On the Contrary

There are three major stories that have our attention from American’s point of view in the realm of foreign affairs:  They are the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the Russian invasion of Georgia.  The conventional wisdom on this (Republican and Media) is that the surge is working in Iraq, Afghanistan needs more troops to quell the Taliban uprising, and Russia may be reverting to Cold War behavior and must be stopped.  All of these are wrong.

First let’s take Iraq:  John McMean has been saying that he will win that war and bring our troops home victorious.  Political implication is Barack wants to lose it by bringing our troops home early and in defeat.  It’s bogus, but that is for another day.  Iraq is a ticking time bomb.  Nothing has been resolved and the Sunnis are being denied any real role in the military and police forces, much less government.  We are simply paying them off, hence the decrease in violence, but the promised inclusiveness into the ruling Shiite government has not occurred.  I would recommend you read Leila Fadel”s of McClatchy News story, “Former Sunni militants find job door closed” that appeared in the Sacramento Bee (sorry I can’t find a link).  The war is about power jockeying among Shiites, and the sectarian conflict and disenfranchisement of the Sunnis.  Nothing has changed and time is running out for reconciliation.  As one Sunni put it, “If they disband us now, I will tell you that history will show we will go back to zero.  I will not give up my weapons.  I will never give them up, and I will carry my weapon again.  If it is useless to talk to the government, I will be forced to carry my weapons and my pistol.”  So as John McMean promises you victory and stay the course, all I hear is “tick, tick, tick”.  Ask yourself why we remain embroiled in an 8th century cultural war?

Afghanistan, by all measures, is degenerating as the violence increases.  Both candidates are promising to increase our troop presence there.  Here is my question:  More troops to do what?  We have already been occupying the country for seven years.  What is the long term strategy for once again taming an 8th century culture?  If the strategy is more troops, for how long, to do what, and what is the end game?  Somewhere in all of this we need to step back and re-evaluate our strategic priorities.  Whether Afghanistan is a democracy or a theist state is really irrelevant.  Whether they produce poppies for income is irrelevant.  What is important is that it is not a beachhead for al-Qaeda and attacks on the rest of the civilized world.  Once again we are bogged down in the wars of a very backward people that is going to go on for a very long time.  Our strategic goal should be to make sure that they are not a threat to the world and move on to more important conflicts and issues and not be tied down there.  Ask yourself this:  If we could attack, mostly with air power and route the Taliban in a very few days back in 2001, why isn’t that a good strategy forward instead of a 50 or 100 year commitment to nation building?  If we put more troops in there without a long-term plan, what I hear is “tick, tick, tick”.

Finally we have Russia and what to do about their belligerent behavior.  Well what I see is the same arrogance that we exhibited when we invaded Iraq.  There is a silver lining is this thing.  First and foremost, America and Europe have finally come to their senses about who Putin is.  Second, right now Russia is rich in oil money and thinks it can afford to try to reestablish its old Soviet Union influence.  They learned nothing from their incursion into Afghanistan, as we didn’t in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now they think they can project their power through brute force in other countries.  These countries are not going to sit idly by while their nationalism is tramped upon.  Resistances will arise, and the cost to Russia will become immense to maintain this level of control.  Like us, they will find that it saps their power and their wealth to invade and occupy another country.  We don’t need to start another cold war and we certainly cannot afford an armed conflict.  So John McMean, sit down and shut up.  We need to take prudent diplomatic actions in unison with the European Union that makes Russia pay a price in the Western world for their actions.  I wonder if there are any assets we could seize through the World Court (of course we would have to recognize it) to cover the cost of the humanitarian aid?  We need to support the break-away countries to stand tall and join the West in developing strong economies.  This doesn’t mean encourage belligerent action like that of Georgia that set off this whole thing.  I wonder if John McMean has a conscious or feels any responsibility for any of this?  Sooner or later Russia will start to feel the pain and relent as its people start to grumble. On the other hand if we start another cold war it will mobilize the Russian people behind Putin.   It is not the 80’s and the world has tasted freedom and nationalism.  You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.  In this case, the short term victory in Georgia is the ticking time bomb for Russia.

So we have a choice, we can continue what we have been doing, as John McMean proposes, or we can recognize what our real interests are and quit fighting battles from the last century.  It is the difference in whether you think experience is looking backwards and applying old solutions to old problems, or is it learning from our mistakes and looking forward for new solutions.