Psychopolitik » Foreign Policy

The “Cuz I Said So” theory of global relations

B Psycho — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:10:45 +0000

Kevin Drum recently added a new tack to the intra-mainstream-liberal argument over Ron Paul, going beyond talking about anti-interventionism with a “yeah, but…” and mentioning the newsletters and their obvious disagreements with much other views of Paul’s, and towards asserting that Ron Paul is radioactive even on what they ostensibly agree with him on. The last sane conservative on foreign policy, also known as Daniel Larison, jumped in to take issue. In response, Drum contradicts himself:

-”People are thinking anti-intervention? Well, DUH, Iraq & Afghanistan! Paul means squat!”

It’s true that the American public is less enamored of war these days than it used to be, but the obvious reason for this can be summed up in two words: Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans are more skeptical of military adventurism than they were ten years ago because the shock of 9/11 has worn off and we’ve gone through two spectacularly disastrous foreign wars. Ron Paul has played almost no role in this at all.

-”Paul is speaking a foreign language on this stuff, no one will agree!”

If you want to advance the cause of a less interventionist foreign policy, you need to find a way to persuade the American public to agree with you. Ron Paul doesn’t do that. He’s never done that. He’s such a stone libertarian that he literally doesn’t know the language to do it.

Um…didn’t you just say people agreed without Ron Paul’s input? Where would the persuasion even come in if people are already there?

This isn’t even the most revealing part of Kevin’s post though. He saves that for a postscript:

I’m in favor of a less interventionist foreign policy, a view that has plenty of voices these days not named Ron Paul, but I’m not a hardcore non-interventionist like Paul. If Iran seriously tried to mine the Strait of Hormuz, for example, I’d fully expect the U.S. Navy to put a stop to it, even if that meant sinking a few Iranian vessels.

If you remember nothing else when it comes to international policy, remember this: people do things for a reason.

In such an exchange, which Kevin is saying he would support, the incentives on both sides — why Iran would mine the strait, and why the U.S. Navy would sink Iranian ships in response — need to be thought of. In Iran’s case, there are other nations in the region that use the strait, and it is assumed that they would see a problem with Iran effectively monopolizing safe passage through it. As such, it is not merely the U.S. government that such a move would antagonize. Could they possibly convince their neighbors that this move was worth the damage to them, merely to annoy the U.S., or would they react in ways up to and including sparing the U.S. Navy the waste of ammunition?

In the U.S.’s case, the use of the strait by Iran’s neighbors and also by others as a pass-through for trade reasons makes it important, but shows obvious incentive for those other than the U.S. to be concerned about access to it. For perspective, here’s a map (click the thumbnail to expand):

Point “A” on that map is Washington, D.C. Point “B” is the Strait of Hormuz. What Kevin is asserting as unquestionable is that the primary responsibility of B falls at A. Whatever you may think of the utility of this, the reasoning behind it has gone unexamined long enough.

Point and Click Empire

B Psycho — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:55:17 +0000

Is it possible for a newspaper article to be one long Kinsley Gaffe?

Reason I ask that question is that the Washington Post put up a lengthy story recently about the reach and operation of drones under Obama, filled with revelations that you would think the local paper of that company town inside the beltway would swallow, so as to not damage the coveted access their employees get for sticking to lame stenography. Here’s just a few of them (all emphasis mine)…

-Due to different claims of “legal authority”, the CIA & the military take turns to maximize their firing potential:

The rapid expansion of the drone program has blurred long-standing boundaries between the CIA and the military. Lethal operations are increasingly assembled a la carte, piecing together personnel and equipment in ways that allow the White House to toggle between separate legal authorities that govern the use of lethal force.

In Yemen, for instance, the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command pursue the same adversary with nearly identical aircraft. But they alternate taking the lead on strikes to exploit their separate authorities, and they maintain separate kill lists that overlap but don’t match.

This means that when there’s discrepancies, they default to kill anyway. Interesting way to deal with obvious redundancy, huh? Sounds like it’d be in a book titled “Everything I Need to Know About Office Relations I Learned Playing Saints Row”.

-That overlap of command, when you look at how congress attempts to deal with it, rapidly looks intentional:

The convergence of military and intelligence resources has created blind spots in congressional oversight. Intelligence committees are briefed on CIA operations, and JSOC reports to armed services panels. As a result, no committee has a complete, unobstructed view. [...] Senior Democrats barely blink at the idea that a president from their party has assembled such a highly efficient machine for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists. It is a measure of the extent to which the drone campaign has become an awkward open secret in Washington that even those inclined to express misgivings can only allude to a program that, officially, they are not allowed to discuss.

Of course they weren’t going to blink — the president is from their party, after all. The obvious-yet-covert nature of the program is a rather clever absurdity, since it forces anyone who’d question the elephant in the room to phrase their remarks as gibberish, easily dismissed. Never mind the fact that it has crossed a line previously thought dealt with over 800 years ago, minor detail.

-This being the Washington Post, the inevitable Anonymous Administration Official makes an appearance to inject some Vitamin BS, downplaying the prospects for expansion of the drone program. Only this time, the remark basically gets debunked a few lines down:

“People think we start with the drone and go from there, but that’s not it at all,” said a senior administration official involved with the program. “We’re not constructing a campaign around the drone. We’re not seeking to create some worldwide basing network so we have drone capabilities in every corner of the globe.” [...] A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office counted 775 Predators, Reapers and other medium- and long-range drones in the U.S. inventory, with hundreds more in the pipeline.

What are those supposed to be used for then? You don’t just stockpile technology like this with the assumption it’s not going to be used. Unless…

-On armed drone strikes, Obama administration officials are actually more hawkish than that cowboy Bush:

Key members of Obama’s national security team came into office more inclined to endorse drone strikes than were their counterparts under Bush, current and former officials said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, former CIA director and current Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, and counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan seemed always ready to step on the accelerator, said a former official who served in both administrations and was supportive of the program. Current administration officials did not dispute the former official’s characterization of the internal dynamics.

Anonymous Current co-signing Anonymous Former. I think I hear the space-time continuum cracking.

-Operational details of the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, including the code cited for doing so — and an example of just how jumbled this whole shiny new Death From Above thing is being handled:

On Sept. 30, Awlaki was killed in a missile strike carried out by the CIA under Title 50 authorities — which govern covert intelligence operations — even though officials said it was initially unclear whether an agency or JSOC drone had delivered the fatal blow. A second U.S. citizen, an al-Qaeda propagandist who had lived in North Carolina, was among those killed.

The execution was nearly flawless, officials said. Nevertheless, when a similar strike was conducted just two weeks later, the entire protocol had changed. The second attack, which killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, was carried out by JSOC under Title 10 authorities that apply to the use of military force.

They didn’t even realize who fired at first. So, who can’t be trusted with firearms again?

BTW: Has anyone ever explained why the kid was killed? There was plenty of talk with regard to Awlaki attempting to justify ignoring that he was a U.S. citizen, but why his son? Preemptive strike redefined? Practice? Did he diss the wrong person on Twitter? Seriously, I’d like to know where the call on that one came from, because it’s looking so far like it emerged from where the sun doesn’t shine.

-”Hey, we just killed so’n'so, and a few stragglers in the area. Okthanxbai. -CIA”
“Um…y’know that explosion that was on the news a couple weeks ago? No, not that one, the other one. That was us. -JSOC”:

Within 24 hours of every CIA drone strike, a classified fax machine lights up in the secure spaces of the Senate intelligence committee, spitting out a report on the location, target and result.

The outdated procedure reflects the agency’s effort to comply with Title 50 requirements that Congress be provided with timely, written notification of covert action overseas. There is no comparable requirement in Title 10, and the Senate Armed Services Committee can go days before learning the details of JSOC strikes.

Yeah, that overlap is definitely deliberate. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if some strike were carried out by the CIA but claimed by JSOC for this reason. Then again, someone could just break that fax machine (aside: why do people still fax? It’s backwards to have to print something out, run it through a machine that dials like a phone, and have it reprint at the other end when faster paperless options exist. Just send a text to their Blackberries, ffs).

-Blowback is not only acknowledged, but practically encouraged:

Somalia, where the militant group al-Shabab is based, is surrounded by American drone installations. And officials said that JSOC has repeatedly lobbied for authority to strike al-Shabab training camps that have attracted some Somali Americans.

But the administration has allowed only a handful of strikes, out of concern that a broader campaign could turn al-Shabab from a regional menace into an adversary determined to carry out attacks on U.S. soil.

Think this through: al-Shabab is a regional thing. JSOC wants more strikes at them. Possibility is raised that more strikes could piss them off enough to actually try something against the U.S. — making them no longer a regional thing. JSOC wants more strikes anyway. Here’s an alternative proposal: if people do not threaten the U.S., they are not the U.S.’s problem, so leave them alone. The people of Somalia can deal with them on their own terms. Besides, if you treat it as a free fire zone then recruiting for that group is gonna go hammers.

“Somalia would be the easiest place to go in in an undiscriminating way and do drone strikes because there’s no host government to get” angry, the senior administration official said. “But that’s certainly not the way we’re approaching it.”

Whoever this is basically just said “governments matter, people don’t”. Blargh…

I wonder how many angry calls & emails from government officials this has drawn so far.

Aiding and abetting

B Psycho — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:39:06 +0000

Egypt, for years, had been run by a typical “strongman” with a dim view of political disagreement. Eventually, people got fed up & protested, wanting Mubarak to relinquish power.

Good: Mubarak eventually did step down.
Bad: the military took over, putting in place a group of people with dim views of political disagreement. Cue further protests:

As usual, such demonstration gets met with violence:

Hardened and emboldened by their success in toppling Hosni Mubarak nine months ago, experienced protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square encouraged each other on Sunday to hold their ground as the police fired canister after canister of teargas.

“Don’t run, that just provokes them to fire more,” shouted one protester to others fleeing a hail of metal cans. [...]

It looked like a reprise of the uprising that ended Mubarak’s 30-year rule, as protesters erected barricades around the square. When the police advanced, activists banged on metal as a warning to send forward parties to defend the perimeter. But this time, the once revered army and its generals who now run Egypt are in the firing line. Praised when they took over after police lost control of the streets under Mubarak, many activists now fear the army wants to hold onto power.

The reason for that fear is that a draft constitution was circulated which would enshrine the military as a self-ruling entity regardless of what occurred politically. Under that type of rule, the Egyptian army could tell anyone attempting to reign them in to go stick it where the sun don’t shine, or just take over again on a whim.

Some here might be asking themselves of what relevance this is to them. Here’s what: you are helping pay for this, against your will. Once again, those tear gas cans tell a story:

The serial number and blue markings on the tear gas canister indicate that it was manufactured by Combined Systems Incorporated (CSI), a weapons manufacturer based in Jamestown, Pennsylvania.

This is not the first time CSI ‘s products have been used against Egyptian citizens. During Egypt’s January revolution, CSI tear gas was employed by the Mubarak regime against demonstrators in Tahrir Square.

Nearly nine months later, these same canisters have been raining down on demonstrators for the past eight hours as Egyptian security forces clash with protesters throughout downtown Cairo. The violence on Saturday came a day after peaceful protesters occupied Tahrir Square on Friday demanding the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) accelerate the transition to civilian rule.

The use of U.S-made tear gas against the protesters in Cairo is the result of the U.S. military aid policy. In exchange for nearly $1.3 billion in aid, the United States requires that Egypt buy its hardware from U.S. manufacturers. (emphasis mine)

Figures that there would be a corporatist hook in even this. I wonder where the pepper spray used on those OWS protesters who clearly weren’t doing anything came from…

(Top photo credit: Lorenz Khazaleh on Flickr)

Undiplomatic Immunity

B Psycho — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:55:26 +0000

Interesting bit of breaking news concerning one of the many wars we’re involved in: the final U.S. troops (except for some staying to guard the U.S. embassy) are supposed to actually leave Iraq by years end. The reason for this? Iraqi politicians rightfully crying foul over U.S. demands for legal immunity.

“Let us commit crimes or we’re leaving!” An easier choice may never have been offered in history.

Lingering question: does this include the mercenaries — excuse me, “contractors”?

Señor Perry llega tarde a la fiesta

B Psycho — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 04:04:04 +0000

In an attempt to burnish his “I hate Mexicans, honest!” credentials, Rick Perry suggests sending the U.S. military into Mexico in an escalation of the drug war:

Rick Perry signaled Saturday he would be open to sending U.S. troops into Mexico to combat drug cartels should the situation arise.

After speaking at a house party in Manchester, the Texas governor was asked a series of questions about the border and his stance on illegal immigration.

He said the leaders of Mexico and the U.S. should meet after next year’s elections to address the deadly drug trade in that country.

“It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border,” Perry said.

Psst…y’know there’s already military, CIA and affiliated mercenaries there, right?

What, not loud enough?

Recognition

B Psycho — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 04:14:23 +0000

Since with all those other crises, Israel/Palestine was feeling left out:

Palestinian shopkeeper Fadi Bin Masraf was busy this week, putting away stacks of merchandise that feature the U.S. flag as part of imitation-designer American brands.

“People are angry, and they don’t want to wear the flag of the country that is against us,” he said, adding that he’d “store away” the clothing in case the United States “changed its tune.”

Anger at the U.S. has been growing here as Palestinians prepare to officially launch their bid in the United Nations for statehood. That bid probably will go before the U.N. Security Council, where the United States has indicated that it will use its veto to quash the initiative. (emphasis mine)

I don’t feel like being eloquent tonight, so I’ll just come out and say it: with what kind of reasoning does the claim of a 3rd party to have power to block the independence of a people hold any weight whatsoever?

I hate being correct…

B Psycho — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:37:44 +0000

Back in March, re: western involvement in the Libyan civil war:

The root cause on the part of anti-Qadaffi Libyans — previous non-violent demonstration being met with gunfire — was clearly just. I get the feeling though that once this finally does end, the West is going to see some of the means taken up towards the end they backed and blow chunks.

Shorter UK Independent, re: Libyan rebels’ attitude towards sub-Saharan Africans that happen to be present in Libya: “We smell summary executions”.

This doesn’t change that the initial cause was just. What this does is confirms the unanswered — even unasked — question lingering whenever this kind of intervention occurs: you are, by association, by expending the tax dollars of your subjects on aiding the effort of another party in another country, backing whatever they do. Are you OK with that? If so, say so. Injecting your Freedom Bombs in the conflict only to later barf up your breakfast is ridiculous, either sack up or butt out.

Pardon our blood…

B Psycho — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 00:37:20 +0000

MSNBC.com, a moment ago:

Gee, somebody just couldn’t wait huh?

SATSQ, foreign policy edition

B Psycho — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:41:22 +0000

NPR blog, re: Syria: “Can new sanctions topple Assad’s regime?”

Sanctions worked on Saddam, didn’t they? Oh, wait…

Speaking of whom: The “Deadliest Warrior” crew could have at least tried to find someone that resembled Saddam beyond “ambiguously brown dude with a big mustache”. For all we know that guy was just a dark Italian that knew some Arabic.

Comprehension skills. You lack them.

B Psycho — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:09:56 +0000

McClatchy has up on their site a column about a Zogby International poll showing people in the Middle East have a low opinion of the U.S. That isn’t a surprise, and I assume the assumption made in the article title (“Why don’t Arabs love Obama anymore?”) was just an eye-catcher, since McClatchy doesn’t tend to traffic in the kind of innuendo usually attached to such claims. Check out this part though:

Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the center-left Brookings Institution, said that the numbers showed that the “Arab Spring” popular uprisings this year haven’t had much of an effect on how Arabs view the U.S. Rather, they continue to view America through the prism of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Analysts also said that Obama gave the impression he would change foreign and security policy drastically, while such changes often occur incrementally.

Republicans jumped on the poll and said that Arab countries wanted the George W. Bush administration’s more aggressive foreign policy back. Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser under Bush, said the Obama administration wasn’t supportive enough of freedom in the Middle East and wasn’t with the people when they rose up against dictators in Tunisia and Egypt.

…ok, let’s rewind this. According to the article, there was a spike in favorable opinion of the U.S. by people in these countries shortly after the 9/11 attacks — understandable, as it tends to be difficult to take a dump on other people right after having to bury a bunch of them. Then the Iraq invasion, which Bush wanted, happened and approval cratered. Approval goes back up with presidential-candidate Obama emphasizing how dumb the war in Iraq was…and then goes back down after nothing changes, including involvement in yet another dumb war.

One poll question asked people to name the greatest obstacles to peace in the Middle East. The top two answers were U.S. interference in the Arab world and the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

If you can read this and say “clearly the problem is Obama the peacenik!”, I only have one question for you: how much crack have you smoked today?