Living the Dream.





Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

re: "Obama and Foreign Policy: Just Kidding"

Robert J. Avrech at Seraphic Secret examined the foreign affairs portfolio as the final year of presidential campaigning begins.


Money quote(s):


"The hard-left are unhappy because Obama has failed to close Gitmo, has not withdrawn fully from Iraq and Afghanistan, and has expanded George Bush’s excellent policy of assassinating jihadists by drone. The left, in a hissy fit, might stay home in November."


Fortunately (from their perspective), there are plenty of hot-button Leftist red-herrings, er, domestic issues that can be interjected into the campaign in an effort to a.) energize the Democratic base; and b.) attempt to split the Republican's various constituencies.


"Europe, a collection of welfare states, is melting; the Arab Spring is an Arab Winter; and China is building a such a formidable military machine that our Joint Chiefs are waking up in a cold sweat at four in the morning.


And of course Israel is being squeezed by the genocidal yearning Persians, the genocidal yearning Palestinians, and the Turks who have lots of experience with genocide having murdered 1 million Armenians in 1915.


(The Armenians are still waiting for the Turks to admit their guilt, apologize, and pay reparations. Good luck with that.)


American power and influence in the Middle East is negligible. Witness the Palestinian’s defiance of US policy in favor of the UN’s poisonous embrace." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


None of these items has improved particularly since being written.


9/20

Monday, January 9, 2012

re: "Friendless in the Middle East"

Daniel Pipes at DanielPipes.Org ("the Internet's most accessed sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam") explains why the "Arab Spring" and "democracy" aren't necessarily good things in the mid- to long run.


Money quote(s):


"(O)ther than in a few outliers (Cyprus, Israel, and Iran), populations are predominantly hostile to the West. Friends are few, powerless, and with dim prospects of taking control. Democracy therefore translates into hostile relations with unfriendly governments.


Both the first wave of elections in 2005 and the second wave, just begun in Tunisia, confirm that, given a free choice, a plurality of Middle Easterners vote for Islamists. Dynamic, culturally authentic and ostensibly democratic, these forward a body of uniquely vibrant political ideas and constitute the only Muslim political movement of consequence.


But Islamism is the third totalitarian ideology (following Fascism and Communism). It preposterously proposes a medieval code to deal with the challenges of modern life. Retrograde and aggressive, it denigrates non-Muslims, oppresses women, and justifies force to spread Muslim rule. Middle Eastern democracy threatens not just the West's security but also its civilization.


That explains why Western leaders (with the brief exception of George W. Bush) shy away from promoting democracy in the Muslim Middle East." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)


Interesting that Prof. Pipes includes Iran among the outliers whose populations are not hostile to the West, but it's substantially true. It's Iran's governing regime, the mullah-cracy, that hates the West, not the overwhelming majority of the people(s) in Iran.


"Summing up the West's policy dilemma vis-à-vis the Middle East:


Democracy pleases us but brings hostile elements to power.


Tyranny betrays our principles but leaves pliable rulers in power.


As interest conflicts with principle, consistency goes out the window. Policy wavers between Scylla and Charybdis. Western chanceries focus on sui generis concerns: security interests (the U.S. Fifth Fleet stationed in Bahrain), commercial interests (oil in Saudi Arabia), geography (Libya is ideal for Europe-based air sorties), the neighbors (the Turkish role in Syria), or staving off disaster (a prospect in Yemen). Little wonder policy is a mess."


It's very easy to criticize U.S. foreign policies in the Near and MidEast regions.


(It's so easy that even CAA can do it!)


Prof. Pipes does us all a service by pointing out some of the limiting realities that constrain any effort to design and implement a humane, consistent, and non-suicidal foreign policy.


(It's rather like the "you-can-have-this-cheap-good-fast-pick-any-three" conundrum, only with humanitarian, consistence, and self-interest being your "pick-any-two" constraints.)



11/8

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

re: "Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood Favoritism Will Lead to War in the Middle East"

Keith Davies at Big Peace attributes to malice what can adequately be explained by naïveté.

Money quote(s):


"Over the last year we have seen our government sell out Hosni Mubarak, the key leader who has brought relative peace and stability in the region. Instead, we have jumped on board with the “Arab Spring” which has led to Islamists taking power. My colleagues and I are not privy to CIA intelligence, but if we were able to predict such things based on common sense and our expertise in Middle East affairs, why could not our government see? Or maybe they can. It seems our government is infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and, along with political correctness from politicians who choose reelection over common sense, has allowed the Middle East to become a powder keg ready to explode."


Still and all: once is happenstance or accident; twice is coincidence (even if some folks don't believe in "coincidence"); but three times is enemy action.



12/3

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

re: "My Plan on How to Fight the Next Middle East War"

Frank J. Fleming at PajamasMedia ("exclusive news and opinion 24/7 with correspondents in over forty countries") is thinking about Grand Strategy.



Money quote(s):



"War is hell … if you’re in the war. For everyone else, it’s the whining that gets to us. The constant calls of “quagmire” and how everyone is dying for nothing and that we’re only making things worse and how we’re wasting money (yeah, the left used to pretend to care about that) really wear on us. I don’t know how our troops are doing with all the deployments, but all the civilians seem worn out from only hearing about war. We’re all war weary — despite most of us not being directly affected by any of the combat. Maybe our troops can handle getting shot at and going on multiple deployments just fine, but we can’t deal with the civilians complaining about it all the time."



Remember this?



"Obviously avoiding wars in the Middle East is not a realistic option, and I’m sure we’ll get involved in plenty more in the future. So how can we do that and avoid the constant whining of dumb hippies and having all those useless countries in Europe call us warmongers? Well, think back to the Iraq War and when people really started to viciously complain about it. We had broad support going in, and people were still pretty up on it during the initial bombing campaign and even once we got to the point of pulling down the Saddam statue. People truly started getting angry, and the “Bush=Hitler” signs came out in full force, when we stayed and tried to help.



Bombing a country is nothing, but hanging around the country afterward, helping it rebuild and establish a system of government where the citizens don’t get bossed around by a homicidal dictator, gets us into trouble. And it is pretty difficult for the troops; it requires them to stand out there exposed among the populace instead of just running around in tanks and exploding stuff. Plus it takes a long time, during which there will be constant whining about it, especially if there are Republicans in office to blame. The left basically collaborated with the insurgents in Iraq, saying, “Hey, if you kill more troops, then we will scream even louder about how awful this war is and hopefully get Bush out of office. So help us out here!”"



You have to love Frank J. He has a plain-spoken way of saying what he thinks and making it accessible.



"So I ask: Why should we even stay and help a country after we’ve bombed it?



Think about it. When President Bush gave that famous speech on the aircraft carrier in front of the “Mission Accomplished” banner, we could have just left the war then and said we won, and who could have argued with us? If you can go to a country, blow stuff up, and leave unscathed, that sounds like success. If someone came and burned your house and walked away, you wouldn’t say you won because the guy left. So why shouldn’t we in a future conflict in a Middle Eastern country just blow up stuff, declare victory, and leave?"



This is what's called a punitive expedition or war. Because its purpose is to punish. And that's it.



____



Hat tip to Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.").



Thursday, March 10, 2011

re: "Our defense strategy"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is following SecDef Gates' debate with himself.

Money quote(s):

"When I took early retirement from Special Forces I served several years as a First Sergeant in the Wisconsin Guard and when asked in 1999, I told my troops "There is absolutely no way we will be in any land war that requires National Guard Infantry to be called up". It pays not to make absolute statements."

It's unclear to me how, as late as 1999, Uncle Jimbo could have thought this. We'd already been through Desert Storm, where, to be fair, no sizeable NG infantry formations were deployed, and through three years of Balkan involvement (Operation Joint Endeavor, IFOR, SFOR, &tc.) which had heavy reserve component involvement.

"MacArthur managed to limit his limiting of Presidential and Congressional authority to simply crossing Asia of the list of places we should do land war. Gates has upped the ante and eliminated two continents and the most volatile region on Earth. I think he was right the first time and that since we don't know who and where we may end up fighting then we should make sure to maintain our best deterrents and combat systems."

Saturday, March 5, 2011

re: "Obama administration preparing for Islamic states in Middle East"

Robert at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") considers the likely outcomes.

Money quote(s):

"I thought only greasy Islamophobes thought that the likely outcome in the Middle East would be Islamic states, not pluralistic Western-style democracies!"

It's actually a bit too early to tell, but it wouldn't be outrageous for me to suggest that at least one of the recent upheavels in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya will result an Islamic state, even if it turns out to be a mini-state in a devolved Libya.

"(T)here has never been and is not now an Islamic state that was democratic in the Western sense. Kemalist Turkey established a Western-style republic only by directly and openly restricting the political aspects of Islam. Maybe it will happen now that functioning democracies that guarantee equality of rights for non-Muslims and women, protect the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience, and yet establish Islam as well, will emerge in the Middle East -- history is full of surprises.

But for that to happen, some aspects of Islamic law will not be implemented, and that will mean there will be pressure in those states from Islamic clerics who will find the new government, whatever its Islamic character, to be just as un-Islamic and hence unacceptable as the authoritarian regime it replaced. And that pressure will lead to continued unrest."

Monday, February 21, 2011

re: "Arab Uprisings: The Limits of Diplomacy"

Charles Crawford explains about non-MTS ("Muddle Through Somehow") events.

Money quote(s):

"For far too long we all have got used to dealing with a sizeable group of miserable dictatorships and autocracies, some relatively benign and/or rich, others not. Even when truly appalling things happened, we looked away."

"Part of it goes right back to the depths of the Cold War and European decolonisation in Africa. Some sort of psychological/political reaction against European rule was more or less expected if not inevitable (and for Cold War leftists, highly desirable). The Soviet Union piled in, offering these newly liberated territories an ideological 'anti-imperialist' approach to the 'West' plus arms sales and the control-freak blandishments of central planning.

And it worked. Western/European liberal ideas which had quite respectable roots across North Africa were more or less wiped out in favour of a motley mish-mash of repressive national socialism and pan-Arab 'nationalism'."

This was a much wider phenomenon not limited to North Africa or the Near East, but extending to the whole of the "Non-Aligned Movement."

"(D)uring the Cold War we got used to making the best of dictatorships in all sorts of places. Unfortunately, when the Cold War ended we quailed at the thought of bringing the Arabs to have a hard look at themselves. We came up with no idea of a reforming partnership with the Arab world's misgovernments."

By then, things like OPEC and Arab terrorism had come into their own and many governments rightly feared rocking those boats.

"(T)he costs and benefits of policies compound up over time. Compounding stupidity dragging on for decades produces fearsome negativities, not least the public debt crisis threatening the credibility of the EU and USA alike.

The Middle East's compounding stupidities have led to a momumentally wretched outcome now."

And we ain't seen nothin' yet.

"It surely is better to do more or less honest business deals with dictatorships, as the very act of engaging with the professional western world gradually (OK, very gradually and perhaps at the risk of helping these villains stay in power) creates a new requirement rippling out into the local system for better training, accountability, due process, and so on. Constructive engagement and all that.

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the sheer longevity of these decadent Arab regimes is that it reinforced a quasi-colonialist quasi-racist idea that 'Arabs can't do democracy'.

In my 27 years in the FCO I don't recall hearing a single expert on the Middle East talking about how the region might become substantively more democratic. Planning papers on the issue were inconceivable and unwritten."

Constructive engagement is a seductive idea. We do it with un-free societies the world over, from China throughout the whole of the developing world. It might even work, perhaps, in the long run, if nothing else interrupts it.

(But something almost always happens to interrupt it.)

"Not only did Western governments suck up to 'Arab' dictatorships for far too long. Everyone did - Right, Left and Centre!

Above all, so did their own people. For the best part of fifty years tens of millions of Arabs have passively accepted brutal, unaccountable regimes, sub-optimal living standards, a desert of intellectual poverty, reduced choice and freedom. That's not our fault. It's theirs."

&

"It looks as if the Arabs are finally waking up - and realising in a rage what has been done to them by their own fatalism"

Monday, April 27, 2009

S&S - Navy to transfer piracy command to Turkey

Stars and Stripes

Navy to transfer piracy command to Turkey


Stars and Stripes

European edition, Friday, April 25, 2009


The U.S. Navy will transfer command of counterpiracy maritime efforts to the Turkish Navy on Sunday, according to a Navy news release. The move marks the first time Turkey will command a Combined Maritime Forces Task Force.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Since its inception in January, U.S. ships have led the counterpiracy effort, called Combined Task Force 151, under the Navy’s 5th Fleet in the Middle East.

Turkey now will lead the multinational effort that patrols and monitors 1.1 million square miles of water, including the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. Shipping lanes there are used by roughly 23,000 commercial vessels each year."

Friday, March 13, 2009

SCB - U.S. Visa Problems Hitting Science Postdocs and Students

Science Careers Blog

U.S. Visa Problems Hitting Science Postdocs and Students


March 4, 2009


Yesterday's New York Times tells about increasing problems with visas encountered by foreign postdocs and students in the United States, particularly those in science and technology disciplines.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The problems, according to the article, involve delays, missing paperwork, and less-than-helpful U.S. embassy staff. They appear to be more serious for visitors from China, India, the Middle East, and Russia."

"An anonymous State Department source told the Times that delays like these (2-3 months) are common and a result of "an unfortunate staffing shortage." "

&

"Visa procedures tightened markedly after the 11 September 2001 attacks but in recent years, the U.S. government improved the procedures that cut delays to about two weeks, and students began returning."