/11 hijackers were literate people, and most of them were college graduates. Bin Laden graduated from college with an engineering degree. Zawahiri is a doctor. None of these are soft disciplines where you can BS your way through. The people devising IED's in Iraq are the cream of Iraq (just as the Nazis were the cream of Germany) illiterates cannot put these contraptions together. Illiterates certainly cannot devise battle plans that have kept American planners up late for several years, in contrast to other American interventions, where the opposition has been quickly routed. Illiterates cannot fly planes. Foreign-born illiterates certainly cannot mingle easily with Westerners and speak European languages.
#4
Doubt it, as Osama's concubine = "sex slave" has been wid him since the teen yarns. And then there's Osama's desire for WHITNEY.
* "America's right-wing zealots" > SSSSSHHHHHH, CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC, is now also the DemoLeft, Clintonian America = Amerika, USA = USSA/USR, favorite anti-Elite Elitists, anti-Conservative Conservatives, etal. CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC...., SSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH, CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC....
#13
there are lots of prosperous moderatemuslims in places like San Gabriel county.
However, reporters like Rob Asghar don't realize (or don't want to acknowledge) that all Muslims are supposed to strive toward establishing Sharia states and when they do, these prosperous moderatemuslims will be executed or have their wealth used for jihad.
#15
Actually Crack heads can be quite dangerous when looking for their fix... Maybe Whitney should be encouraged to move in with Osama. Tell her he knows all the major crack suppliers.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
