Why character matters even in politics:
* Even if people are corrupted by power, why start with someone who is already fully corrupted? Can it really get better from there? No, it will only get worse.
* It's much easier to "use" someone with low character and poor reputation as a tool for various hostile agendas - through smear campaigns, through dwelling on personal flaws etc. WHy give free ammunition to your opposition?
* For those still making excuses for Putin or Erdogan, if you keep justifying alliances of convenience with no evidence that those alliances actually help in any way, with murderous thugs who seek to destabilize and corrupt everything around them, you yourself will end up becoming part of the problem. If you still think Putin or Erdogan are allies in ANY sense of the world, you are standing with bloodthirsty murderers who are enemies to freedom and who are seeking to destroy the United States.
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Veterans's Day Thought:
A Veterans' Day thought:
What will the administration do to keep our troops in Iraq safe from IRGC and Iranian militias, if the administration won't even admit that our enemies are there on the ground.
Here's the difference between US and Russia.
Putin would lie to his people and claim that their boys weren't in the hotspots everyone knew they were, getting killed.
Our government is lying to us and pretending that our enemies are not where everyone knows they are.
What's better?
Monday, October 30, 2017
Who Is Lying About Kirkuk And Why It Matters
cross-posted in Times of Israel:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-is-lying-about-kirkuk-and-why-it-matters/
Among the growing Baghdad-Barzani rift, various claims have been made about who knew what and when, and who said what and why.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-is-lying-about-kirkuk-and-why-it-matters/
Among the growing Baghdad-Barzani rift, various claims have been made about who knew what and when, and who said what and why.
The three competing perspectives are as follows:
* US betrayed Kurds by failing to stop the invasion by Iraqi forces, Iran-backed Shi'a militias, and the IRGC. Kurds have been strong allies to the US during the fight against ISIS, and have peacefully voted to secede from a state, which is increasingly manipulated by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and thus is not a good fit for the significant Kurdish population. The oil fields can and should be peacefully negotiated by the two governments, but the Iraqi forces have no business invading Kurdish-held territories, which the latter have liberated from the ISIS presence. Moreover, Iraqi Constitution, Article 140, provides for Kurdish independence, and given that the Constitution was comprised with the assistance from US lawyers and the State Department, US is well aware of that provision and should be respectful of it.
* Kurdish leadership new full well from CIA, State Department, and Pentagon statements before the referendum that US was strongly opposed to secession and would not be supportive if Baghdad decided to take back its territory in the aftermath. Barzani blatantly lied to its population, leading them to believe that the US was deceptive about its support for Kurds. There was no reason to believe that the independence referendum had international support. Barzani overstepped his authority in the attempt to distract from his own illegitimate hold on power despite the constitution.
* The well trained Iraqi forces, armed by the United States, had significantly more field experience in long-term operations than Peshmerga. Furthermore, Baghdad was planning to invade Kirkuk regardless of whether or not Kurds held the referendum, so it was only a matter of time before the region was overrun with Iraqi forces coupled with Iran-backed Shi'a militias. Barzani did not necessarily count on the Talabani faction to sell out to the IRGC, but had decided to call the referendum, knowing that they would be taken over regardless, to draw attention to the upcoming takeover, and also to start taking active steps towards the future, knowing that putting that off would likely make it less, not MORE likely to gain international support and recognition with time. Furthermore, regardless of US statements, it was in the US interests to support Kurds and to avoid clashes between allies, so regardless of US statements about the referendum, it was reasonable to expect that they would mediate in a manner that would avoid violent takeover and could help negotiate oil. It's not in the US interests to have IRGC presence regardless of how the US administration feels about Baghdad's claims to Kirkuk, or or other issues complicating Kurdish path to independence.
These three narratives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And the Kurdish people should have had realistic expectations of the US role in their own story, and had demanded better preparation and organization of troops, clear communications, and an actual plan from the Barzani government, not to mention dealing with the election issue instead of going for populist slogans. However, none of these considerations takes away from the legitimacy of the following concerns:
Whatever the concerns of the US in balancing various interests in the region and preventing further destabilization, failure to take a leadership role in preventing conflict, actually led to the very destabilization it was trying to prevent. Pentagon's denials about the role of IRGC in this avoidable situation are not helping the US credibility, and further, play into the hands of the very actors no one wants to see play a decisive role in the future of Iraq and Kurds. These lies and denials make US look treacherous, deceptive, anti-Kurdish and do nothing to dissuade the Kurds from moving forward with whatever faulty narrative Barzani may be peddling. In fact, it is pushing them into the embrace of the Russians, while IRGC and Baghdad government feel emboldened to disregard Kurdish claims, and act in a matter that is punitive and vindictive, rather than defensive of Baghdad's legitimate claims and interests. As a direct consequence of US failure to intervene, several disturbing developments occurred:
IRGC, dressed as Shi'a militias, and in conjunction with actual Iran-backed militias, have continued plundering and raiding their way through the territory, up to Al-Qosh, increasingly placing minority civilian populations and Jewish and Christian historical sites in danger. Minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis, have been forced to choose among three factions - Kurdish Peshmerga, the PMU units, now linked to Iran, and Iraqi forces, in order to protect their civilians and interests. That does nothing to simplify the situation, as the continuous clashes may force these groups to pick up weapons against each other. Christian militias that run their own defense in Nineveh are paid by PMU, which is troubling to US interests in preventing Iranian financial transactions that benefit the IRGC, recently designated as a terrorist organization. Qasem Soleimani, despite being recognized as a terrorist by the State Department in a recent statement, continues to play an active organizing role in the planning and implementation of the regional takeover.
Second, Turkey and Iraq are moving to cut off Kurdish access to Syrian and Turkish overpasses, which will ease the likelihood of future Turkish entry into the area. Turkey views Kirkuk as its own sphere of interests, and considers the prevention of contiguous Kurdish territories between Iraq, a likely Syrian Kurdish federation,and Kurdish territories in Turkey as central to its interests. There is also a growing possibility that Turkey may target the oil pipelines remaining under Kurdish control, which will deprive the Kurds of their essential livelihood and further empower and embolden Erdogan's expansionist neo-Ottoman ambitions in the region. Turkey is becoming an increasing threat to US interests in the region and elsewhere, and this additional step will make that much harder for the US to defend its foothold, access to energy, defense of minorities, or relationships with more stable and less aggressive allies.
For now, however, Iraq is more likely to gain control of that pipeline and has already taken steps to bypass the Kurdish region in providing oil to Turkey. Iraq and Turkey are on the same page with regards to Baghdad's regaining control and dominating Kurdistan, and Turkey has already made a similar security agreement with Iran. This triumvirate will ultimately prove hostile to US interests in the region, and should be broken up by the US, regardless of Barzani's flaws. US needs to prioritize what is at stake. Iran-oriented Iraq is no great ally and will likely prove a hindrance in the US's future battles against Iranian aggression. And Turkey is proving increasingly less of a friend and more of a menace as it opposes US presence in the region, detains US citizens, interferes with US strategy in Syria, and threatens US allies. The more time the US wastes maintaining supposed neutrality that only strengthens our enemies, the more likely we are to find ourselves friendless when our neutrality inevitably backfires.
* US betrayed Kurds by failing to stop the invasion by Iraqi forces, Iran-backed Shi'a militias, and the IRGC. Kurds have been strong allies to the US during the fight against ISIS, and have peacefully voted to secede from a state, which is increasingly manipulated by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and thus is not a good fit for the significant Kurdish population. The oil fields can and should be peacefully negotiated by the two governments, but the Iraqi forces have no business invading Kurdish-held territories, which the latter have liberated from the ISIS presence. Moreover, Iraqi Constitution, Article 140, provides for Kurdish independence, and given that the Constitution was comprised with the assistance from US lawyers and the State Department, US is well aware of that provision and should be respectful of it.
* Kurdish leadership new full well from CIA, State Department, and Pentagon statements before the referendum that US was strongly opposed to secession and would not be supportive if Baghdad decided to take back its territory in the aftermath. Barzani blatantly lied to its population, leading them to believe that the US was deceptive about its support for Kurds. There was no reason to believe that the independence referendum had international support. Barzani overstepped his authority in the attempt to distract from his own illegitimate hold on power despite the constitution.
* The well trained Iraqi forces, armed by the United States, had significantly more field experience in long-term operations than Peshmerga. Furthermore, Baghdad was planning to invade Kirkuk regardless of whether or not Kurds held the referendum, so it was only a matter of time before the region was overrun with Iraqi forces coupled with Iran-backed Shi'a militias. Barzani did not necessarily count on the Talabani faction to sell out to the IRGC, but had decided to call the referendum, knowing that they would be taken over regardless, to draw attention to the upcoming takeover, and also to start taking active steps towards the future, knowing that putting that off would likely make it less, not MORE likely to gain international support and recognition with time. Furthermore, regardless of US statements, it was in the US interests to support Kurds and to avoid clashes between allies, so regardless of US statements about the referendum, it was reasonable to expect that they would mediate in a manner that would avoid violent takeover and could help negotiate oil. It's not in the US interests to have IRGC presence regardless of how the US administration feels about Baghdad's claims to Kirkuk, or or other issues complicating Kurdish path to independence.
These three narratives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And the Kurdish people should have had realistic expectations of the US role in their own story, and had demanded better preparation and organization of troops, clear communications, and an actual plan from the Barzani government, not to mention dealing with the election issue instead of going for populist slogans. However, none of these considerations takes away from the legitimacy of the following concerns:
Whatever the concerns of the US in balancing various interests in the region and preventing further destabilization, failure to take a leadership role in preventing conflict, actually led to the very destabilization it was trying to prevent. Pentagon's denials about the role of IRGC in this avoidable situation are not helping the US credibility, and further, play into the hands of the very actors no one wants to see play a decisive role in the future of Iraq and Kurds. These lies and denials make US look treacherous, deceptive, anti-Kurdish and do nothing to dissuade the Kurds from moving forward with whatever faulty narrative Barzani may be peddling. In fact, it is pushing them into the embrace of the Russians, while IRGC and Baghdad government feel emboldened to disregard Kurdish claims, and act in a matter that is punitive and vindictive, rather than defensive of Baghdad's legitimate claims and interests. As a direct consequence of US failure to intervene, several disturbing developments occurred:
IRGC, dressed as Shi'a militias, and in conjunction with actual Iran-backed militias, have continued plundering and raiding their way through the territory, up to Al-Qosh, increasingly placing minority civilian populations and Jewish and Christian historical sites in danger. Minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis, have been forced to choose among three factions - Kurdish Peshmerga, the PMU units, now linked to Iran, and Iraqi forces, in order to protect their civilians and interests. That does nothing to simplify the situation, as the continuous clashes may force these groups to pick up weapons against each other. Christian militias that run their own defense in Nineveh are paid by PMU, which is troubling to US interests in preventing Iranian financial transactions that benefit the IRGC, recently designated as a terrorist organization. Qasem Soleimani, despite being recognized as a terrorist by the State Department in a recent statement, continues to play an active organizing role in the planning and implementation of the regional takeover.
Second, Turkey and Iraq are moving to cut off Kurdish access to Syrian and Turkish overpasses, which will ease the likelihood of future Turkish entry into the area. Turkey views Kirkuk as its own sphere of interests, and considers the prevention of contiguous Kurdish territories between Iraq, a likely Syrian Kurdish federation,and Kurdish territories in Turkey as central to its interests. There is also a growing possibility that Turkey may target the oil pipelines remaining under Kurdish control, which will deprive the Kurds of their essential livelihood and further empower and embolden Erdogan's expansionist neo-Ottoman ambitions in the region. Turkey is becoming an increasing threat to US interests in the region and elsewhere, and this additional step will make that much harder for the US to defend its foothold, access to energy, defense of minorities, or relationships with more stable and less aggressive allies.
For now, however, Iraq is more likely to gain control of that pipeline and has already taken steps to bypass the Kurdish region in providing oil to Turkey. Iraq and Turkey are on the same page with regards to Baghdad's regaining control and dominating Kurdistan, and Turkey has already made a similar security agreement with Iran. This triumvirate will ultimately prove hostile to US interests in the region, and should be broken up by the US, regardless of Barzani's flaws. US needs to prioritize what is at stake. Iran-oriented Iraq is no great ally and will likely prove a hindrance in the US's future battles against Iranian aggression. And Turkey is proving increasingly less of a friend and more of a menace as it opposes US presence in the region, detains US citizens, interferes with US strategy in Syria, and threatens US allies. The more time the US wastes maintaining supposed neutrality that only strengthens our enemies, the more likely we are to find ourselves friendless when our neutrality inevitably backfires.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Why America First Policy Requires US to Push Back Against Russia
My article published on Daily Mail 24:
https://en.dailymail24.com/
The US may very well be perfectly fine with living and letting live. It may very well be entirely happy to let someone take play world policeman for a change and focus on providing for its own citizens and protecting its borders. It might be for the best if other countries sorted out their issues among themselves. But it's all a pipe dream.
Russia is not going to let the United States to live and let live. It's not about Putin's stay in power or pursuit of dominance in the Middle East, or the restoration of the Russian Empire.
It's about the simple fact that we are under our attack within our own borders, and Russia will not stop until it brings the US to ruin.
How would that scenario look? Alarmingly, the picture emerging is not too far from where we are now: a nation, lost in confusion, unable to tell propaganda and fake news from reality, its political leadership torn apart by endless scandals and investigations, with its citizens trusting foreign leaders more than they trust their own.
Russia has proven to be a danger, playing both parties against each other, sowing chaos, confusion, and aggressively attacking US interests internally and externally. Its Kaspersky software has been used as an espionage tool across various government agencies, endangering our information. Hacking into voting machines and attacks on various political entities was a crude attempt to compromise the integrity of our democratic election problems, and to cause months of finger-pointing and social divisioins.
Over the years preceding this election, Russia continued aggressive active measures, which ranged from bribery of nuclear trucking companies, to espionage through highly placed officials in an attempt to get to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to aggressive hacking and propaganda measures which intensified through election. Under the Obama administration, Russia sent its "diplomats" on fishing expeditions around our sensitive infrastructure, even in such unusual vacation destinations as Kansas.
Additionally, Russia has presented a direct threat to our interests and security abroad. Russian intelligence aggressively targeted US diplomats in Moscow and Eastern Europe, which included such unprofessional and belligerent actions, as physical attacks, including one that left a diplomat badly beaten outside the Embassy, and having to be evacuated, poisonings, severe destruction of property, and harassment that went far beyond the expected annoyances from the old Soviet KGB playbook expected in that part of the world.
Strategically, Russia continues to present a threat wherever it goes, directly interfering with US interests in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In Syria, Russia constructed a base, while supporting Iranian militias, adversarial to US interests, attacking US-backed groups, and presenting a threat to the Straight of Hormuz, a strategically important trade rout for US and her allies. At numerous points throughout its presence in Syria, US and Russia neared a point of direct conflict, while Russia continued provocative actions, involving airplanes and submarines. In Afghanistan, Russia supplies Taliban with fuel and even weapons, despite the fact that NATO, including the US, is actively fighting against Taliban. Thanks to Russia's assistance, the Taliban has made significant territorial gains, even as the US surged its own forces inside the country.
Additionally, Russia continues to supply Iran with weapons, now also selling S-400s to Turkey, a country that also presents a significant challenge to US interests in Syria. And Russian government oil company is moving in on the oil fields taken over by the Iraqi forces, IRGC, and Iran-backed militias from the Kurds in Kirkuk, which endangers vested US business interests. Russia's attacks on Ukraine, including cybersecurity attacks, are widely viewed as potential dry runs for similar attacks on US infrastructure, including the electric grid.
And that's not including the aggressive lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, the cruel adoption ban that forbids dangerously ill Russian children from being taken in by American families, the non-stop brainwashing of the Russian citizenry against Americans, the troll farms, which makes old school Soviet propaganda seem like child's play, and the authoritarian actions against foreign NGOs, as well as government-linked hostile takeovers of US hedge funds and other financial institutions in Russia, well documented by Bill Browder and others.
All of that paints a rather dreary picture of the US-Russia relationship, with only one side systematically pursuing hostility and instilling hatred against not only the government of the other, but against all of it institutions, the fabric of society, and way of life. Russia is not acting like a potential partner, even on a strictly limited and professional level. It's looking to undermine every goal and pursuit of the United States, and to cause an internal collapse. The appeal of hardcore Communism is no longer quite as potent, though to be sure, the Soviet Union's fellow travelers took strong root in the academia, governments, the media, and think tank world. But non-ideological confusion of values and internal social and political divisions are just as destructive, and have met with a deplorable level of success. Intersectionality, radical movements, and fake pseudoright=wing and pseudo-left wing organized groups and violent events all have the classic Soviety-style footprint on them, and a number of articles have come out to show how Russia had duped unwitting Black Lives Matter activists into organizing events that ended up benefiting Russia.
For that reason, placing America First, and American interests first, requires a strong, unequivocal, coordinated, and systematic response to Russia by President Trump, who needs to start enforcing Congressional sanctions he signed into law this summer immediately, members of both parties in Congress, who need to put aside political differences and focus on the common goal of defending US national security and political integrity, our media, who needs to focus on exposing Russian connections wherever they are, and not just to the benefit of one party over another, our institutions, including think tanks, who need to be more alert to the foreign money, lobbyists, and other pro-Russia influences, and finally, US citizens, who need to start learning to spot propaganda that benefits the foreign state, and stop giving in to the divisiveness being sown by bots, trolls, and Russian agents of influence at every opportunity.
We need to keep America great, not make Russia great again.
https://en.dailymail24.com/
The US may very well be perfectly fine with living and letting live. It may very well be entirely happy to let someone take play world policeman for a change and focus on providing for its own citizens and protecting its borders. It might be for the best if other countries sorted out their issues among themselves. But it's all a pipe dream.
Russia is not going to let the United States to live and let live. It's not about Putin's stay in power or pursuit of dominance in the Middle East, or the restoration of the Russian Empire.
It's about the simple fact that we are under our attack within our own borders, and Russia will not stop until it brings the US to ruin.
How would that scenario look? Alarmingly, the picture emerging is not too far from where we are now: a nation, lost in confusion, unable to tell propaganda and fake news from reality, its political leadership torn apart by endless scandals and investigations, with its citizens trusting foreign leaders more than they trust their own.
Russia has proven to be a danger, playing both parties against each other, sowing chaos, confusion, and aggressively attacking US interests internally and externally. Its Kaspersky software has been used as an espionage tool across various government agencies, endangering our information. Hacking into voting machines and attacks on various political entities was a crude attempt to compromise the integrity of our democratic election problems, and to cause months of finger-pointing and social divisioins.
Over the years preceding this election, Russia continued aggressive active measures, which ranged from bribery of nuclear trucking companies, to espionage through highly placed officials in an attempt to get to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to aggressive hacking and propaganda measures which intensified through election. Under the Obama administration, Russia sent its "diplomats" on fishing expeditions around our sensitive infrastructure, even in such unusual vacation destinations as Kansas.
Additionally, Russia has presented a direct threat to our interests and security abroad. Russian intelligence aggressively targeted US diplomats in Moscow and Eastern Europe, which included such unprofessional and belligerent actions, as physical attacks, including one that left a diplomat badly beaten outside the Embassy, and having to be evacuated, poisonings, severe destruction of property, and harassment that went far beyond the expected annoyances from the old Soviet KGB playbook expected in that part of the world.
Strategically, Russia continues to present a threat wherever it goes, directly interfering with US interests in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In Syria, Russia constructed a base, while supporting Iranian militias, adversarial to US interests, attacking US-backed groups, and presenting a threat to the Straight of Hormuz, a strategically important trade rout for US and her allies. At numerous points throughout its presence in Syria, US and Russia neared a point of direct conflict, while Russia continued provocative actions, involving airplanes and submarines. In Afghanistan, Russia supplies Taliban with fuel and even weapons, despite the fact that NATO, including the US, is actively fighting against Taliban. Thanks to Russia's assistance, the Taliban has made significant territorial gains, even as the US surged its own forces inside the country.
Additionally, Russia continues to supply Iran with weapons, now also selling S-400s to Turkey, a country that also presents a significant challenge to US interests in Syria. And Russian government oil company is moving in on the oil fields taken over by the Iraqi forces, IRGC, and Iran-backed militias from the Kurds in Kirkuk, which endangers vested US business interests. Russia's attacks on Ukraine, including cybersecurity attacks, are widely viewed as potential dry runs for similar attacks on US infrastructure, including the electric grid.
And that's not including the aggressive lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, the cruel adoption ban that forbids dangerously ill Russian children from being taken in by American families, the non-stop brainwashing of the Russian citizenry against Americans, the troll farms, which makes old school Soviet propaganda seem like child's play, and the authoritarian actions against foreign NGOs, as well as government-linked hostile takeovers of US hedge funds and other financial institutions in Russia, well documented by Bill Browder and others.
All of that paints a rather dreary picture of the US-Russia relationship, with only one side systematically pursuing hostility and instilling hatred against not only the government of the other, but against all of it institutions, the fabric of society, and way of life. Russia is not acting like a potential partner, even on a strictly limited and professional level. It's looking to undermine every goal and pursuit of the United States, and to cause an internal collapse. The appeal of hardcore Communism is no longer quite as potent, though to be sure, the Soviet Union's fellow travelers took strong root in the academia, governments, the media, and think tank world. But non-ideological confusion of values and internal social and political divisions are just as destructive, and have met with a deplorable level of success. Intersectionality, radical movements, and fake pseudoright=wing and pseudo-left wing organized groups and violent events all have the classic Soviety-style footprint on them, and a number of articles have come out to show how Russia had duped unwitting Black Lives Matter activists into organizing events that ended up benefiting Russia.
For that reason, placing America First, and American interests first, requires a strong, unequivocal, coordinated, and systematic response to Russia by President Trump, who needs to start enforcing Congressional sanctions he signed into law this summer immediately, members of both parties in Congress, who need to put aside political differences and focus on the common goal of defending US national security and political integrity, our media, who needs to focus on exposing Russian connections wherever they are, and not just to the benefit of one party over another, our institutions, including think tanks, who need to be more alert to the foreign money, lobbyists, and other pro-Russia influences, and finally, US citizens, who need to start learning to spot propaganda that benefits the foreign state, and stop giving in to the divisiveness being sown by bots, trolls, and Russian agents of influence at every opportunity.
We need to keep America great, not make Russia great again.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
No Such Thing As Coincidences
I doubt that Bill Browder's visa revocation is an accident.
More likely, it was ordered by someone who is either directly sympathetic to Putin's goals or wants to make the administration look bad.
Regardless, Secretary Tillerson should make a personal apology on behalf of the agency to Mr. Browder, who, instead, should be lauded for his heroic efforts on behalf of human rights and anti-corruption.
More likely, it was ordered by someone who is either directly sympathetic to Putin's goals or wants to make the administration look bad.
Regardless, Secretary Tillerson should make a personal apology on behalf of the agency to Mr. Browder, who, instead, should be lauded for his heroic efforts on behalf of human rights and anti-corruption.
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Guess Who Opposed Standing Up To Russia?
Blast from the past: Hillary Clinton vehemently opposed the Magnitsky Act.
The entire Obama's administration unseemly opposition to that legislation is detailed in Bill Browder's Red Notice.
The entire Obama's administration unseemly opposition to that legislation is detailed in Bill Browder's Red Notice.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
New Strategy in Afghanistan Already a Bust
With Taliban continuing to gain ground in Afghanistan, not without assistance from Russia, and taking over 3 districts in the past 2 days, our "new" strategy in Afghanistan seems to be flawed.
First of all, we cannot really achieve victory without cutting off the source of fuel and other resources (i.e. Russia) from the enemy. However, that does not appear to be the goal. Our "surge" of several thousand people is aimed at providing additional training and counsel to the local police. However, this tactic seems little to do with the stated goal, which is to back the Taliban into a corner and force them to the negotiating table. Without a significant realignment of strategy, human resources, and capabilities, actions by the Afghan forces are not likely to change, and all of that will take significant time, during which period, the Taliban will continue gaining ground, making the consequent push back that much harder.
So basically, Taliban right now has the momentum. We added more troops for counseling, but did not otherwise significantly shift the situation on the ground. And we have no specific stated measurement of success, but without any military education whatsoever, I can tell you want one such measurement logically should be: How much ground our allies have regained from the enemy. I sure hope that there is some secret plan that will emerge like deus ex machina at the last minute, and we will see an immediate reversal of fortunes for everyone involved. Right now, however, we are off to an inauspicious start.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Refighting the Cold War in Afghanistan
The current US Afghanistan strategy is to destroy ISIS and to force Taliban to the negotiating table.
Russia's strategy is to arm Taliban and to give it free stuff, like fuel, in order to strengthen it vis-a-vis ISIS (at least, that's what it says).
By arming the very terrorist organization, NATO forces are fighting, Russia is engaging in a proxy war with the US.
Wait a second, haven't we done this before? And haven't we learned anything?
Only now we have American boots on the ground. Why is the new strategy not addressing this macro issue of having to contend with Russia?
What US Neutrality on Iraq's Invasion of Kirkuk Means for Our Interests in the Region
Cross-Posted:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-us-neutrality-on-iraqs-invasion-of-kirkuk-means-for-our-interests-in-the-region/
President Trump responded to the entrance of the Iraqi forces and Iran-based militias into Kirkuk this morning by stating that US is not taking sides between Kurds and the Iraqi government and is engaged in encouraging all sides to avoid clashes and continue dialogue.
However, in the context of the current tensions, US neutrality and commitment to non-intervention is taken as betrayal by the Kurds and as tacit approval by Iraq, Iran, and even Turkey. Qassem Soleimani's role in the fall of Kirkuk was the first test of the White House's new policy on Iran, which includes designating IRGC as a terrorist organization and opposing Iranian expansionism in the Middle east. Nevertheless, thus far, the administration has failed to show commitment to upholding US law and going after the terrorist leader, despite an opportunity to do so in the course of this operation.
From the perspective of tribal Middle Eastern societies, no matter what President Trump's actual intentions are, he has chosen sides by failing to stop the Iraqi forces from entering Kirkuk, raising the Iraqi flag, lowering the Kurdish flag, seizing the oil field in the area, and in every respect asserting dominion and control over the area. That is a sign of not only a political betrayal, but of a strategic choice that will have long-term repercussion for the region. Despite the lofty rhetoric about stopping Iran, the United States cannot overlook the alliance about the Abadi forces, trained and supplied by the United States, and Iran-backed Shi'a militias, that in the past, have pressured the Kurds, threatened religious minorities in the area, including Yazidis and Christians, and despite some limited cooperation with the United States on the issues of fighting ISIS (mainly out of self-interest), have otherwise acted as agents of the ayatollah-led Iranian regime. Both indecisiveness and conscious choice to allow Baghdad and Iranian agents to do as they wish with the Kurdish areas, send the same signals to all involve, and make the United States both unwelcome with the allies, and irrelevant with the adversaries in the region.
Strategic withdrawal from an active role in the region may have its place, but only if it's done on our terms, to our advantage, and in a way that signals a well-thought out foreign policy and defense of interests, rather than weakness, inability to make decisive move, or a choice of undemocratic regimes and bad allies over dependable allies whose help will be needed many times over in the future. Indeed, however, many are not convinced that the position of the administration on this issue is sincere. For instance, Turkey's position on the matter of Kurdish independence may have been the lodestar in this decisionmaking process. Turkey has recently come to an agreement with Iran on a variety of matters, which included increased military cooperation and the issue of Kurdistan's independence referendum. After the fall of Kirkuk, Ankara issued its approval of the invasion.
The administration has been careful in maintaining good relations with Turkey. It had previously pressured Barzani to postpone the referendum, after both Abadi and Erdogan expressed strong opposition. President Trump, despite major policy differences, recently called Erdogan a friend, and Turkey and the US recently concluded a deal over Boeing airplanes. Turkish lobby has been strong in the US. Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, had worked for Turkish interests. In fact, shortly before being removed from his position, Flynn had reportedly blocked a military move in Syria that Turkey had opposed. Moreover, as we now know, Turkey had paid off a number of major think tanks that had advised President Trump shortly prior to Erdogan's visit to the White House in May of this year. President Trump is likely getting very bad advise from the Secretary of State, who views the independence referendum as illegitimate, and from an assortment of sources, who are taken in by the extensive Turkish lobby in the United States.
None of it changes matters. The current calculus throws the Kurds into the arms of Russia, which has already ascended to power along with Iran in Syria, pushing the United States out of a position of significant influence altogether due to our short-sighted focus on only dealing with ISIS. Furthermore, Russia has stayed away from publicly condemning the referendum, and in fact, acted as the biggest financial backer of KRG. Although the Kurdish leadership is generally distrustful of Russia, Russia has proven itself to be a stalwart ally to Assad, and has deftly advocated for the Kurds in Turkey when it suited her interests. Putin's backing of the Kurds in Iraq is not sentimental; rather, he is shrewdly taking advantage of the US inaction to establish Kurdistan as Russia's sphere of influence and rise to power in the Middle East, all without having to expend significant power or resources.
As our influence diminishes and our presence becomes marginal, the US is likely to miss significant opportunities for business and educational investment in Kurdistan; infrastructure projects with potential for job growth for American workers; creation of a stable buffer state in the Middle East that would likely protect our security interests vis-a-vis Iran and Turkey, and spread elements of democracy and liberalization naturally through the people indigineous to the region rather than through conquest, occupation, or or other policies likely to be viewed as colonialist. What we are losing, however, Russia, Turkey, and Iran are gaining. Sooner or later, the imperial ambitions of these three aggressive states will come to a head in the oil-rich region; however, either one of the three belligerent actors prevails, which will not benefit the region, or the three countries come to a power-sharing agreement, in which case minorities, Israel, and the US will all lose out, or the situation deteriorates to the point of chaos, with civil war, strife, and new waves of refugees repeating the tragic events in Syria. In all cases excepting the instance where US rises to the occasion, shows moral and strategic leadership, and backs Kurdish aspiration to independence, we are looking at some very dismal scenarios that will place America dead last not only in the Middle East, but in the international arena as well.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-us-neutrality-on-iraqs-invasion-of-kirkuk-means-for-our-interests-in-the-region/
President Trump responded to the entrance of the Iraqi forces and Iran-based militias into Kirkuk this morning by stating that US is not taking sides between Kurds and the Iraqi government and is engaged in encouraging all sides to avoid clashes and continue dialogue.
However, in the context of the current tensions, US neutrality and commitment to non-intervention is taken as betrayal by the Kurds and as tacit approval by Iraq, Iran, and even Turkey. Qassem Soleimani's role in the fall of Kirkuk was the first test of the White House's new policy on Iran, which includes designating IRGC as a terrorist organization and opposing Iranian expansionism in the Middle east. Nevertheless, thus far, the administration has failed to show commitment to upholding US law and going after the terrorist leader, despite an opportunity to do so in the course of this operation.
From the perspective of tribal Middle Eastern societies, no matter what President Trump's actual intentions are, he has chosen sides by failing to stop the Iraqi forces from entering Kirkuk, raising the Iraqi flag, lowering the Kurdish flag, seizing the oil field in the area, and in every respect asserting dominion and control over the area. That is a sign of not only a political betrayal, but of a strategic choice that will have long-term repercussion for the region. Despite the lofty rhetoric about stopping Iran, the United States cannot overlook the alliance about the Abadi forces, trained and supplied by the United States, and Iran-backed Shi'a militias, that in the past, have pressured the Kurds, threatened religious minorities in the area, including Yazidis and Christians, and despite some limited cooperation with the United States on the issues of fighting ISIS (mainly out of self-interest), have otherwise acted as agents of the ayatollah-led Iranian regime. Both indecisiveness and conscious choice to allow Baghdad and Iranian agents to do as they wish with the Kurdish areas, send the same signals to all involve, and make the United States both unwelcome with the allies, and irrelevant with the adversaries in the region.
Strategic withdrawal from an active role in the region may have its place, but only if it's done on our terms, to our advantage, and in a way that signals a well-thought out foreign policy and defense of interests, rather than weakness, inability to make decisive move, or a choice of undemocratic regimes and bad allies over dependable allies whose help will be needed many times over in the future. Indeed, however, many are not convinced that the position of the administration on this issue is sincere. For instance, Turkey's position on the matter of Kurdish independence may have been the lodestar in this decisionmaking process. Turkey has recently come to an agreement with Iran on a variety of matters, which included increased military cooperation and the issue of Kurdistan's independence referendum. After the fall of Kirkuk, Ankara issued its approval of the invasion.
The administration has been careful in maintaining good relations with Turkey. It had previously pressured Barzani to postpone the referendum, after both Abadi and Erdogan expressed strong opposition. President Trump, despite major policy differences, recently called Erdogan a friend, and Turkey and the US recently concluded a deal over Boeing airplanes. Turkish lobby has been strong in the US. Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, had worked for Turkish interests. In fact, shortly before being removed from his position, Flynn had reportedly blocked a military move in Syria that Turkey had opposed. Moreover, as we now know, Turkey had paid off a number of major think tanks that had advised President Trump shortly prior to Erdogan's visit to the White House in May of this year. President Trump is likely getting very bad advise from the Secretary of State, who views the independence referendum as illegitimate, and from an assortment of sources, who are taken in by the extensive Turkish lobby in the United States.
None of it changes matters. The current calculus throws the Kurds into the arms of Russia, which has already ascended to power along with Iran in Syria, pushing the United States out of a position of significant influence altogether due to our short-sighted focus on only dealing with ISIS. Furthermore, Russia has stayed away from publicly condemning the referendum, and in fact, acted as the biggest financial backer of KRG. Although the Kurdish leadership is generally distrustful of Russia, Russia has proven itself to be a stalwart ally to Assad, and has deftly advocated for the Kurds in Turkey when it suited her interests. Putin's backing of the Kurds in Iraq is not sentimental; rather, he is shrewdly taking advantage of the US inaction to establish Kurdistan as Russia's sphere of influence and rise to power in the Middle East, all without having to expend significant power or resources.
As our influence diminishes and our presence becomes marginal, the US is likely to miss significant opportunities for business and educational investment in Kurdistan; infrastructure projects with potential for job growth for American workers; creation of a stable buffer state in the Middle East that would likely protect our security interests vis-a-vis Iran and Turkey, and spread elements of democracy and liberalization naturally through the people indigineous to the region rather than through conquest, occupation, or or other policies likely to be viewed as colonialist. What we are losing, however, Russia, Turkey, and Iran are gaining. Sooner or later, the imperial ambitions of these three aggressive states will come to a head in the oil-rich region; however, either one of the three belligerent actors prevails, which will not benefit the region, or the three countries come to a power-sharing agreement, in which case minorities, Israel, and the US will all lose out, or the situation deteriorates to the point of chaos, with civil war, strife, and new waves of refugees repeating the tragic events in Syria. In all cases excepting the instance where US rises to the occasion, shows moral and strategic leadership, and backs Kurdish aspiration to independence, we are looking at some very dismal scenarios that will place America dead last not only in the Middle East, but in the international arena as well.
The Anti-Climactic Defeat of ISIS
The defeat of ISIS in Raqqa, Mosul, and other places, has been oddly anti-climactic for several reasons:
1. We in the West are not the ones who received the majority of suffering in the hands of these vicious brutes.
2. Media coverage had largely focused on the graphic coverage of the atrocities, much less on the battles that forced ISIS to cede territory inch by inch.
3. Domestic afffairs and trepidation over the Iran deal next steps takes up the majority of time and space in the US in particular.
4. The Defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq frees its prisoners, but does not affect matters in Libya and other parts of the world where iSIS still has a foothold or is actually growing; Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are making a comeback; evil state actors are taking advantage of the chaos to assert themselves in the region. Russia's and Iran's growing control of Syria is at least as troubling as ISIS presence there. Destroying ISIS was a matter of political will. Getting rid of state actors, which are building naval basis and gaining control and even fealty of entire populations would be much harder.
Furthermore, ISIS was much better at bad-boy PR. Practically everyone in the West perceived that group as an extreme threat and a top priority to destroy; large swaths of Westerners do not care about Syria at all, as long as Syria doesn't come to the US in the form of ISIS or refugees; and most people don't seem to care all that much that Russia is in control in Syria, even when people perceive it as antithetical to our own goals in the region. Furthermore, Turkey's encroachment into that space bothers very few people, because that whole region seems far away, and largely irrelevant except to the extent that it gives us more opportunity to waste money on inept operations.
5. I doubt much will change when Iran builds a base in Syria and completes the land corridor to Lebanon. Unless people perceive an immediate threat to their personal interests or unless the visuals are gruesome and shocking, most people will care a lot more about what's going on at home than in a country that is barely even a country anymore.
I find all of this disheartening because so many people sacrificed so much standing up to ISIS, while barely receiving any aid from the United States. Now that they've cleared up the mess that US has allowed to take root through incompetent policies and dithering by the Obama administration, they once again will be abandoned, because the US has been focused so single-mindedly on the defeat of ISIS, even though it was clear from the start that the state actors operating in the region are more powerful, more dangerous, better trained & equipped, and will be around for far longer. I think our problems are actually just getting started.
1. We in the West are not the ones who received the majority of suffering in the hands of these vicious brutes.
2. Media coverage had largely focused on the graphic coverage of the atrocities, much less on the battles that forced ISIS to cede territory inch by inch.
3. Domestic afffairs and trepidation over the Iran deal next steps takes up the majority of time and space in the US in particular.
4. The Defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq frees its prisoners, but does not affect matters in Libya and other parts of the world where iSIS still has a foothold or is actually growing; Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are making a comeback; evil state actors are taking advantage of the chaos to assert themselves in the region. Russia's and Iran's growing control of Syria is at least as troubling as ISIS presence there. Destroying ISIS was a matter of political will. Getting rid of state actors, which are building naval basis and gaining control and even fealty of entire populations would be much harder.
Furthermore, ISIS was much better at bad-boy PR. Practically everyone in the West perceived that group as an extreme threat and a top priority to destroy; large swaths of Westerners do not care about Syria at all, as long as Syria doesn't come to the US in the form of ISIS or refugees; and most people don't seem to care all that much that Russia is in control in Syria, even when people perceive it as antithetical to our own goals in the region. Furthermore, Turkey's encroachment into that space bothers very few people, because that whole region seems far away, and largely irrelevant except to the extent that it gives us more opportunity to waste money on inept operations.
5. I doubt much will change when Iran builds a base in Syria and completes the land corridor to Lebanon. Unless people perceive an immediate threat to their personal interests or unless the visuals are gruesome and shocking, most people will care a lot more about what's going on at home than in a country that is barely even a country anymore.
I find all of this disheartening because so many people sacrificed so much standing up to ISIS, while barely receiving any aid from the United States. Now that they've cleared up the mess that US has allowed to take root through incompetent policies and dithering by the Obama administration, they once again will be abandoned, because the US has been focused so single-mindedly on the defeat of ISIS, even though it was clear from the start that the state actors operating in the region are more powerful, more dangerous, better trained & equipped, and will be around for far longer. I think our problems are actually just getting started.
Monday, October 16, 2017
Let's Not Become Like Russia
This morning, I had an opportunity to hear an interview with a Russion historian Leonid Melchin.
He brought up several salient points about contemporary Russia and its foreign and domestic policy:
First, he said, it's always much easier to look for big external enemies to shift blame for your internal problems and to justify doing nothing to address the smaller quality-of-life issues in your back yard. It's much more glamorous to fight with NATO than to go rebuild your failing infrastructure or take care of your ailing neighbor.
Second, Russia's culture has been in ruins for several generations starting with the elimination of the farmers and the expulsion of intelligentsia after the Revolution. The Civil War actually caused millions of people to flee, and millions of others to die or to lose everything, including social influence, resulting in largely uneducated, uncouth people being next in line to take over the country right after the middle class revolutionary leaders, many of whom themselves later perished in purges. That ruined the ethical underpinnings of the society resulting in country being ruled by thugs for many decades, and adopting a largely criminal based form of governance and life philosophy.
Finally, perennial apathy and laziness are preventing people from assuming any level of responsibility on an individual level. For instance, Russia's peripheral regions are doing nothing to engage in self-improvements, largely relying on the non-existent and corrupt system of subsidies from Moscow, under the excuses that the Chinese are eventually going to take over everything anyway, so there is no reason to put any effort into improving one's own life. Melchin, however, argues that it's patently untrue. The influence of the Chinese is greatly exaggerated, and to some extent, failure to address existing economic and social issues creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of these regions becoming depleted of human resources and ripe for take over by migrant populations.
Moreover, it's nonsense to believe the fatalistic refrain that sooner or later, Russia will fall apart and become at best a federation of weak autonomies. The federal system, he says, is very strong, and no one is going anywhere. Nor is Russia going to die out due to low demographics, aging population, alcoholism and so forth. All these are significant problems, but Russia has gone through a great deal of turmoil over the centuries, including persistent economic issues such as poor economy and lack of viable infrastructure, and yet here we are, with Russia still boasting a high population and significant involvement in international affairs. However, the course it's pursuing is less North-Korea bound, than completely irrelevance and inaction on all fronts.
Why should this be of any interest to the United States? Because the same populist claims and excuses are reverberating both on the left and on the right of the US society, creating the danger that despite the strong economy and other achievements we have accomplished through the history of good work ethic and dedication to upward mobility, defeatist philosophy that seeks to blame our internal weaknesses on outward forces, such as immigrants, "the Establishment", corporations, the left, the right, and frankly, anyone but the weakening local cultures and lack of consistent education to growth, education, and self-improvement is putting us on the same deteriorating path as Russia, our foil for endless excuse-making regarding the internal weaknesses resulting from bad decisionmaking of the Obama administration, and various private and public actors.
Populist nationalism (as opposed to healthy, growth-oriented nationalism) is the last result of the excuse seekers, who seek to shift the blame elsewhere rather than to actually find and implement solutions that will address existing problems internally. Bannonism philosophy sounds appealing to patriots starved for a healthy national self-image, but in reality it provides little relief who those genuinely dedicated to greatness. Instead, it's a distraction from a necessary conversation about the improvement in education, ethics, social values, and the strengthening of our communities that we should be having as a permanent long-term solution to the various problems assailing our culture. Indeed, a reactionary mindset of trying to provide quick fixes to external attacks ignores the structural internal weakness that help view all such developments as attacks and downsides rather than opportunities.
Our national conversation has become excessively focused on symptoms, rather than causes. And while we are busy playing wack-a-mole with cultural and social issues, the causes persist, affecting even those who claim to stand against all that is harmful and in favor of all that is beneficial. Pausing for a bit of self-reflection as to how we came to be in a place when identity politics and finger=pointing dominate discussion on both sides of the aisle when that was exactly the sort of thing that conservatives claimed to stand against to begin with might do us some good.
He brought up several salient points about contemporary Russia and its foreign and domestic policy:
First, he said, it's always much easier to look for big external enemies to shift blame for your internal problems and to justify doing nothing to address the smaller quality-of-life issues in your back yard. It's much more glamorous to fight with NATO than to go rebuild your failing infrastructure or take care of your ailing neighbor.
Second, Russia's culture has been in ruins for several generations starting with the elimination of the farmers and the expulsion of intelligentsia after the Revolution. The Civil War actually caused millions of people to flee, and millions of others to die or to lose everything, including social influence, resulting in largely uneducated, uncouth people being next in line to take over the country right after the middle class revolutionary leaders, many of whom themselves later perished in purges. That ruined the ethical underpinnings of the society resulting in country being ruled by thugs for many decades, and adopting a largely criminal based form of governance and life philosophy.
Finally, perennial apathy and laziness are preventing people from assuming any level of responsibility on an individual level. For instance, Russia's peripheral regions are doing nothing to engage in self-improvements, largely relying on the non-existent and corrupt system of subsidies from Moscow, under the excuses that the Chinese are eventually going to take over everything anyway, so there is no reason to put any effort into improving one's own life. Melchin, however, argues that it's patently untrue. The influence of the Chinese is greatly exaggerated, and to some extent, failure to address existing economic and social issues creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of these regions becoming depleted of human resources and ripe for take over by migrant populations.
Moreover, it's nonsense to believe the fatalistic refrain that sooner or later, Russia will fall apart and become at best a federation of weak autonomies. The federal system, he says, is very strong, and no one is going anywhere. Nor is Russia going to die out due to low demographics, aging population, alcoholism and so forth. All these are significant problems, but Russia has gone through a great deal of turmoil over the centuries, including persistent economic issues such as poor economy and lack of viable infrastructure, and yet here we are, with Russia still boasting a high population and significant involvement in international affairs. However, the course it's pursuing is less North-Korea bound, than completely irrelevance and inaction on all fronts.
Why should this be of any interest to the United States? Because the same populist claims and excuses are reverberating both on the left and on the right of the US society, creating the danger that despite the strong economy and other achievements we have accomplished through the history of good work ethic and dedication to upward mobility, defeatist philosophy that seeks to blame our internal weaknesses on outward forces, such as immigrants, "the Establishment", corporations, the left, the right, and frankly, anyone but the weakening local cultures and lack of consistent education to growth, education, and self-improvement is putting us on the same deteriorating path as Russia, our foil for endless excuse-making regarding the internal weaknesses resulting from bad decisionmaking of the Obama administration, and various private and public actors.
Populist nationalism (as opposed to healthy, growth-oriented nationalism) is the last result of the excuse seekers, who seek to shift the blame elsewhere rather than to actually find and implement solutions that will address existing problems internally. Bannonism philosophy sounds appealing to patriots starved for a healthy national self-image, but in reality it provides little relief who those genuinely dedicated to greatness. Instead, it's a distraction from a necessary conversation about the improvement in education, ethics, social values, and the strengthening of our communities that we should be having as a permanent long-term solution to the various problems assailing our culture. Indeed, a reactionary mindset of trying to provide quick fixes to external attacks ignores the structural internal weakness that help view all such developments as attacks and downsides rather than opportunities.
Our national conversation has become excessively focused on symptoms, rather than causes. And while we are busy playing wack-a-mole with cultural and social issues, the causes persist, affecting even those who claim to stand against all that is harmful and in favor of all that is beneficial. Pausing for a bit of self-reflection as to how we came to be in a place when identity politics and finger=pointing dominate discussion on both sides of the aisle when that was exactly the sort of thing that conservatives claimed to stand against to begin with might do us some good.
Monday, October 9, 2017
Who Controls The Past Controls The Future
Today would have been Boris Nemtsov's 58th Birthday.
Perhaps it is appropriate, then, that the last few cultural endeavors in which I have engaged all had to do with the purpose of his life, and what led to his untimely death in the hands of Kremlin-hired assassins: the search for truth.
The first in that series was Bill Browder's must-read real-life thriller "Red Notice", which provides an appropriate backdrop to the Fusion GPS-related hearings, featuring Browder's testimony and the drama of the Russian Probe, which took place this summer. Bill Browder was a businessman who started a hedge fund in Russia. Upon uncovering massive corruption that was detrimental to running a Western business, Browder hired a Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who eventually was arrested and tortured to death over the course of many months of maltreatment, torment, and cruel denial of emergency medical aid. Browder proceeded to lobby the US government, as well as Canada, and UK, for the passage of the Magnitsky Act, a human right law that would hold Russian oligarchs & officials responsible for his lawyer's death accountable by freezing their accounts in the US and denying them Visa. As a results, Putin passed a law banning adoptions by US families of sickly Russian babies, even those who were already in the process of being adopted.
The relations between Russia and US deteriorated at a precipitous rate since then, with Russia adopting a series of anti-Western measures, and hiring a slew of lobbyists to seek the overturn of the Magnitsky Act, which later gave rise to a global version. Amidst this international back drop, Bill Browder's remarkable and heart felt story of a brilliant, but seemingly ordinary man thrust into extraordinary circumstances, and forced to rise to the occasion for the sake of justice for his clients, salvaging his reputation, and later to bring closure to his friend's family, stands out in a haunting and easily relatable way. What I just told you is the summary of the events known to the public from the many articles arose from the corruption investigation then, and from all the Congressional and State Department deliberations later, upon Browder's involvement in the conception of this law. But I'm not doing justice to this man's creativity, selfless devotion, and successful fight against seemingly insurmountable obstacle even as it was obvious that in many ways Browder was just like any of us, battling family issues, afraid for his own life, confused and sometimes deceived by the endless obfuscation and lies of the Putin regime and the organized crime acting in cahoots with its law enforcement and intelligence.
But if you think the story ends with the successful passage of the law, and Putin's impotent fury, you are sorely mistaken. Putin proceeds to hire practically everyone he can to get the Magnitsky Law, a persona affront to his own finances, overturned, and in the processes, touches base with US-based opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, which was at the heart of scandals earlier this year. Fusion GPS was affiliated both with the Russian intelligence-connected lawyer, Natalya Veselnitskaya, known for an assortment of fraudulent activities associated with the lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, and for her confrontations with Browder himself, and Michael Steele, the former British spook, who coordinated with assorted Russian and other unnamed sources on creating on what became known as the Trump dossier, which became the subject of a separate but related controversy. All of these actors came together during the investigation of Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia, in a series of moves which are now largely being viewed by many critics as a set-up of greedy officials and naive campaigners to discredit Trump and sow chaos in the middle of a hotly contested election and its aftermath. Without reading Red Notice, much of what you've seen over the course of the past year will make much sense. "Red Notice" explains why Russian active measures have gotten to be so intense, relentless, and overwhelming - because of the deeply personal nature of the perceived affront to the one authoritarian ruler behind them, and because of what's at stake for his vindictive and deeply corrupt regime. Will his officials be shunned from the world's playrooms and become the international pariahs they deserve to be, or will the West be forced to concede defeat and at some point, try to work things out with Russia? That is the nature of the struggle we are facing.
A worthy companion to the story is Luke Harding's "A Very Expensive Poison", which tells the story of Alexander Litvinenko's assassination on British soil, which preceded the main thrust of Browder's story by a few years, but intertwined with it in a number of significant ways, and which also continues through the investigation of the gruesome polonium based murder into the many years of inquest and political shuffling by the British government, even as Putin's regime grew bolder, dared to assassinate more critics, dissidents, and journalists, invaded countries, and basically acted more like an organized crime gang seeking to assert its superiority, than a civilized nation with any claims to international legitimacy. The book reads like a thriller, explains in depth and reveals many of the internationally known but frequently misunderstood and misrepresented events that had to do with Russia's meddling and took place since the early 2000s, and reveals how much investment Putin had put into the obfuscation of Russia's true intentions, obfuscation that made Westerners and others believe Putin's fabrications as if they were the truth, and discredited innocent people and countries for many years to come. It also goes a long way to explain the level of mistreatment foreigners trying to uncover the truth or simply do their job in Russia (and likely its allied countries, such as Cuba) as Putin seeks to show who's the boss by tried-and-true methods of the Soviet KGB - crude, criminal, and brutal.
The topic of deliberate obfuscation is further explored in Sharyl Atkisson's "The Smear", which reveals the political actors behind current proliferation of propaganda, fake news, astroturf, and other anti-truth phenomena in modern media on both sides of whatever issue. Sharyl is a fine journalist who works hard to present all sides of the story in a frank, but fair manner. She has her biases, and sometimes gives the benefit of the doubt to people she personally sympathizes with (and denies cutting any such slack to people she finds less sympathetic - and you'll quickly figure out who those are). However, overall, she makes a well-supported argument and investigation of how people who are less informed or aware fall easy prey to corporate and political interests who hide their true agenda in layers of cynical PR moves, some additionally fed by foreign agents, and some simply reflecting the particular interests of the particular entity. Most importantly, she convinces that even the most politically devoted of political activists should stay clear of complete hackery that now passes for journalism and activism, and learn to perceive what these actors pay dear money to hide and bury in the midst of the noise we are inundated with on a daily basis.
Why should we spend any time thinking critically, when it's easier to let Russian active measures, political manipulators on the left and the right, and corporations feeding seemingly independent think tanks their talking points to just do what they do best? The answer to that question is very clearly answered in the stunning and shocking Broadway show "1984", which we managed to catch just before it ended its limited engagement on Sunday. The show used a clever combination of live action by an amazing cast, including Olivia Wilde, video visuals, and flashbacks to make the audience feel an integral part of the events of totalitarian one-party dystopia brought to life on stage. Interestingly, as I rediscovered from being a part of this fantastic experience, the show was less about Communism as such, and more about statism, individualism, and humanity. Therefore, anyone who has ever experienced the oppression of state control will easily identify with the events portrayed in the show.
The anguished outcry of a seemingly confused protagonist Winston Smith, struggling to distinguish between false memories and real ones, can be any of us, not just through the elections last year, but through decades of seemingly increasing propaganda and proliferation of narratives, fake news, alternative facts, and basically, every conceivable version of interpreting reality except devotion to the truth.
"Because facts matter! Because truth matters!" - exclaims Winston at some point during the play, and it is something that is painfully needed to be said, and repeated again and again, in a climate where truth is nearly impossibly to define in the proliferation of fabrications, smears, accusations, biased articles, and distortions of all sorts. Winston spends the rest of the play trying to remember the reality, hold on to even tiny slivers of truth as he knows it. His ultimate act of freedom and defiance comes in the form of a bold assertion: that 2+2=4. That objective, undeniable reality exists, and no amount of fearmongering, brainwashing, and information control can make it otherwise. And yet, the totalitarian statists are determined to crush any shreds of individuality. During one particularly poignant moment, the audience becomes tacitly complicity in the brutal and shockingly graphic torture that the the calm, professional representative of the states imposes upon Winston, still stubbornly clinging to the truth and a sense of individuality. "Don't just sit there, don't just watch it, help me!" - screams Winston, and we are all left there feeling awful and powerless, because we cannot get up and do anything, dare not do anything, dare not become part of the action. I wish, in fact, that the play would have allowed for such a maneuver. I would be curious to see if anyone in the audience would have dared to cry out "Enough!" Instead, we watch as with crushing inevitability, the machine crushes the individual, forces him to betray everything he believes in. And even as his diary remains as evidence of what actually happened, in the future generations on stage we recognize ourselves, even with evidence in our hands, struggling distinguish truth from fabrication, still trying to get past what the ghosts in the past would have us believe. The show concludes with a disturbing thought: perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the party has been to restructure reality in such a way that we thought that it had fallen, where in reality, there it was, reaching with its tentacles from beyond the grave, making us think that war is peace, that black is white...
Let's admit to it, folks. We are not living in a totalitarian state. But we are living in a reality where individualism is increasingly devalued, and where we are being increasingly swayed to believe that truth is what we are told truth is. And the statist fellow travelers, under different names and with slightly adjusted agendas, have outlived the Communist Party, to continue affecting their influence insidiously and from within.... The Communist Party may be dead. But statism is alive, well, and proliferating, through deceptions, and propaganda, and through people trusting those they should never have trusted - and thus, the Big Brother is alive and well.
Perhaps it is appropriate, then, that the last few cultural endeavors in which I have engaged all had to do with the purpose of his life, and what led to his untimely death in the hands of Kremlin-hired assassins: the search for truth.
The first in that series was Bill Browder's must-read real-life thriller "Red Notice", which provides an appropriate backdrop to the Fusion GPS-related hearings, featuring Browder's testimony and the drama of the Russian Probe, which took place this summer. Bill Browder was a businessman who started a hedge fund in Russia. Upon uncovering massive corruption that was detrimental to running a Western business, Browder hired a Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who eventually was arrested and tortured to death over the course of many months of maltreatment, torment, and cruel denial of emergency medical aid. Browder proceeded to lobby the US government, as well as Canada, and UK, for the passage of the Magnitsky Act, a human right law that would hold Russian oligarchs & officials responsible for his lawyer's death accountable by freezing their accounts in the US and denying them Visa. As a results, Putin passed a law banning adoptions by US families of sickly Russian babies, even those who were already in the process of being adopted.
The relations between Russia and US deteriorated at a precipitous rate since then, with Russia adopting a series of anti-Western measures, and hiring a slew of lobbyists to seek the overturn of the Magnitsky Act, which later gave rise to a global version. Amidst this international back drop, Bill Browder's remarkable and heart felt story of a brilliant, but seemingly ordinary man thrust into extraordinary circumstances, and forced to rise to the occasion for the sake of justice for his clients, salvaging his reputation, and later to bring closure to his friend's family, stands out in a haunting and easily relatable way. What I just told you is the summary of the events known to the public from the many articles arose from the corruption investigation then, and from all the Congressional and State Department deliberations later, upon Browder's involvement in the conception of this law. But I'm not doing justice to this man's creativity, selfless devotion, and successful fight against seemingly insurmountable obstacle even as it was obvious that in many ways Browder was just like any of us, battling family issues, afraid for his own life, confused and sometimes deceived by the endless obfuscation and lies of the Putin regime and the organized crime acting in cahoots with its law enforcement and intelligence.
But if you think the story ends with the successful passage of the law, and Putin's impotent fury, you are sorely mistaken. Putin proceeds to hire practically everyone he can to get the Magnitsky Law, a persona affront to his own finances, overturned, and in the processes, touches base with US-based opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, which was at the heart of scandals earlier this year. Fusion GPS was affiliated both with the Russian intelligence-connected lawyer, Natalya Veselnitskaya, known for an assortment of fraudulent activities associated with the lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, and for her confrontations with Browder himself, and Michael Steele, the former British spook, who coordinated with assorted Russian and other unnamed sources on creating on what became known as the Trump dossier, which became the subject of a separate but related controversy. All of these actors came together during the investigation of Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia, in a series of moves which are now largely being viewed by many critics as a set-up of greedy officials and naive campaigners to discredit Trump and sow chaos in the middle of a hotly contested election and its aftermath. Without reading Red Notice, much of what you've seen over the course of the past year will make much sense. "Red Notice" explains why Russian active measures have gotten to be so intense, relentless, and overwhelming - because of the deeply personal nature of the perceived affront to the one authoritarian ruler behind them, and because of what's at stake for his vindictive and deeply corrupt regime. Will his officials be shunned from the world's playrooms and become the international pariahs they deserve to be, or will the West be forced to concede defeat and at some point, try to work things out with Russia? That is the nature of the struggle we are facing.
A worthy companion to the story is Luke Harding's "A Very Expensive Poison", which tells the story of Alexander Litvinenko's assassination on British soil, which preceded the main thrust of Browder's story by a few years, but intertwined with it in a number of significant ways, and which also continues through the investigation of the gruesome polonium based murder into the many years of inquest and political shuffling by the British government, even as Putin's regime grew bolder, dared to assassinate more critics, dissidents, and journalists, invaded countries, and basically acted more like an organized crime gang seeking to assert its superiority, than a civilized nation with any claims to international legitimacy. The book reads like a thriller, explains in depth and reveals many of the internationally known but frequently misunderstood and misrepresented events that had to do with Russia's meddling and took place since the early 2000s, and reveals how much investment Putin had put into the obfuscation of Russia's true intentions, obfuscation that made Westerners and others believe Putin's fabrications as if they were the truth, and discredited innocent people and countries for many years to come. It also goes a long way to explain the level of mistreatment foreigners trying to uncover the truth or simply do their job in Russia (and likely its allied countries, such as Cuba) as Putin seeks to show who's the boss by tried-and-true methods of the Soviet KGB - crude, criminal, and brutal.
The topic of deliberate obfuscation is further explored in Sharyl Atkisson's "The Smear", which reveals the political actors behind current proliferation of propaganda, fake news, astroturf, and other anti-truth phenomena in modern media on both sides of whatever issue. Sharyl is a fine journalist who works hard to present all sides of the story in a frank, but fair manner. She has her biases, and sometimes gives the benefit of the doubt to people she personally sympathizes with (and denies cutting any such slack to people she finds less sympathetic - and you'll quickly figure out who those are). However, overall, she makes a well-supported argument and investigation of how people who are less informed or aware fall easy prey to corporate and political interests who hide their true agenda in layers of cynical PR moves, some additionally fed by foreign agents, and some simply reflecting the particular interests of the particular entity. Most importantly, she convinces that even the most politically devoted of political activists should stay clear of complete hackery that now passes for journalism and activism, and learn to perceive what these actors pay dear money to hide and bury in the midst of the noise we are inundated with on a daily basis.
Why should we spend any time thinking critically, when it's easier to let Russian active measures, political manipulators on the left and the right, and corporations feeding seemingly independent think tanks their talking points to just do what they do best? The answer to that question is very clearly answered in the stunning and shocking Broadway show "1984", which we managed to catch just before it ended its limited engagement on Sunday. The show used a clever combination of live action by an amazing cast, including Olivia Wilde, video visuals, and flashbacks to make the audience feel an integral part of the events of totalitarian one-party dystopia brought to life on stage. Interestingly, as I rediscovered from being a part of this fantastic experience, the show was less about Communism as such, and more about statism, individualism, and humanity. Therefore, anyone who has ever experienced the oppression of state control will easily identify with the events portrayed in the show.
The anguished outcry of a seemingly confused protagonist Winston Smith, struggling to distinguish between false memories and real ones, can be any of us, not just through the elections last year, but through decades of seemingly increasing propaganda and proliferation of narratives, fake news, alternative facts, and basically, every conceivable version of interpreting reality except devotion to the truth.
"Because facts matter! Because truth matters!" - exclaims Winston at some point during the play, and it is something that is painfully needed to be said, and repeated again and again, in a climate where truth is nearly impossibly to define in the proliferation of fabrications, smears, accusations, biased articles, and distortions of all sorts. Winston spends the rest of the play trying to remember the reality, hold on to even tiny slivers of truth as he knows it. His ultimate act of freedom and defiance comes in the form of a bold assertion: that 2+2=4. That objective, undeniable reality exists, and no amount of fearmongering, brainwashing, and information control can make it otherwise. And yet, the totalitarian statists are determined to crush any shreds of individuality. During one particularly poignant moment, the audience becomes tacitly complicity in the brutal and shockingly graphic torture that the the calm, professional representative of the states imposes upon Winston, still stubbornly clinging to the truth and a sense of individuality. "Don't just sit there, don't just watch it, help me!" - screams Winston, and we are all left there feeling awful and powerless, because we cannot get up and do anything, dare not do anything, dare not become part of the action. I wish, in fact, that the play would have allowed for such a maneuver. I would be curious to see if anyone in the audience would have dared to cry out "Enough!" Instead, we watch as with crushing inevitability, the machine crushes the individual, forces him to betray everything he believes in. And even as his diary remains as evidence of what actually happened, in the future generations on stage we recognize ourselves, even with evidence in our hands, struggling distinguish truth from fabrication, still trying to get past what the ghosts in the past would have us believe. The show concludes with a disturbing thought: perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the party has been to restructure reality in such a way that we thought that it had fallen, where in reality, there it was, reaching with its tentacles from beyond the grave, making us think that war is peace, that black is white...
Let's admit to it, folks. We are not living in a totalitarian state. But we are living in a reality where individualism is increasingly devalued, and where we are being increasingly swayed to believe that truth is what we are told truth is. And the statist fellow travelers, under different names and with slightly adjusted agendas, have outlived the Communist Party, to continue affecting their influence insidiously and from within.... The Communist Party may be dead. But statism is alive, well, and proliferating, through deceptions, and propaganda, and through people trusting those they should never have trusted - and thus, the Big Brother is alive and well.
Sunday, October 8, 2017
It's All About the Pipelines - and it's in the Pipeline
While the international community is focused on Russia's aggressive military actions in George, Ukraine, Moldova, Syria, and elsewhere, much of Russia's geopolitical reconquista has been focused on bypassing sanctions and competitions via forging bonds with new allies and old competitors through joint economic projects, which would play up its own strength - the abundance of natural resources. Russia's strategy of using oil and gas to pressure Europe into submission had initially backfired as the European Union eventually developed new rules to secure its gas supply and prevent isolation by focusing too much on single source, such as the fickle and manipulative Putin regime.
Russia is looking to profit from a major pipeline into Turkey, that brings Turkey and Russia closer together and bypassing its competitors.
In a similar move earlier this year, Putin took steps to bypass Ukraine.
Russia uses natural resources to pressure its rivals and to wield power over those who are perceived to threaten its dominance.
The pipeline to Turkey would also be a way of getting around US and European sanctions:
The effect of this project would also to bring KRG back to doing business with Erdogan. This is undesirable, because so long as Erdogan enjoys any sort of legitimacy from his intended victims, much less the international community, he will continue on his downward path.
Meanwhile, the construction of the planned Russian-Turkish pipeline is going full steam ahead.
Last December, at around the time the Russian ambassador was assassinated under suspicious circumstances in Turkey, there were rumors of secret negotiations between Russia and Turkey over the pipeline and defense deals that would repair relations between the countries, even as the assassination story was allegedly concocted to cover up the growing closeness despite the macho rhetoric of both leaders only shortly before. As we now see, those negotiations came to pass and are bearing fruit, with the blessing of the US government, which, at the time, informed by then-NSA Michael Flynn (who was found to have business-related conflicts of interests with both Russia and Turkey), chose not to intervene.
The result? Loss of leverage over Turkey as it seeks to shift its revenue stream to a business relationship with Russia, and increased disregard for other countries' sovereignty, NATO's concern over terrorist organization, and interest in maintaining a relationship with the United States. As Turkey grows closer with Russia and becomes independent of the West, it's becoming increasingly more brazen and difficult to control, and moreover our relative ability to benefit from that relationship is becoming limited by the minute.
At this point, in order to regain control of the situation, the US must embark on very decisive combination of tough economic and diplomatic policies against both Russia and Turkey, while stimulating and improving relationships with those countries in the region that can balance out this unhealthy predicament. These actions would have to include blacklisting individuals connected to gross human rights violations, and in Turkey's case, anyone connected to improper detention and imprisonment of an American evangelical pastor, freezing the off-shore accounts by corrupt Russian and Turkish officials and stopping the flow of dirty money into the United Stats, cutting off unregistered lobbying and propaganda efforts by the agents of both countries, and preventing the intelligence services of both regimes from aggressive active measures, including infiltration and intimidation of diaspora communities and dissidents, in the United States.
Keep in mind that Turkey is not exactly waiting for the US to iron out every aspect of its foreign policy. Turkey is plunging into Syria, willing to coordinate its actions with Syria, and sidelining its initial misgivings about keeping Assad in power, so long as it is free to take action to keep Kurds from acquiring contiguous territory that would border the Kurdish majority territories of Turkey. Turkey is also looking at Syria as a potential area for further development, and wants to exert both political and economic influence there to the degree possible.
Keep in mind that Turkey is not exactly waiting for the US to iron out every aspect of its foreign policy. Turkey is plunging into Syria, willing to coordinate its actions with Syria, and sidelining its initial misgivings about keeping Assad in power, so long as it is free to take action to keep Kurds from acquiring contiguous territory that would border the Kurdish majority territories of Turkey. Turkey is also looking at Syria as a potential area for further development, and wants to exert both political and economic influence there to the degree possible.
Forming a stronger and more invested relationship with KRG, and despite all difficulties, placing more weight on the Georgia-Azerbaijan angle as well as carefully reorienting the Greece-Cyprus-Israel triangle may help shift the events in that region towards our interests. It looks like the four countries most concerned about Russia's expansionism - Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Moldova - are already on the way to create a free trade zone. US should encourage this alliance and look at it as an important opportunity. Keep in mind that Azerbaijan is dictatorial, incompetent, and pro-Turkey, but it's also in desperate economic need, anti-Russian, and anti-Iranian, and just corrupt enough that it can be temporarily shifted towards a more productive political line.
At the end of the day, the United States has to remember that developing positive business relationship with old friends and new allies is just as important as taking punitive measures against adversaries and political frienemies who need to be shown their place. Identifying and actively pursuing attractive economic opportunities is the key to a successful and positive geopolitical strategy, as well as innovative possibilities for American workers of all backgrounds. This is one example of how today's globalized world can actually help and provide important pathways to job creation rather than the destructive and pessimistic view of international job outsourcing we've been presented by populist economic nationalists throughout the Obama administration leading up to where we are today.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
Is Nothing Sacred? Russian hackers get the NSA
Everyone's all upset about the missing DNC server which may or may not have been hacked by the Russians, and possibly the rest of the world; meanwhile, Russian hackers made their way into NSA and got juicy info on US cyber Defense. And that's not counting the epic fail last year, when Hewlett Packard basically gave the Russian cybersecurity firm the source code for Pentagon, if not more.
This proves 2 things: 1. Nothing is unhackable 2. Throwing money at a problem may actually contribute to the problem.
Before allocating any more funding for security to the supposedly secure intelligence agencies, Congress should ask some hard questions about lessons learned from the Edward Snowden fiasco, and the measures they are taking to keep the enemy out. I will not be surprised if, at the end of the instant investigation, it will turn out that it wasn't the superior skills of the Russian hackers, but a combination of indiscretion and various security oversights that did NSA in.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
How I learned to stay calm and love the Taliban
The new administration's strategy in Afghanistan is basically to bomb the Taliban until their will is broken and they come to negotiating table. All of that will require several thousand more US troops and likely years of engagement.
Let me translate that for you: it means that after 16 years of trying to destroy the Taliban, the US now believes that it's not only OK but desirable to negotiate with Taliban, and that after all the lives lost, US would be ok with the Taliban being potentially part of the Afghani government.
That was the part of President Trump's big speech on Afghanistan that I found most disturbing, and as I now see, my fears bore out. We spent years trying to liberate Afghanistan from an entity that was no better than Al Qaeda, but regional, and which turned Afghanistan into an oppressive quagmire after the Soviet Union left. We were first against them before we were for them. Being ok with Taliban as part of Afghanistan is completely incompatible with our other stated goals for continuing to stay in Afghanistan: stability, democracy, and security. First off, Taliban is already backed by Russia and Iran. We are then stating that depending on how negotiations go (and Taliban without a question will want some permanent role in the government - or they will continue to recruit and die trying, because that's what mujahedeen are trained to do), we are ok with Russia and Iran playing a central role in that country. Why don't we just skip the fighting part, engage in direct negotiations with these two states over the future of Aghanistan, and ask them to help us with Taliban in exchange for playing a direct and stabilizing role in the government? That's essentially what's actually happening.
China and India will not be ok with each other or with this turn of events. China is interested in mining opportunities, and Afghanistan's role in the regional network of roads that is part of its geopolitical ambitions. India sees China as a major threat. Having these two states engaged in Afghanistan simultaneously guarantees tensions. Mattis claims that he will put pressure on Pakistan to stop supporting terrorists, such as Taliban and Al Qaeda that are flowing in and out of Afghanistan and finding a safe haven in Pakistan. But at the hearing he himself stated that the Pakistani government is ready to play ball, but the ISI, Pakistan, secretive and scary spy agency, is playing its own game. And ISI cares little about sanctions, and appears out of control significantly more so than the government. To complicate matters, Pakistan is significantly more dependent on China than it is on the United States, which means we must get China on the same page. China may not necessarily want to support a failed states run by terrorist organizations because it threatens regional stability and its own economic ambitions,, but so far, it's been perfectly ok with having Pakistan on the dole as is. And if China agrees to be helpful, that will likely be in exchange for having us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.
As for democracy and liberalization, those two concepts are foreign to Afghanistan. It was for a time more liberal under Soviet occupation, but the Soviet occupation would have proved short-lived even without our backing of the mujahedeen, because for a variety of historical and geographic fctors, it's extremely difficult to occupy a country such as Afghanistan, highly tribal, surrounded by mountains, and strongly opposed to foreign occupants. No empire had lasted very long, and neither would have the Soviets. Without substantially changing the culture and mindset of the locals, democracy and liberal values are just not going to stick. Security and stability can only be guaranteed when various types of terrorists, drug lords, and state actors are done fighting it out over this piece of territory and passages to the outside world. THat is the bitter reality Mattis was not acknowledging. If the only goal here is to diminish the influence of Taliban as such, he should have said so. However, implying that Taliban alone is the root of all evil is naive and disingenuous. Multiple terrorist organizations are finding Afghanistan a safe haven, the drugs flowing out of the country are funding international terrorism, not just Taliban, and Iran is using Afghanistan as a drug supply route for its own reasons. Furthermore, Iran is recruiting Afghan children to fight in Syria, further radicalizing the population. Plus some of the state actors involved believe in maintaining a perpetual state of war for reasons of facilitating arms trade, distracting from their own activity elsewhere, and utilizing it to weaken the United States and other countries they see as opposing their own geopolitical ambitions.
At this rate, it won't take 3000 people and several more years. It will take many tens of thousands of people and decades to achieve even what is stated to be the goal. Taliban is not going anywhere without a bloody fight, and will try to drag as many people with them in the process as possible. And having Taliban as part of the government is implicitly legitimizing them anyway. If US is basically saying that they want Taliban to be viewed as a negotiating partner, they are implicitly undermining whatever limited authority the Afghani government already has. It's big schtick with the population was that it's fighting the Taliban. If it cannot even be seen as strong enough to destroy the Taliban as an entity even with all the US help, then what legitimacy does it have, and how is it preferable to the Taliban that is NOT giving up on its ultimate goal of domination? And the US is also undermining its own moral case for being involved in Afghanistan in the first place, without, by the way, in any way guaranteeing that none of this will eventually come back to bite US in other places around the world.
Let me translate that for you: it means that after 16 years of trying to destroy the Taliban, the US now believes that it's not only OK but desirable to negotiate with Taliban, and that after all the lives lost, US would be ok with the Taliban being potentially part of the Afghani government.
That was the part of President Trump's big speech on Afghanistan that I found most disturbing, and as I now see, my fears bore out. We spent years trying to liberate Afghanistan from an entity that was no better than Al Qaeda, but regional, and which turned Afghanistan into an oppressive quagmire after the Soviet Union left. We were first against them before we were for them. Being ok with Taliban as part of Afghanistan is completely incompatible with our other stated goals for continuing to stay in Afghanistan: stability, democracy, and security. First off, Taliban is already backed by Russia and Iran. We are then stating that depending on how negotiations go (and Taliban without a question will want some permanent role in the government - or they will continue to recruit and die trying, because that's what mujahedeen are trained to do), we are ok with Russia and Iran playing a central role in that country. Why don't we just skip the fighting part, engage in direct negotiations with these two states over the future of Aghanistan, and ask them to help us with Taliban in exchange for playing a direct and stabilizing role in the government? That's essentially what's actually happening.
China and India will not be ok with each other or with this turn of events. China is interested in mining opportunities, and Afghanistan's role in the regional network of roads that is part of its geopolitical ambitions. India sees China as a major threat. Having these two states engaged in Afghanistan simultaneously guarantees tensions. Mattis claims that he will put pressure on Pakistan to stop supporting terrorists, such as Taliban and Al Qaeda that are flowing in and out of Afghanistan and finding a safe haven in Pakistan. But at the hearing he himself stated that the Pakistani government is ready to play ball, but the ISI, Pakistan, secretive and scary spy agency, is playing its own game. And ISI cares little about sanctions, and appears out of control significantly more so than the government. To complicate matters, Pakistan is significantly more dependent on China than it is on the United States, which means we must get China on the same page. China may not necessarily want to support a failed states run by terrorist organizations because it threatens regional stability and its own economic ambitions,, but so far, it's been perfectly ok with having Pakistan on the dole as is. And if China agrees to be helpful, that will likely be in exchange for having us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.
As for democracy and liberalization, those two concepts are foreign to Afghanistan. It was for a time more liberal under Soviet occupation, but the Soviet occupation would have proved short-lived even without our backing of the mujahedeen, because for a variety of historical and geographic fctors, it's extremely difficult to occupy a country such as Afghanistan, highly tribal, surrounded by mountains, and strongly opposed to foreign occupants. No empire had lasted very long, and neither would have the Soviets. Without substantially changing the culture and mindset of the locals, democracy and liberal values are just not going to stick. Security and stability can only be guaranteed when various types of terrorists, drug lords, and state actors are done fighting it out over this piece of territory and passages to the outside world. THat is the bitter reality Mattis was not acknowledging. If the only goal here is to diminish the influence of Taliban as such, he should have said so. However, implying that Taliban alone is the root of all evil is naive and disingenuous. Multiple terrorist organizations are finding Afghanistan a safe haven, the drugs flowing out of the country are funding international terrorism, not just Taliban, and Iran is using Afghanistan as a drug supply route for its own reasons. Furthermore, Iran is recruiting Afghan children to fight in Syria, further radicalizing the population. Plus some of the state actors involved believe in maintaining a perpetual state of war for reasons of facilitating arms trade, distracting from their own activity elsewhere, and utilizing it to weaken the United States and other countries they see as opposing their own geopolitical ambitions.
At this rate, it won't take 3000 people and several more years. It will take many tens of thousands of people and decades to achieve even what is stated to be the goal. Taliban is not going anywhere without a bloody fight, and will try to drag as many people with them in the process as possible. And having Taliban as part of the government is implicitly legitimizing them anyway. If US is basically saying that they want Taliban to be viewed as a negotiating partner, they are implicitly undermining whatever limited authority the Afghani government already has. It's big schtick with the population was that it's fighting the Taliban. If it cannot even be seen as strong enough to destroy the Taliban as an entity even with all the US help, then what legitimacy does it have, and how is it preferable to the Taliban that is NOT giving up on its ultimate goal of domination? And the US is also undermining its own moral case for being involved in Afghanistan in the first place, without, by the way, in any way guaranteeing that none of this will eventually come back to bite US in other places around the world.
Monday, October 2, 2017
How the Obama Administration Invited Foxes to Guard Chicken Houses While Crying Wolf
In the midst of the Russian hacking scandal in 2016, the HP (Hewlett Packard) allowed Russian security firm to scrutinize cyberdefense system, which was used as a cybersecurity nerve center for much of the US military. That action may have alerted the Russians to the vulnerabilities in that system. Russians reviewed the source code - and the US intelligence and the Obama administration were aware of that and allowed this move to take place.
They then made lots of noise about DNC and Russian hackers and voting machines. When the real Russian cyberscandal lay elsewhere. The Obama administration was notorious throughout the tech world for its poor implementation of security safeguards across all agencies, and across the homeland security world, for allow Russian "diplomats" to covert near US infrastructure in various states they clearly shouldn't have been.
Now we learn that US just let the Russians examine source code for central Pentagon cybersecurity hub, with nary a word about it to the public. That's not only letting fox guard the chicken house, but inviting the fox to be there, opening all doors, and then crying wolf while pointing somewhere at a distance. Metaphorical heads should roll.
They then made lots of noise about DNC and Russian hackers and voting machines. When the real Russian cyberscandal lay elsewhere. The Obama administration was notorious throughout the tech world for its poor implementation of security safeguards across all agencies, and across the homeland security world, for allow Russian "diplomats" to covert near US infrastructure in various states they clearly shouldn't have been.
Now we learn that US just let the Russians examine source code for central Pentagon cybersecurity hub, with nary a word about it to the public. That's not only letting fox guard the chicken house, but inviting the fox to be there, opening all doors, and then crying wolf while pointing somewhere at a distance. Metaphorical heads should roll.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Russian Troll Farms Score a Touchdown
Football players and the American left apparently fell for Russian troll farm-generated propaganda.#Sad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)