The American Conservative

I am wondering if other TAC readers noticed the metamorphoses in a New York Times article that I noted last night and this morning?  A featured article appeared on the NYT website last night under the headline “United States War Game Sees Disaster in an Israeli Attack on Iran.”  By this morning that headline had replaced “disaster” with “perils,” softening the message while the link itself says “dire results.”  If one actually reads the article, disaster would appear to be much the best word, the text describing a conflict that would quickly become regional and drag the US in with unfortunate consequences for Americans in general and for the military presence in Asia.  While it is refreshing that the mainstream media is finally waking up to the fact that war with Iran would not be a “cakewalk,” it is also discouraging to note that efforts are being made to manage the message to keep the attack option on the table.  No doubt Senators Graham, McCain and Lieberman would regard “perils” as an acceptable risk to take.

There are rules of proper etiquette in the Washington think tank culture, the most annoying of which is to suppress all emotion for a given topic in the interest of appearing aloof and dispassionate, ever-reaching for the inner Mr. Spock in some narcissistic attempt to look more scholarly than everyone else. Apparently another “must,” particularly in the national security think tank sphere, is never to invoke President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 speech in which he ominously gives name to the Military Industrial Complex (MIC).

As the 34th President said:

“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Think tank maven Robert Kagan, who has been sloshing about at the military trough so long he wouldn’t know a MIC from a St. Paddy’s Day reveler, waved off a brief mention of the foreboding Eisenhower speech at a panel discussion of his new book and how national security issues are affecting the presidential election at the swanky neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on Thursday.

“Among the many things I didn’t like about Eisenhower that speech was one of them —  I don’t like that speech and I did not know what he was talking about,” Kagan flippantly retorted to a soft-spoken questioner who apparently hadn’t gotten the rule book that says there will be no uncomfortable questions that include the words (in no certain order or combination),  “propaganda,” “military industrial complex,” or “Eisenhower.” Case closed. Next question?

Kagan, who hails from the aggressively establishment Brookings Institution, was on hand to collect think-tanky accolades for his new tome, not surprisingly entitled,  The World America Made, which is about, in part, maintaining U.S hegemony, or as Kagan likes to calls it, “American World Power” throughout the globe. Kagan of course knows what Eisenhower was talking about, but to people in Washington’s NatSec hive, criticizing the MIC is like throwing mother’s milk out the kitchen window. The only way the U.S can exercise this global power Kagan is so breathlessly selling is to have the war machine running balls to the wall 24/7 — every institution, every technology, every human cog a symbol of power to be used and exported for both message and might. As Kagan wrote in his ponderous New Republic essay in January, “Preserving the present world order requires constant American leadership and constant American commitment.”

That Eisenhower. What a weenie.

In Kagan’s world, America is not in decline, it’s just going through persistent struggle. But it’s been there before. “Success in the past does not guarantee success in the future. But one thing does seem clear from the historical evidence: the American system, for all its often stultifying qualities, has also shown a greater capacity to adapt and recover from difficulties than many other nations, including its geopolitical competitors.” Chicken Soup for the Empire’s soul. Read More…

In March 1282, the French King Charles of Anjou, a protégé of the Pope in Rome, controlled southern Italy and Sicily.  On the Vigil of Easter a drunken French sergeant began to bother a young married woman at a festival in a village near Palermo.  Her husband killed the sergeant just as the church bells were ringing for Vespers.  The bells began to ring all over the city as news of the outrage spread, soon leading to cries of “Moranu li Francisi,” death to the French.  Within days thousands of Frenchmen were dead and Anjou was driven from the island.  Alas, he was soon replaced by the Spaniards.

Celebrated in a Verdi opera, the Sicilian Vespers have been heralded as one of the great popular uprisings against an occupying power.  The Sicilian people reached a tipping point and their rage boiled over at their subjugation to foreigners.  Since that time there have been similar examples of popular rage, culminating in the American, French, and Russian revolutions.  Each required an event or series of events to start the process.

It seems that a Sicilian Vespers type tipping point is being approached, or possibly has already been achieved, in Afghanistan.  Urinating on corpses, burning Qurans, and slaughtering whole families have not exactly inspired the Afghans to welcome their “liberators.”  Rage against the occupation is becoming a dominant sentiment among Afghans, a unifying principle that defeated the British in their First Afghan War and also led more recently to the retreat of the Soviets.  The American Empire is not immune to a similar surge in hostility and has done little to convince locals throughout the Middle East and Asia that it is benevolent or that it has any sympathy for or understanding of local cultures and beliefs.  The US lost a protracted war in Vietnam and has more recently been expelled from Iraq.  The ill conceived and unnecessary wars produced mountains of dead and have impoverished the nation.  The perils of continuing willy-nilly interventionism should be clearly on display for anyone who cares enough to read the signs.  It was time to leave Afghanistan ten years ago.

When even Newt Gingrich begins to understand, even for the wrong reasons, it is surely the beginning of the end for the Afghan adventure. Gingrich argues that that the US presence is “probably counterproductive” and explains that “we’re not prepared to be ruthless enough.” Can we see him lining up with Ron Paul against war at any cost advocates Romney and Santorum?

University of Texas philosophy professor Robert C. Koons has published a courageous essay on whether an attack on Iran — whether by the U.S. directly or with the U.S. aiding Israel — would be a just war. For the sake of argument, Koons grants the worst-case scenario about Iran’s intentions and capabilities, but still finds the case falls far short at present. Consider:

If the justification for the attack were simply Iran’s imminent possession of nuclear weapons, then clearly neither the United States nor Israel would be in a position of comparative justice, since both have nuclear weapons as well. Even if the cause for war were the likely use of Iranian nuclear weapons against innocent civilians, this situation is a murky one, since the United States is the one nation that has actually used nuclear weapons against an enemy and, in at least one case (Nagasaki), against a civilian population center with no significant military installations. In addition, the United States has never officially apologized for the nuclear attack on Japan nor disavowed the future use of its nuclear weapons in such an indiscriminate fashion. Until both the United States and Israel renounce such unjust use of nuclear weapons and make such institutional reforms as are needed to prevent it, we cannot claim that the comparative justice condition has been met.

I am not claiming that there is moral equivalency between America or Israel and Iran. Far from it. However, comparative justice has nothing to do with the overall moral fitness over another. In many cases of just war it would be impossible to make such a judgment. Rather, comparative justice concerns the rectitude of our intentions, as demonstrated by our holding ourselves to the same standard on the issue in question to which we hold the enemy.

Koons is not only “a first-rate philosopher,” as a friend of mine in that field relates, but a conservative and Christian thinker who is not easily ignored by traditionalists who have been pulled into the orbit of militarism. Oddly, or perhaps not, the response from the editor of First Things has been to argue that war does not require a congressional declaration — no comment on the moral questions at the heart of Koons’s argument.

Denouncing Republican “bluster” about war with Iran, President Obama went on the offensive Tuesday:

“Those who are … beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be.”

The president had in mind such remarks as those Newt Gingrich delivered to the Israeli lobby AIPAC that same day: “The red line is now … because the Iranians are deepening their commitment to nuclear weapons” — an assertion the Joint Chiefs and U.S. intelligence agencies say is blatantly false.

They insist: Iran has not made the decision to build a bomb.

Perhaps the president was referring to Mitt Romney’s pledge to that same cheering throng to “station multiple carriers and warships at Iran’s door” and deny Tehran even “the capacity to make a bomb.”

But if “the capacity to make a bomb” means knowledge of how to build one and an ability to enrich uranium to bomb-grade, should they decide to do so, Iran already has that.

Does Mitt want war now?

Perhaps the president had in mind John McCain’s call for U.S. air strikes on Syria, an act of war rejected even by GOP Speaker John Boehner as “premature,” since the “situation in Syria is pretty complicated.”

Have the Republican uber-hawks learned nothing from the war for which they beat the drums 10 years ago? Read More…

Oh Lord Shiva, protect us from the fang of the cobra, the claw of the tiger, and the vengeance of the Afghan.
—old Hindu prayer

NEW YORK—Shock, incomprehension, fury. Americans are feeling these raw emotions as news keeps coming in of more attacks by Afghan government soldiers and officials on U.S. and NATO troops. Six American troops were killed last week as a result of protests across Afghanistan following the burning of Korans by incredibly dim-witted American soldiers.

“Aren’t they supposed to be our allies? We are over there to save them! What outrageous ingratitude,” ask angry, confused Americans.

Angry Britons asked the same questions in 1857 when “sepoys,” individual mercenary soldiers of Britain’s Imperial Indian Army, then entire units rebelled and began attacking British military garrisons and their families. British history calls it the “Indian Mutiny.” Indians call it the “Great Rebellion” marking India’s first striving for freedom from the British Raj and the Indian vassal princes who so dutifully served it.

Britons were outraged by the “perfidy” and “treachery” of their Indian sepoys who were assumed to be totally loyal because they were fighting for the king’s shilling. Victorian Britain reeled from accounts of frightful massacres of Britons at places like Lucknow, Cawnpore, Delhi, and Calcutta’s infamous “black hole.” Read More…

There are several things missing from the march to war that we are seeing playing out at AIPAC this week.  First is the complete absence of any casus belli.  Media and political rhetoric aside, Iran has threatened neither Israel nor the United States and the intelligence agencies of both countries agree that Tehran has not made the decision to construct a nuclear weapon (if it indeed has the ability and resources to do so).  Second is the “security threat” to the United States coming from Iran, cited by President Obama.  What exactly is it and how does Iran, a backward country with an ailing economy and a military unable to project its power beyond its own borders threaten the US?  How can it possibly endanger the United States to such an extent that a war which can have catastrophic economic and political consequences might be justified?

Obama, to give him his due, is holding out against immense pressure on many fronts from Israel and its friends to draw a “nuclear capability” red line that will mean war in fairly short order.  He is supported by the Pentagon and the intelligence community in his resistance.  But he has nevertheless turned over US foreign policy in a key part of the world to Israel, saying unconditionally that he has “Israel’s back” and that he guarantees its security.  That means that no matter what Israel does, justified or not, the US will get involved, something that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands very well.  It would be war with no concern for what the consequences might be for the American people because, after all, Netanyahu could care less about the US except insofar as it is a source of material and political support.

Obama has also opened the door to a replay of Iraq.  He has pledged to use military force against Iran to “prevent” Tehran’s development of a nuclear weapon.  Prevent is the key word as it means preemption.  Preemption will be based on evidence that Iran is building a weapon.  As with Iraq, evidence can be fabricated or planted to suit.  There have already been instances of fabricated intelligence being generated to create the impression that Iran is not only seeking a weapon but is also advancing a project to be able to mount it on a ballistic missile.  It is not hard for a sophisticated intelligence agency like Mossad to fake the necessary evidence, that will then be picked up by the usual suspects in the US media and in congress, to make the case for war.

We are seeing something awful unfolding before our very eyes – an essentially phony case for going to war being driven by a foreign country and its domestic lobby with the political class too terrified to say no and a complicit media beating the drum.

The prime minister of Israel is angry with Barack Obama and is coming here to force a hardening of U.S. policy toward Iran.

“Bibi” Netanyahu had his anger on display at a meeting in Israel with Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

McCain emerged saying he had never seen an Israeli prime minister “that unhappy.” “He was angry,” said McCain. “I’ve never seen U.S.-Israel relations at this point.”

“The Israelis are unnerved,” said Graham. “They think the administration is sending the wrong signal, and so do I.”

What has so enraged Netanyahu? The Obama policy of tightening sanctions on Iran while holding out the opportunity for Tehran to negotiate and provide guarantees that its nuclear program is not aimed at an atomic bomb. Read More…

“I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. … I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies.”

As President Obama sent this letter of apology to Hamid Karzai for the burning by U.S. troops of Qurans that were used to smuggle notes between Afghan prisoners, two U.S. soldiers were murdered in reprisal.

Saturday, a U.S. colonel and a major working in the Interior Ministry were shot dead by an Afghan protesting the desecration of the Islamic holy book. All U.S. officers have been pulled out of the ministries in Kabul.

Sunday, seven U.S. troops on base were wounded by a grenade.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. John Allen, commander in Afghanistan, have also offered their apologies.

Remarkable. After fighting for 10 years, investing $500 billion, and losing nearly 2,000 dead and many more wounded and maimed to save Afghanistan from a Taliban future, America is issuing apologies to the regime and people we are fighting and dying to defend?

And how has Obama’s apology been received?

Abdul Sattar Khawasi, a member of Parliament, stood with 20 other members to declare, “Americans are invaders, and jihad against Americans is an obligation.” He urged mullahs to “urge the people … to wage war against Americans.”

In what other war would we have tolerated this from an elected leader of a government we had sent an army of 100,000 to protect?

Undeniably, the soldiers who burned the Qurans blundered. Yet there is no evidence that it was malicious. If vandals desecrate a Bible in America, burning and replacing the holy book would not be regarded a valid excuse for mayhem and murder.

If Afghans cannot understand this mistake and have no other way to express their rage than rioting and ranting, “Death to America!” what kind of raw material are we working with in building a Western-style democracy in any foreseeable century?

Two pertinent questions needs to be put.

While keeping Afghanistan free of the Taliban is a desirable goal, what vital U.S. interest would be imperiled should the Taliban take over again, now that al-Qaida is largely gone?

What price in blood and billions should we expend on what appears a dubious enterprise at best — creating a pro-American democracy in a country that seems mired in some distant century?

It is time we took inventory of all of these wars we have fought since the Army of Desert Storm restored the emir of Kuwait to his throne.

That 1991 war was seen as a triumph of American arms and a model of the global cooperation to come in establishing the New World Order of George H.W. Bush. Read More…

The news media today are reporting how seven US servicemen who were training Afghan security forces were wounded in a grenade attack carried out at a base in Afghanistan, presumably by one of their students.  That is on top of two US Army officers murdered while advising an Afghan government ministry two days ago and two other American soldiers killed by an Afghan army officer two days before that.  All were killed and wounded as a result of the Quran burning incident, which has produced major violence and resulted in the deaths of many Afghan civilians.

There have been numerous other killings of ISAF advisers by their students, including an Albanian and several Italians last week.  ISAF has withdrawn all its advisers from Afghan government ministries and the French and Germans have ceased all training while they re-evaluate the situation.  France is considering leaving the country ahead of schedule.

If anything underscores the absolute futility of the US and NATO “mission” in Afghanistan it is the attacks being staged against so-called trainers and advisers by the very people that some in Washington believe we are helping.  The Afghans recognize that they are being occupied by foreign and alien forces even if the Pentagon and White House haven’t quite figured it out.

I supported the initial US intervention in Afghanistan because it was a terrorist haven from which we were attacked and I was, in fact, one of the first CIA officers to arrive in the country after the Taliban fell.    We should have then stabilized the situation insofar as possible, installed a puppet, and left.  No one will be able to straighten out Afghanistan but the Afghans, if it can be done at all.  And that is their problem because, after all, it is their country.  The recent killings demonstrate that it is not a question of leaving Afghanistan in 2013, or 2014, or even 2020 as some generals would prefer.  We should have left a long time ago and spared the thousands of killed in action US and Allied troops as well as the tens of thousands of Afghans who have died in a war that is not only the longest in US history but also completely pointless and unwinnable.