For What It’s Worth

I’ve been reading over the transcript of the speech by President Bush. Things aren’t going so well for my blood pressure.

Part of my problem with the US policy in Iraq, and for that matter, the Global War on Terror, is that I think I get it. I think I actually have a decent understanding of what is going on, of what is involved. When people like President Bush speak or write, I want to go hear what they have to say because I want to either hear affirmation that yes, I really do get it, or to find some evidence of how my views are wrong and in what direction I need to go to rethink my views. To many times, though, I come away convinced that they just don’t get it. And trust me, that’s not a good view to have of the leadership of your country or military.

Read the rest of this entry »

With all the talk recently of re-shaping the war in Iraq, there’s been renewed talk of the importance of Baghdad (and here) as key to the success of the country and as key to success in winning the war in Iraq.

But is Baghdad really that important to the future of Iraq?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is, well, longer. However, it boils down to a few key concepts.

Read the rest of this entry »

What do we stand for these days? What are those things that we, as a nation and as a society, hold so dear that we are willing to fight to the last man? I think we’ve reached a crisis point in our national identity; our inability to identify and articulate these things is only fueling the chaos in the world.
Read the rest of this entry »

Al Qaeda has, as a long term objective, the destruction of America and the removal of the Crusaders and Jews from the Arab world.  This is a pre-cursor to the re-establishment of the Caliphate, an Islamic state for the Middle East if not the world, that would adhere to the core tenants of the Islamic faith from the time of Mohammad.  There are things, though, that America and Americans should be looking for, key indicators of the threat to the United States.

Al Qaeda would like to see the United States destroyed.  Short of that, Al Qaeda wants to force the United States to withdraw from the Middle East, back to within its own borders.  At the core of Al Qaeda’s effort is a fundamental insurgency concept — wage war everywhere, all the time.

In the days of the Cold War, the United States was concerned only with addressing the security and issues of half the world — through the stand-off, the Soviets held control off the other half of the world.  But with the demise of the Soviets, the United States has, with mixed or poor results, tried to pick up the slack and provide this same level of concern for the security and issues of all the world.  The United States wants to be the superpower for the whole world — providing protection and security everywhere, all the time.

With that, Al Qaeda is seeking to over-extend the United States, to tax the United States to the point where it breaks and falls apart.  It conducts attacks in Afghanistan, but hides in Pakistan.  It supports Muslim insurgents in the Philippines, but runs training camps in Africa.  In many ways, Al Qaeda is seeking to draw the United States into a game of Whack-A-Mole — popping up all over the world, with varying forms and different threats.  Doing so forces the United States to commit more forces, more assets, more intelligence tools, to more places.

And all of that costs money.  And it uses personnel, and soldiers.  And it uses limited resources, like UAV’s, and satellites, and whatever super secret James Bond-types of people the United States has. The more places Al Qaeda emerges, the more the tax is on the United States, as a government, as a military, as a nation.

There are things that can happen within the United States that would play right into the efforts Al Qaeda.  Things that can happen, and things that people can do, that will play into Al Qaeda’s narrative for the destruction of the United States and the removal of the Crusaders and Jews from the Arab lands.

One is the political movement to withdraw American forces and any American presence from the Middle East.  At the simplest level, calling for the withdrawal of American forces would take the United States one step closer to meeting the Al Qaeda goal. However, Al Qaeda is at least, if not more, concerned with the presence of American businesses and culture in the Middle East — everything from Michael Jackson CD’s to McDonald’s.  Bechtel would need to withdrawal, as would Haliburton, and Voice of America, and the American Embassies.

I think we are starting to see this already, with many starting to say that the cost of the war in Iraq, in American lives and in Iraqi lives, is too great.  Should this idea impact the elections next month, or in two years, we could see a strategic shift in Al Qaeda’s favor.  Yes — that’s right — a vote for candidates that advocate with withdrawal of forces from the battlefields, is a vote in favor of Al Qaeda.

Additionally, if voter dissatisfaction with the federal government continues to grow, that may well also favor Al Qaeda.  Whether it is the corruption scandals (like whole bundles of cash in a Congressman’s freezer), the sex scandals (straight, gay, child molesting or just wrong), the dirty money needed to get elected these days, or the general sense that elected officials serve special interests and not their actual constituents, this dissatisfaction could well lead to a growing sense of withdrawal from the federal system.  It might also lead to a rise in either regionalism, or in states rights — much as was the case with the South made their move to withdraw from the United States.  And that internal fractioning would threaten the future of the United States, and would likely force a return of isolationism.  Which would be just fine with Al Qaeda.

I am also concerned with events that will require greater commitments of personnel and resources here within the United States.  Acts that raise the security posture, that world-famous TSA threat level and the like.  New measures, new procedures, new agencies and organizations needed within the American borders. With the United States already being spread thin via the Whack-A-Mole game, these types of domestic requirements only further tax the United States for limited funds, resources, and personnel.

As I mentioned the possible growing sentiment that the price of American military operations overseas could be viewed as too costly in human life, there appears, from time to time, indicators that some states are interested in seeing their National Guard forces freed from their requirements for participating in the Global War on Terror, so that they can indeed remain available for the operational requirements of their home states.  Should domestic requirements increase — an upswing in domestic terrorism, of serious incidents, of natural disasters on the scale of Katrina — states calling for a return on their National Guard forces would be advantageous to Al Qaeda, for two reasons.  One, it would have the United States continue to prosecute its military operation against Al Qaeda with fewer available resources.  Secondly, it would play into the Al Qaeda narrative of ushering along an American withdrawal to within the American boundaries.

Lastly, an outright insurgency in America would likely greatly accelerate Al Qaeda’s achievement of their goals.  Whether it is attacks on military or government targets, on financial institutions or the backbone of the internet, any era of chaos within the American boundaries would being about the turmoil needed to shake off any conviction the United States might have about waging a long war with Al Qaeda.  It is hard to go off to fight in a foreign country against a hard to define enemy like Al Qaeda, when your own nuclear plants are being attacked, or your own stock markets are in jeopardy.

As such, Al Qaeda can be expected to seek to draw out the United States to commit forces and resources everywhere, while also looking to spark or fan the fires of disturbances and trouble at home in Middle America.  Both efforts support the over-arching objective of seeing the United States presence withdrawn from the Middle East in preparation for the re-establishment of the caliphate.

We are approaching the problem with North Korea all wrong. Don’t worry — this isn’t new. We’ve been incorrectly approaching North Korea for a long, long time.

The leadership in North Korea wants, more than anything, to ensure the survival of the regime. The key to understanding North Korea is, I think, remembering that they are all alone in this world these days — the demise of the Soviet Union has left them all alone. Gone is their sugar daddy, their sponsor. They have no one else.

With survival of their regime on their mind, they do a lot of things that seem pretty wacky to the West. They develop all kinds of crazy weapons, for sale to other, smaller countries around the world — artillery, rockets, missiles. They seek to reverse engineer just about anything they can get from the West, in order to counterfeit it and sell it. They duplicate out money. They do lots of things to get money, all these things to keep their heads above water.

North Korea sees the United States as the way out. Ironically, with the demise of the Soviet Union, they are looking to the United States for security and a commitment to the survival of their regime. Why the US? They don’t get along with China, must less trust them. Japan? They have bad blood going back a spell, to include the Japanese occupation of the Korean peninsula. North Korea and Russia really don’t get along, for reasons as diverse as history and differences in views in this post-Soviet world. And South Korea? The North looks forward to reunification — just not if it means the destruction of the North Korean regime

With that in mind, that the North Korean leadership is first and foremost focused on survival, it should be pretty easy to see how so much of what the US and others do puts us at odds with the North Korean leadership. We impose sanctions. We push for sanctions. We attack their economy — the world embargo, ten years ago, is said to have caused the starvation of millions in North Korea, without having any significant impact on the regime itself or their actions. More and more, we all work to cut them off from the world, in every way possible — which only serves to back them more and more into the corner.

Our efforts, the ever growing collective efforts to isolate North Korea and to change their actions through isolation, puts North Korea leadership and the survival of North Korea more and more in jeopardy. After North Korea’s test of their new nuclear weapon, Japan immediately cut off all economic ties. The US is now pushing for six way talks — in which North Korea sees no good, given they are looking not for regional security or a regional solution, but a direct answer from the US.

So, what is the right answer? Straight, bilateral talks between the US and North Korea. The US needs to come forward with a comprehensive plan for the economic, political and physical security of North Korea, with the right strings attached. IAEA inspectors of the North Korean nuclear program. Complete end to the North Korean nuclear weapons program. And a road map for reunion of the peninsula.

Stop pushing. Start pulling.

The time has come for us to stop calling this the Global War on Terrorism. Really, this has become The Long War. To understand this warfare, this struggle, it is important to understand both the Islamic struggle against the West, as well as the Shi’a / Sunni struggle. Both of these can be understood within the framework of today’s war in Iraq.

Al Qaeda is concerned with two enemies – the Near Enemy, and the Far Enemy. The Near Enemies are those Muslims who have strayed from the true tenents of the faith. Al Qaeda, under the tutelage of the Salafists, says that true Islam is the Islam from the time of the Prophet Mohammed, without updating, without new rules, without consideration for modern society. The Near Enemy is, therefore, any secular Muslim country; any Muslim who is Shi’a; and any Sunni who does not live their live in accordance with the teachings of the faith. The Far Enemy is every other non-believer. At the top of this list are the Jews and the Americans.

Iraq is a battleground for the battle against the Far Enemy. For Al Qaeda and others, Iraq is a battleground on which to battle both the nonbelievers, in the form of the America and coalition forces, and the non-believers in the form of the secular government that has emerged post-Saddam. As such, were the United States to pack up and go home, the fight against the Far Enemy in Iraq would continue on, in an effort to assist the Iraqi people in establishing an Islamic regime. That fight, to create a proper Muslim country, would continue until either success was achieved, or until Iraq is no longer hospitable battleground.

Iraq is compounded by a battle with the Near Enemy. The Shi’a and the Sunni are at odds over the future of the country. These are the Iraqi Shi’a and Sunni, at odds not only over religious differences, but also over the politics, economics and security of Iraq, the future of the country. In this regards, their conflict is as much over the differences between two ethnic groups as it is over religious differences.

Resolving the conflict between the Shi’a and the Sunni of Iraq, the fight with the Near Enemy, will not be enough to bring peace to the country, when compounded with the fight against the Far Enemy. If the Shi’a and Sunni ever work out their differences, finding a way to co-exist, Al Qaeda, Salafists, and other reformers would seek to continue the fight in Iraq, against the Far Enemies of the United States and Coalition forces, and against the Near Enemy of the Iraqi government. It is one battlefield with two distinct fights, the resolution of which are deeply entwined.

Peace for Iraq will come only with the emergence of a government in Baghdad that is able to offer real security for the citizens of Iraq. The Iraqi people will need to create an environment where Iraq is no longer a battlefield, no longer conducive for waging war against either Near Enemies or Far Enemies. When Iraq has that, when Iraq is secure within its own borders, all fighting will be problematic, and the conflict will have to move elsewhere. The Iraqis will need to either establish a stable and strong representative government, or an authoritative or totalitarian regime, for this to happen.

The Long War, then, is only part of the fighting going on in the world today. The United States and others, in the Global War on Terrorism, are fighting off the attacks of Al Qaeda and the Salafists, with both sides thinking that it is this conflict that will define the future of the world. Yet this struggle cannot be seen outside the framework of the other ongoing struggle, that of Muslim against Muslim. It is only when these two conflicts are mitigated that the Long War will end.