Do not alienate Pakistan

From the Associated Press, May 3, 2011:

John Brennan, White House counterterrorism adviser... said they were looking at whether bin Laden had a support system in Pakistan that allowed him to remain in the country. He made the comments in an interview with National Public Radio.

Amid the harsh criticism of Pakistan, Boehner and others said this was not the time to back away from Pakistan.

"I think we need more engagement, not less," he said. "Al-Qaida and other extremist groups have made Pakistan a target. ... Having a robust partnership with Pakistan is critical to breaking the back of al-Qaida and the rest of them."

Boehner said it was premature to talk about cutting off U.S. aid to Pakistan. When pressed on the level of funds, however, he said it was imperative that the U.S. have an "eyeball to eyeball conversation about where this relationship is going." He made the comments in an hourlong interview with a handful of reporters.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats questioned whether bin Laden was hiding in plain sight, with Pakistani military and intelligence operatives either totally unaware of his location or willfully ignoring his presence to protect him.

Bin Laden's death and questions about Pakistan's eagerness in the fight against terrorism came as the tenuous U.S.-Pakistan relationship seems even more fragile. In recent weeks, CIA contractor Raymond Davis' killing of two Pakistanis and stepped-up drone attacks further strained ties between the two countries.

Different factions within Pakistan itself complicate its role as a U.S. ally. What state officials and those in the military may have known about bin Laden could be quite different from what tribes and even families in the region knew or, more to the point, were willing to say about the Abbottabad compound and its occupants.

A frustrated Pakistan on Tuesday called the U.S. raid to get bin Laden an "unauthorized unilateral action" that "cannot be taken as a rule."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Congress may consider cutting the almost $1.3 billion in annual aid to Pakistan if it turns out the Islamabad government knew where bin Laden was hiding.

The No. 2 House Democratic leader, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, said if Pakistan doesn't ease doubts about its dedication to fighting terrorists, Congress should explore whether it makes sense to reduce U.S. aid to that country.

"I don't know whether it would be effective or counterproductive, we'll have to look at that," he told reporters, adding, "It needs to be looked into."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, acknowledged the frustration of his colleagues.

"But at the end of the day, if you want to create a failed state in Pakistan, one of the best things to do is sever relationships. It is not in our national security interest to let this one event destroy what is a difficult partnership but a partnership nonetheless," Graham said.

The Obama administration pushed back on talk of punishing Pakistan.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday that the U.S. is committed to cooperating with Pakistan despite questions about who in the Islamabad government may have known that bin Laden was in hiding in his compound in Abbottabad.

"We don't know who if anybody in the government was aware that bin Laden or a high-value target was living in the compound. It's logical to assume he had a supporting network. What constituted that network remains to be seen," Carney said. "It's a big country and a big government and we have to be very focused and careful about how we do this because it is an important relationship."

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the U.S. aid "is in both Pakistan's long-term interests as well as the United States' national interests and security interests."

Prior to the raid on the compound, U.S. officials say, they didn't inform Pakistan of U.S. plans. Unaware and unnerved Pakistanis scrambled their aircraft in the wake of the U.S. military intervention.

Publicly, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton thanked Pakistan for its cooperation and said the country "has contributed greatly to our efforts to dismantle al-Qaida." She said that "in fact, cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound in which he was hiding."

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to Clinton seeking details on the level of cooperation from Pakistan, saying the fact that bin Laden lived in comfortable surroundings near Islamabad "calls into question whether or not the Pakistanis had knowledge that he was there and did not share that knowledge."

In an essay published Tuesday by The Washington Post, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari denied suggestions his country's security forces may have sheltered bin Laden, and said their cooperation with the United States helped pinpoint his location.

Jonathan Farley adds

We like our good guys in white, and the bad guys in black hats. But here's the problem... you want to supply our troops in Afghanistan? You need Pakistan. They have all the ports and roads. You want to stabilize Afghanistan? You need Pakistan. They created the Taliban. You want to keep peace in the Indian Ocean? You need Pakistan. 

See, the Chinese are wooing them a bunch right now to a) tilt against the US and India, b) provide the Chinese port facilities for it's growing navy, and c) buy a whole bunch of Chinese weapons. OH, and they are openly hostile to another friend of ours, India, they fight periodically, and they both have nuclear weapons.

So go ahead, tell them to go to hell. And get out a big, big shovel to clean up the wreck. Assuming it's reached it's half life, and you aren't cooked by the radiation.

American troops in Libya under consideration

So the United States may have American troops on the ground in Libya after all.

He said NATO has done an effective job in an increasingly complex combat situation. But he noted that, in a new tactic, Muammar Qaddafi's forces are making airstrikes more difficult by staging military forces and vehicles near civilian areas such as schools and mosques... Asked if the U.S. would provide troops, Ham said, "I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."

Jonathan Farley responds

So I'm submitting my resume to the US Army to be the head of AFRICOM tomorrow. Why you ask? Because General Ham seems surpised that a) Libyan forces "grabbed the belt buckle" of rebels in the city so they wouldn't be bombed, and b) ground troops may be necessary.

I predicted both the day we started, and also predicted the Libyans would use civilian vehicles to move around to hinder our targeting.

President Obama's war hypocrisy

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -Senator Obama, 12/20/2007

In all honesty the hypocrisy of a sitting President regarding what he said as a Senator in order to criticize his President, of a different Party, for political gain, is not relevant insomuch as this is not a forum to tear down the Commander-in-Chief for the sake of one upcoming election or another.

The sad and simple point, however, is that the conflicting statements made by our leader can cause our supposed allies to distrust us as they fail to trust our leader.  This undermines both diplomatic relationships in the nature of the open hand and eliminates necessary credibility when issuing threats, the policies of the closed fist.

Libyan intervention fed by international unity and liberal guilt

There is a "powerful coalition ready and willing to take military action against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan regime." The UK Telegraph notes how each of the leaders of the three noted western countries each had differing respective political motivations for taking action in Lbya.

the phone lines out of Whitehall were “red hot” for the past fortnight as the Prime Minister and William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, led a diplomatic drive whose prize was the unexpectedly strong and united Resolution 1973, passed by the United Nations Security Council, which authorised “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan citizens.

For the first time in more than a decade, Britain and France were singing from the same diplomatic hymn sheet while the strength of opposition to Gaddafi among Arab nations was crucial in providing the necessary regional support for action.

The last piece of the jigsaw to fall into place was the United States. Only on Tuesday night, at the end of an extremely tense meeting of his national security staff, did President Barack Obama finally come down on the side of military intervention. Some 48 hours later, UNSCR 1973 was passed.

It was nearly a month since Libyans had taken to the streets, less than a week since President Nicolas Sarkzoy of France had recognised the authority of the rebel council in Benghazi and a fortnight since Mr Cameron had told the Commons he would seek a no-fly zone against Col Gaddafi’s air force.

Yesterday’s summit in Paris was in the first instance, according to Whitehall sources, about “a public demonstration of resolve” by members of the coalition.

Despite the martial inclination of the western leaders there is an obvious and fervent leaning towards a comparison and contrast to President Bush's approach to Iraq although it is the Clinton Administration's approach to war that the Obama Administration strives to follow.  Such is disgustingly typical with partisans.

Mr Obama, who is trying to recast America’s role as the world’s policeman after the traumas of the President George W Bush era, kept his pistol in his holster until the last moment – as a range of former senators, generals, senior officials and other experts opposed a no-fly zone as a vague, open-ended and burdensome commitment.

Within the administration, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, mocked “loose talk” about a no-fly zone. His views were supported by Thomas Donilon, the national security adviser, and others.

However, the top-level figures in favour of action were Vice President Joe Biden and Mrs Clinton. They had been reminded by Bill Clinton of his eternal regret at not saving hundreds of thousands of lives by intervening in Rwanda, and his failure at not policing Serb killers from the air earlier on in Bosnia.

It was that moral argument for liberal interventionism, backed up by urging from Britain and France, that proved decisive for the US President.

On March 20 Jonathan Farley responded

And that is precisely the wrong reason to do something... and have you noticed how the left always characterizes the military as war mongers? Look at the list of those who opposed this... and supported it.

The supporters of the war list necessities for involvement in terms of why

When Mr Hague spoke to The Sunday Telegraph last week he said any move towards military action needed three main pillars: it should be broad based, be legally valid and enjoy regional support. Last weekend’s key decision by the Arab League to support the no-fly zone ensured that the third of these criteria would be met.

but not enough in terms of how. In reference to Mr Hague's comment, Mr Farley explains further.

Notice something missing there? What are we supposed to be doing? How does taking out runways and SAM sites help rebels fighting against tanks with Toyota pick up trucks?

This thing is too vague, too open ended, and doesn't address the issue... it's a "moral argument for liberal interventionism," that makes the participants feel good.

The respective motivations for the involvement of these western powers, especially the United States, is based upon hypothetical guilt in the sense of possible alternatives yet an actual justification involves a set goal, terms for victory, limitations for aid and support of definitive allies, and a concrete idea of who must be defeated and to what end.

Are we there to win the war or simply to assure that the "rebels" win their war?

so what if the air strikes also struck Muammar's tanks/other fighting ground forces? Then what? He has to bunker into the buildings and make this a street fight? How much do the rebels need for a tipping point. What if Muammar turns up blasted to bits tomorrow?

Just whose uprising is this?

Mr. Farley explains that we don't quite know the answer to that.

From what little I've been able to gather, it appears the French are hitting his armor. And that's a good thing, mission wise. (and probably means they had help on the ground... I did read Egyptian and US SOF were on the ground last week) ... If I was Khadaffi, I'd drive my forces directly into rebel areas, and "hold their belt buckle" which is how the Vietnamese put it when they wanted to avoid air strikes. And continue the attack.

I got side tracked and stopped looking, but somewhere I've got statistics on how our air force did against Iraqi armor in Desert Storm... and it isn't quite the wipeout everyone would expect. Even after a month of bombing. Even with the Iraqis putting their underwear on flags and surrendering, there were a lot of tanks left we had to fight. Which proves that a "no drive zone" cannot completely clamp down on Khadaffi's forces.

But I"m still concerned because we don't know what the rebels want, who they are comprised of, what their abilities are, what type of supplies they have, and so on.

Assuming we are in this to toss Khadaffi out (and in that case the Secretary of State and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs need to have a conversation) those would be good questions to ask.

If Khaddafi ended up dead tomorrow, with no idea if the rebels are competent, or even good government types, troops are going to end up on the ground to keep things under control. They don't have to be ours, but peacekeepers will end up there... or we could have Year Zero all over again. Which is why I'd like more info on who these guys are... don't want to end up with the Tripolitan version of Pol Pot.

Ditto if this works and Khaddafi gives in completely. But I think it's more likely he cries uncle, stays in power, and we're stuck policing his airspace forever... and he gets more active terrorism wise.

In the rush to "DO SOMETHING!" I'm afraid we will accomplish nothing. If the goal is to get him out, I think we need to invade. And then we're down all kinds of other bad roads.

IN the meantime, France is all hot and bothered about this because they get oil, I'm sure they want to sell him or a successor weapons, and North Africa is their old sphere of influence. Let them take the lead. I just hope we don't have to clean up the mess when they botch things completely.

I predict mess, followed by an unfortunate American invasion.  This is France, after all. Their days of colonialism and imperialism are long since done; what would they know of it?

Iraq/Libya partisan shift, hypocritical paradigm

In the East,

An evil Arab dictator has been in power for decades. He personally controls his country's vast oil wealth. A sponsor of terrorism, he has provoked the West to take military action against him in the past. Islamic fundamentalists despise him as much as the West does. When his people rise up against him, he murders them ruthlessly. The United Nations Security Council has passed resolutions condemning him.

But in the West

An American president, intent on promoting democracy in the Middle East, demands that the dictator abdicate. When the dictator fails to leave, the American president authorizes the use of military force. Our "allies," including Great Britain, are asked to help. The endgame for the use of force is unclear.

Turnabout expectations

Sound familiar? No, we're not talking about Moammar Qaddafi and Barack Obama. We're talking about Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. The difference is this: in almost the exact same set of circumstances, Bush was called "Hitler" by the Left. Leftists wrote plays and stories and movies about killing him. Democratic Party politicians, like Sen. Dick Durbin, likened our troops to "Nazis." Democratic Senators like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, who voted for the military action, accused the president of lying. Mass demonstrations and protests, sponsored by the communist and socialist Left, broke out in the U.S. and Great Britain.

There is a point here.

Antiwar groups like Code Pink staged demonstrations at military recruiting stations, and had to be dragged shrieking from the halls of Congress. Opponents of the war shouted that Saddam's Iraq never attacked us, and that our military action... was a violation of international law. The Left cried for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

President Obama has just committed American forces to engage in acts of war against Moammar Qaddafi. Where are the protesters? Where are the accusations that Obama is a liar and a Nazi? Where are the groups of "artists" wishing death upon the "warmonger" Obama? Where are the cries for Obama's impeachment? There aren't any, and there won't be any, either. Obama - who made a fetish out of his opposition to the "surge" in Iraq, yet ordered a "surge" of his own in Afghanistan - has just committed American forces to combat action against a third Muslim country. No matter. 

The Left's hypocrisy on matters of war and peace is sickening. When the Democratic Party is in power, it routinely commits America to war. When Republicans are in power, Democrats engage in shameless demagoguery and paint the Republicans as bloodthirsty war-mongers.

Some would say that the most recent dust-up in Iraq is entirely different, especially when put in light of the search for "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

When Bush invaded Iraq, making sure that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction that could be given to terrorists was indeed a concrete American interest. The world believed it. The Democrats believed it. Just because we didn't find them, doesn't mean that Bush, the Democrats, and the world were all wrong. It's clear the Democrats will not concern themselves with opposing war until the next Republican is in power.

That sort of ongoing policy shift along partisan lines undermines the nation's ongoing need for victories, as well as destroys continuity of policy, which makes a veritable mess of foreign policy relations as it undermines expectations left and right. 

In blockquotes is David Harns; the rest is me. 

Undermining the Military In a Time of War

Divisive, subversive nasty policy-shaking attitudes are being made by open sexualists towards our military in a time when our energy should be spent on fighting the enemy.

Open sexualists?

Sexual morality is a cause for another weblog, but I tell you the truth: I don't care what you do in the bedroom. Nobody who doesn't have a signed obligation to God has an obligation for anything except perhaps whatever obligation they signed to our military in this instance. If you obligation is to fight and die for my country than perhaps what is best is not having the nasty distractions. Of course that's just me saying it. I'm not a student of history or anything. Right. I am.

The presence of open homosexuals (and women) in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros will be unleashed into an environment based on philia, creating friction and corroding the very source of military excellence itself. It does so by undermining the non-sexual bonding essential to unit cohesion as described by Gray. Unlike philia, eros is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness, and favoritism, all of which undermine order, discipline, and morale. These are issues of life and death, and help to explain why open homosexuality and homosexual behavior traditionally have been considered incompatible with military service.

No distractions to the brotherhood. No selfishness or sexual drive is to be injected into the fighting forces, and if anything the people who want to have homosexuals in the military, the homosexuals among them are the one whos selfishly exhibit their sexuality.

Most research has shown unit cohesion is critical to military effectiveness and battlefield success. The key to cohesion is what the Greeks called philia — friendship, comradeship, or brotherly love. Philia is the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together.

At the very best this idea demonstrates a division in our country to our enemies, even if we don't weaken our combat units from within.

Success in the Philippines Against An Insurgency

Under President McKinley the United States was sold the Philippines for approximately $20 million in the Treaty of Paris, concluding the Spanish-American War.

President William McKinley decided, after some vacillation, to take the islands for the United States. There were other claimants. A Filipino army, led by revolutionary Emilio Aguinaldo, was besieging Manila by the time American Army units reached the archipelago. Aguinaldo and the Filipinos were not pleased when the Spanish essentially handed the capital city over to the Americans in August 1898, and were even less pleased when Spain and the United States negotiated the Treaty of Paris, which included the sale of the Philippines to the United States for $20 million. It was enough to start a shooting war. On Feb. 4 and 5, 1899, American and Filipino forces clashed around Manila. The day of Feb. 5 ended in an overwhelming American victory that sent the Filipino army reeling backward.

Eventually a straightforward war ended and then started a war with "insurrectos". This is obviously a comparison with our present war in Iraq.

a long neglected one, is the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902. It was a war that the United States had not planned, and did not expect, to fight. It was a war in which the superiority of American civilization was supposed to bring grace to a foreign people. It was a war that the United States seemed to win quickly and with ease, but that somehow did not end. It was a war that aroused controversy at home and abroad. It was a war in which the United States was accused of great cruelty, and one that mixed conventional fighting and counterinsurgency in equal measures, fought against an enemy who attacked and then faded back into the mass of civilians.

And yet, in the Philippines, the United States won with relatively few casualties. A little more than three years after the start of the war, President Theodore Roosevelt could declare victory and, unlike George W. Bush, not be undercut by a continuing insurrection. America succeeded less by waging war and more by waging politics, politics that co-opted much of the Filipino population and isolated the revolutionaries.

What is writer David Silbey's point/thesis?

That victory offers a central lesson for our current involvement in Iraq: Counterinsurgency is less about conquest and more about persuasion.

I'm not certain that that is absolutely true or if that martial philosophy is effective against our current enemy, given that a fidelity to Allah, as an Evil Muslim (Islamofascist, Radical Extremist, pick one), sees it, precludes any other interest which would drive an individual to pledge a peaceful non-violent loyalty to a non-Jihad-type political regime. Broadly speaking the Slate article is certainly accurate, and civilization can be bought, more than it can be inflicted. Some of the people who are enemies now will always be enemies and should be treated as such, but others are potential or future friends.