Focal Points Blog
Firing Gen. McChrystal and replacing him with Gen. Petraeus raises many questions. For example, some say that when he accepted the post as top commander in Afghanistan, it was made clear to Gen. Petraeus that he’d come away with no great success like he supposedly had in Iraq with the Surge. On the other hand, did Petraeus take the position on the condition that the United States would send more troops to Iraq and switch back to a counterterrorism strategy from counterinsurgency?
But President Obama has stated that our Afghanistan strategy will remain the same. While that may be an attempt to appear strong and present a united front, will the administration, in fact, use this as an opportunity to begin the Great Drawdown? (After all, McChrystal is a ready-made fall guy for the failure of COIN.)
At IPS News Gareth Porter has an answer to those who fear that the error of COIN is about to be compounded with a new Surge (which always struck me as reinforcements rebranded):
Petraeus’s political skills and ability to sell a strategy involving a negotiated settlement offers Obama more flexibility than he has had with McChrystal in command.
Contrary to the generally accepted view that Petraeus mounted a successful counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, his main accomplishment was to make the first formal accommodation with Sunni insurgents.
Petraeus demonstrated in his command in Iraq a willingness to adjust strategic objectives in light of realities he could not control. He had it made it clear to his staff at the outset that they would make one last effort to show progress, but that he would tell Congress that it was time to withdraw if he found that it was not working.
Do Focal Points readers think the appointment of General Petraeus might portend peace, or another surge?
In the security biz, it’s rarely the anticipated events that kick your butt. It’s those so-called ‘black swans’ that blindside you, and maybe even inflict a career-ending injury.
Let me suggest one of those is paddling up the bayou at this very moment – carefully dodging the oil slicks – and we’re so busy looking at old threats and repeating our old prejudices at ever higher volume that we can’t hear the splash of those big, webbed feet.
- The wealth gap between the richest 1% and everyone else in America hasn’t been this bad since the Roaring Twenties
- The richest 1% has over 33% of the wealth
- The richest 10% has over 71% of the wealth
- Half of America has only 2.5% of the wealth
- Real average earnings have not increased in 50 years
- Savings rates are shrinking
- And the only real socio-economic mobility is downward.
I think this is the greatest national security risk facing America – and it’s completely under the radar.
Now, let me be clear. I’m not just talking about a backlash from tea party types, militia members and disgruntled Cessna pilots having a really bad day. (Although I expect there will be plenty of that.) It’s much more serious.
Real security is about economic and social well-being. And what those graphics show is that the American economy is a house of cards, waiting for a good breeze, and societal well-being is heading south faster than Joe Barton’s seniority on Energy and Commerce.
That breeze might come from the looming collapse of the commercial real estate market and its highly leveraged CDOs; the implosion of the municipal bond market and states’ inability to raise money to keep providing services; or any of a number of potential shocks that could trigger an iterative ‘avalanche’ effect.
This is an existential grade threat, sport fans. It’s quite literally about the ‘hollowing out’ of America, and its steady progress toward failed state status.
(BTW, the annual Failed States Index just came out, and guess what? America is rated ‘moderate’ in terms of failure potential.)
This is about the danger of shattered dreams and expectations, and the disintegration of primary loyalties (patriotism / nationalism). It’s about the transfer of allegiance from nation state to sub-national entities, be those clan, tribe, gang, corporation, neighborhood or . . . **
Now dial in these multipliers.
Most all of the ‘growth’ in the American economy since 1998 is smoke. It’s the sale of derivatives and other ‘financial figments’ that are traded without adding any genuine value. The best analogy I can offer is it’s like Hertz rotating the tires on their rental fleet and booking each transaction as a sale.
That monetized smoke has ended up in the hands of that 10% referenced above. Even though the value is mostly illusory, it has tilted the economic scales even more against the average person. All those bubbles caused when the smoke holders try to convert it into real value – whether tech stocks, housing, metals or food – have increased costs of living for the 90%. Multiply that by the reality that real wages have been falling since the 1970s – and if true inflation were honestly factored in it would be far, far worse – and you start to see why Joe Sixpack is not only seriously scared, but righteously pissed.
Bad combo. For as Bob Marley put it so well, ‘A hungry mob is an angry mob.’
And it’s iterative. It cascades. Because all the money has been sucked out by the 10%, there is none left for cops, firefighters, libraries, fixing potholes, building schools . . . the stuff that makes us think tomorrow will be better for ourselves and our children.
(Anyone NOT seeing this in their community?)
The state’s inability to provide services – not least physical security and a stable context for livelihood / savings / retirement – drives people into ‘dark’ economies. (‘They’re not giving me anything back, so screw ‘em.’) That money leaves the system, and the spiral deepens.
One of the first policy symptoms is isolationism. People think, ‘Things are tough at home, so the hell with them damn furiners.’ This is a key reason the IrAfPak franchise of the All American Amusement Park is unsustainable – regardless of how much lithium they may find over there.
If POTUS doesn’t get that these wars (which are now perceived as ‘his’) will breed ferocious resentment / blame over the misallocation of resources, he needs new advisors. (Well, he needs those in any case.) At minimum, these underlying realities could make him a one-term wonder. They may even make him the first president to turn federal troops on their fellow citizens in large numbers since the Bonus Army.
Other symptoms of this hollowing out – the ‘sinkhole’ phenomenon – include the onset of social and economic warlordism (think Hezbollah, La Familia and Dudus Coke) active and passive subversion / systems disruption, and, as Bob Marley also sang, ‘Burnin’ and a lootin’ tonight.’
Are we talking tomorrow? No. (Probably not, anyway.) Even failing systems often have more elasticity and capacity in them than we anticipate.
But if we track behavior over time, as the Lubin graphics do so well, the probability of a crater becomes much more apparent.
Buckle up, Bunkie. We could be heading for a wild ride.
**One of the really interesting questions is what kind of ‘attractors’ the new loyalties will coalesce around. I doubt they’ll be ideological – at least for long – because dogma tends to make orgs non-adaptive. I believe their primary characteristics will be entrepreneurial and they’ll provide not only livelihood, but also identity, community, security and fun. Think Robin Hood meets Ecotopia. Or, maybe, Steve Jobs dances with wolves.
And thanks to Fabius Maximus for the link to the Lubin piece!
Trying to track—let alone make sense—of recent developments around Iran is enough to make one reach for that stuff they just found lots of in Afghanistan: lithium. While the element is essential for a host of electronics, it is also a standard treatment for bipolar behavior.
Take the issue of Iran’s missile force. The conservative International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London concluded that the threat the missiles pose to Israel, the U.S. or its allies has been vastly overstated. “While such attacks might trigger fear, the expected casualties would be low—probably less than a few hundred,” the study found. Iran’s Shehab-1 and 2 cannot even reach Israel, and it will be at least three years before the longer range Shahab-3B and Sejjil-2 are deployed. In any case, according to the study, the missiles are inaccurate.
But while the IISS was pooh-poohing the danger, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Europe was threatened by “hundreds” of Iranian missiles, although Iran doesn’t have a missile that can come close to hitting Europe. Gates was on Capitol Hill pumping the Obama administration’s new sea and land-based “ phased adaptive approach” to missile defense.
In the meantime, the U.S. was sending an aircraft carrier and almost a dozen support ships into the Red Sea. Rumor has it that the fleet will try to intercept Gaza aid ships organized by the Iranian Red Crescent Society. Several Israeli submarines are currently deployed in the Gulf of Iran as well, along with a newly arrived surface warship. While it seems extremely unlikely that the U.S. would actually try to halt the Iranian ships, U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said, “ I don’t think that Iran’s intentions vis-à-vis Gaza are benign.”
The London Times reported that the Israelis and the Americans had come to an agreement with Saudi Arabia to allow Israeli warplanes to cross the desert kingdom without being challenged on their way to bomb nuclear sites in Iran. While Riyadh called the story “slanderous, the Times was holding to its sources in the Israeli and U.S. militaries. And Tzahi Hanegbi, chair of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said that “time was running out” for Iran.
As I said, people are talking very crazy these days in the Middle East.
If Israeli planes did decide to bomb targets in Iran, conventional thinking is they would hit enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, a gas storage unit at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Planes might also target the light-water reactor at Bushehr. To do so, of course, would require crossing Jordanian and Saudi airspace, but there is very little either country could do about it. Challenging the Israelis in the air is a very bad idea.
Even with mid-flight refueling, it would be a stretch, but it would be hard to knock out Iranian targets using just their missile firing submarines. Unless, of course, the Israelis are willing to cross the Hiroshima-Nagasaki line and use nuclear warheads. It seems like madness, but then some people are talking pretty crazy these days.
In a recent Christian Science Monitor article, “Does Israel suffer from ‘Iranophobia’?”, reporter Scott Peterson examines the Israeli mindset and found some pretty scary things. “There’s something utterly irrational and exceedingly disproportionate in Israeli understandings of the Iranian threat,” says Haggai Ram, a professor at Ben Gurion University and author of “Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession.”
“Iran is perhaps the most central issue [in Israel], yet there is really no critical debate about this,” says Ram, and for those Israelis who do challenge the idea that Iran is an “existential threat” to Israel, “they are immediately rendered into these bizarre self-defeating, self-hating Jews, and seen as a fifth column.”
According to Ram, “For Israelis, anti-Iran is a consensus. You don’t have to be a neoconservative to wish for the destruction of Iran.” Polls show that Prime Minister Netanyahu is growing in popularity, and that Israelis are circling the wagons on everything from the attack on the Gaza flotilla to the embargo of Gaza Strip.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad has also said that one day “Israel will vanish,” but much of his bombast is for internal consumption and the need to divert people from the economic crisis at home. Netanyahu’s comparison of Ahmadinejad to Hitler, and of the current situation to 1939, serves much the same purpose. Focusing on Iran keeps the world’s eyes away from the ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands and the strangulation of Gaza.
How much of this is real is hard to sort out. The U.S. talks about Iran as a “threat,” even though Iran has neither the military nor the economic capabilities to inflict serious damage on Americans. Iran can also talk about Israel vanishing, but can do nothing to actually facilitate that. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, to use it would be national suicide, and the Iranians have never exhibited a desire for self-destruction.
The danger is that rhetoric and bombast can create its own reality and lead to a mistake. The Israeli attack on the Turkish ship was just that. When people with nuclear weapons talk in apocalyptic language, it’s something to pay attention to.
If a nuclear weapon is an evil fruit of the times we live in, its “pit” is like a dollop of brimstone ladled out by Satan with love from hell.
Didn’t know a nuclear weapon has a pit? First, it behooves us to note that the word “pit” has a number of definitions. In fact, even when applied to fruit — “a seed covered by a stony layer” — it’s of two faces like Janus. To humans, it’s waste material to be discarded, but from a tree’s point of view (on whatever level, such as cellular), it’s a means of ensuring the future of its species.
The nuclear-weapons industry adopted the word “pit” for the weapon’s core, which is power-packed with the varieties of uranium or plutonium isotopes capable of a warp-speed chain reaction. Yes, it’s a seed for the a chain reaction. But instead of ensuring anything or anyone’s continued existence, the pit instead serves as a cache for — drum roll, please — a seed of destruction.
Why have I brought up the subject of nuclear pits? A project for their production is pivotal to the Obama administration’s plans for nuclear modernization. In a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists piece titled Bunker mentality: Is NNSA digging itself into a hole at Los Alamos?, Greg Mello writes that “as part of the New START ratification package, the administration projects $16 billion in new warhead spending over this decade.” A beneficiary of the funding, if passed by Congress, would be Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, where — boring name alert — the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility for producing said pits would be built for a whopping $3.4 billion.
Mello writes that, at “270,000-square-foot” the new facility “would add only 22,500-square-feet of additional plutonium processing and lab space to [Los Alamos's] existing 59,600-square-feet of comparable space.” It “works out to $151,000 per square foot, or $1,049 per square inch.” Holy (watch your tax dollars go up in) smoke!
“But why make pits at all?” Mello asks.
Aside from the many potent reasons to steadily diminish a reliance on nuclear weapons . . . there is already a surfeit of backup pits [which] will last for many decades to come. [Nor is there a] shortage of space to make pits, either at [Los Alamos] or nationwide. … Were [the new facility] in place, [it] would increase production capacity to an even more absurd level. … Every aspect of the . . . project, from the mission itself to the practicality of the building design, should be questioned far more deeply than Congress has done to date.
The Obama administration is making generous concessions to the nuclear industry presumably, as alluded to above, to win votes from Republicans on the new START treaty and other disarmament measures, however tepid. In fact, one can’t help but wonder if the administration and conservatives have committed themselves to cooperation (respectable speak for “conspiracy”) in finding ways to keep the “nuclear-industrial complex” humming along, if at a diminished velocity from its heyday in the fifties to eighties.
Earlier today, Marc Lynch posted a piece entitled “A Good Deal For Gaza” in which he noted reports that the Israeli government is to “significantly ease the blockade of Gaza in exchange for American support for a whitewash of the investigation of the flotilla incident” and argued that “trading off the investigation for the blockade was the right move” for Gazans.
. . . writes Steve Hynd at Newshoggers in Accepting Crumbs? More:
Newshoggers’ pal Tehranchick writes in an email published with her kind permission:
. . . Throwing a few crumbs in their (Palestinians) direction isn’t going to help when we know that the Israeli government can just as easily stop with the crumbs. I see this issue of ‘easing’ as nothing more than concession and appeasement after murderous attack on the flotilla. So please, convince me that Palestinians are going to get real help from ‘the easing.’ Convince me that Netanyahu is serious about change.
That these “crumbs” can be stopped and started at Israeli whim is something Issandr El Amrani at The Arabist worries about too. …
The devil will be in the details, such as the list of allowed goods Israel still has to publish and the character and length of the border procedures for people and goods moving in and out.
To be honest, I think it will take more than one. But I also think that the Gaza Flotilla episode has undermined something crucial in the united-we-stand wall that the US and Israeli have presented to the world. … Thus, although it sticks in my craw to countenance a lack of legal accountability for the Flotilla assault, I’ll reluctantly take the product, if that leads to a wall being tore down, instead.
Finally, Abu Aardvaark himself tweeted:
To all: I’m skeptical about implementation of new Gaza rules too, but still think it’s better to take positive move and work with it.
Do Focal Points readers stand in agreement with Steve Hynd and Marc-Abu Ardvark-Lynch?
I believe it was Amiri Baraka who once said, “one man’s fast is another man’s slow.” The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has destroyed a way of life for many American fishermen. This should be accepted as fact not fiction. The landscape of our nation is going to change soon and not for the better. The recent oil spill is not an aberration. Just look at the story in The New York Times (June 16, 2010) about the awful conditions in the Niger Delta. It’s obvious we need the media to expand its coverage of oil spills. How soon will toxic wastelands become a normal sight for Americans, the way it is for some Nigerians? It’s unfortunate that Africa is still a “dark continent” when it comes to shedding light on the operations of the oil industry. When I read the following in the newspaper, I wanted to weep:
Big oil spills are no longer news in this vast, tropical land. The Niger Delta — where the wealth underground is out of all proportion with the poverty on the surface — has endured the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez spill every year for 50 years by some estimates. The oil pours out nearly every week, and some swamps are long since lifeless.
BP is talking about cleaning up the mess they made. But what does clean-up really mean? Is it no visible oil on the surface of the water? How can life survive after being embraced by oil? What fish or birds would ever want to make love?
In the Niger Delta the villain is Shell. Oil leaks in the region are also a result of oil thieves and aging pipelines, no longer properly being maintained. The people in the Niger Delta have been battling for years to control their destiny and protect their environment.
One wonders what will happen here in the United States? Will a populist movement organize against a big oil company? Will the “small” people fight back?
It might be a good idea to bring Nigerian fishermen and folks from Louisiana to Washington and have them sit side by side and tell their stories. There is a similar (if not singular) narrative taking place and it is beginning to sound too much like science-fiction.
The fear of a black planet could be one engulfed by oil.
Nearly 200 protesters gathered in front of the White House on the afternoon of June 14 to denounce continued U.S. support for Ethiopia’s incumbent regime. Chanting in native Amharic and rallying around the Ethiopian flag, the crowd members were predominantly from DC’s sizable Ethiopian diaspora.
On May 23, Ethiopia held its fourth national election since transitioning to democracy in 1993. The transition away from dictatorship seems incomplete, however, when all four election have reelected President Meles Zenawi and his monolithic EPRDF party by landslide majorities. This year’s officially reported win margin was 99.6% vote for Zenawi, representing the government’s repression of opposition, use of voter intimidation, and rejection of election monitors. This is a significant regression in democratic governance since the last election Ethiopia held in 2005.
The protesters reacted strongly to this regression, calling on the U.S. to change its foreign policy and aid practices, which currently help prop up Zenawi’s regime. Ethiopia receives the third largest amount of foreign aid from the U.S. after Israel and Egypt, receiving $862 million in foreign assistance in 2009. This inundation of aid and diplomatic silence by the U.S. is projected to be because Ethiopia is such valuable U.S. ally in the volatile horn of Africa and in the War on Terror.
But Ethiopians, both in the Horn of Africa and in the U.S. diaspora, are enraged that the U.S. is prioritizing the stability and anti-terrorism policies of their corrupt despot, Zenawi, over encouraging free and fair elections.
The State Department’s assistant press secretary has remained markedly vague and diplomatic, promising, “We will work diligently with Ethiopia to ensure that strengthened democratic institutions and open political dialogue become a reality for the Ethiopian people.”
First, we could start by abandoning this ridiculous, self-indulgent ideological debate over the taxonomy of honour killings. Those on the left who abhor the term are right about one thing: A good few of the people who constantly shout it from the rooftops are mostly interested in demonizing Islam. But that doesn’t change the fact that honour killings can . . . rather easily be distinguished from other cases of domestic violence. A murderer who kills a relative in certainty that his peers will approve is a very different animal from one who does so out of anti-social, purely secular rage.
. . . writes Chris Selley in Recipe to reduce honour killings at Canada’s National Post (gleaned from a Tweet by Doug Saunders of the Globe and Mail). More:
Between 1998 and 2007 . . . 65 Canadian children between the ages of 12 and 17 were killed by a family member. One of them was Aqsa Parvez. … Muhammad Parvez felt humiliated by his daughter’s dress, her behaviour and her choice of friends, and his remedy was to choke the life out of her. “My community will say you have not been able to control your daughter,” he lamented to his wife.
If honour killings are on the rise in Canada. … it’s not as if this is a leading cause of death in Canada, or even of domestic homicide. … The question is not whether this is a problem for the diaspora communities in question, and for Canada. It is. The question is whether it demands sweeping, perhaps structural, changes to Canadian society — for example, “the immigration debate we don’t want to have,” as a Globe and Mail headline darkly intoned yesterday. I don’t think it does. I think it just means we need to try harder.
For example . . .
An unapologetic, incessant message to women and girls living in abusive situations that they don’t have to, and should not, put up with it, backed up with well-funded resources like safe houses and punitive criminal sanctions for offenders.
Asking “What’s the alternative?” Selley concludes:
In a highly theoretical world, we could ban immigration from countries or communities where honour crimes are common. That’s obviously not going to happen. And if it did, we’d be denying people like Aqsa Parvez even the chance to be Canadian. [He] came to Canada as a refugee, not as an immigrant. … Canada granted him asylum from persecution . . . and he repaid the favour by persecuting his daughter for wanting to be free. Because of this cretin, we should turn the country upside down? No thanks.
Do Focal Points readers agree that honor killings can easily be distinguished from other cases of domestic violence? Do you agree with the author that all of us in North America need to guard against over-reacting to honor killings?
His brother said: “He’s not crazy. He’s not a psychopath. He’s not a sociopath. He’s a man on a mission.” His sister described him as a “very patriotic,” man who “had grown frustrated with the public debate over [our] two major wars [as] the main cause had been forgotten [which was that] a man ordered a hit on our country, so we went to war.”
. . . reports the New York Times on Gary Brooks Farber:
An ailing, middle-age construction worker from Colorado [who] armed himself with a dagger, a pistol, a sword, Christian texts, hashish and night-vision goggles and headed to the lawless tribal areas near the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan to personally hunt down Osama bin Laden.
First question for Focal Points readers: Is this vigilante, however much he may be tilting at the windmill of a possibly dead bin Laden, deserving of any admiration whatsoever? Flipping this around, personally I’ve long been somewhat embarrassed by how little interest most Americans have ever shown in tracking bin Laden & co. down. It’s also rendered inexplicable by how we as a nation gorge ourselves on vengeance-based entertainment.
Updating what I wrote in Counterpunch in 2005 . . .
Let’s examine the forces that are ostensibly strong enough to make us jettison the impulse to vengeance.
1. We’re too busy. Living in the most overworked developed nation, we scarcely have the time, even if inclined, to chew over how we were wronged as others in the developed world might, or stew over it like the underemployed of developing nations.
2. Vengeance is so primitive. To many on the East Coast, anger and vengeance are akin to fire and brimstone, that is, the Red states. It’s aggravated by therapy-nation’s credo that anger is not about how we deal with what provoked us, but how we handle the feeling itself. While recent polls [at the time] show Americans favor restrictions of Muslims’ civil liberties, in Manhattan no one turns a head at Arab music issuing from a Middle-Eastern, sidewalk-food-vendor’s boombox. Unfortunately, this comes off less as a commendable reluctance to profile than, once again, an inability to feel and express anger.
3. We’re not actually angry. Many Americans dwelling in points distant from the attacks felt unaffected by 9/11. Others, though it’s seldom spoken of in polite company, we’re secretly glad that New York and Washington were struck. Despite their disdain for the Islamic religion, they weren’t above feeling grateful to its most extreme representatives for wreaking havoc on their biggest enemy: big government and liberals.
4. We ain’t got no quarrel with them Arabs (no disrespect to Muhammad Ali intended). The conventional wisdom on why President Bush was reelected was summed up by Jeff Jacoby in a Boston Globe column: “Americans trust Bush’s judgment on the overriding issue of our time: the West’s life-and-death struggle against Islamist fanaticism. . . he got the core meaning of 9/11 right.” If that’s true, it’s only because the administration sensed, perhaps because of their own pet Saudis, that Middle-Americans had no innate antipathy toward Middle-Easterners. Thus, the string of terror alerts that the administration issued during the election year  may, in part, have been a means of jolting Middle America into upgrading Middle-Easterners to their “A” list of hatred along with gays, Mexicans, and the aforementioned liberals.
5. Bin Laden is not enough. Half of those polled by Zogby International in New York City on the eve of the  Republican National Convention agreed that the administration had foreknowledge of the attacks. While that may be chalked up to fashionable urban cynicism, more and more Americans suspect the administration either commissioned or was complicit in 9/11.
Second question: Granted — 9/11 was a form of blowback. Nor am I personally calling for revenge. My concern is what does our continued nonchalance about bringing back the head of bin Laden say about the mood of our country?