A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
August 08, 2005A relationship of mutual dependence: The United States and Saudi Arabia(Cross-posted at The Reaction.) As oil and gas prices continue to soar (here in Toronto, regular unleaded is fast approaching $1.00/liter -- which is a lot, trust me), as King Abdullah assumes the reins (and the reign) in Riyadh, as Iraq comes to look more and more like a quagmire from which there will be no easy withdrawal, and as terrorism continues to dominate the front pages on both sides of the Atlantic, there seems to be renewed attention on Saudi Arabia and its relationship with the U.S. Whether you accepted Michael Moore's controversial and admittedly one-sided depiction of that relationship in Fahrenheit 9/11 or not -- and I, for one, accepted much of it, including the frighteningly close friendship between the Bushes (H.W. and W.) and the Saudi royal family -- there is no doubt that the two countries are intricately linked: President Bush might not have turned up personally in Riyadh yesterday but he certainly sent a high-powered delegation to pay his respects to the new leader of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah. Obviously, the source of that dependence is oil... Renewable energy sources may be the wave of the future, but, at present, developed economies are oil-based and hence oil-dependent: "The Saudis are in a great position today," said Jean-François Seznec, a professor at Columbia University's Middle East Institute. "We cannot be enemies with everybody. We need their oil desperately." Well, exactly. But here's what's interesting: At present, I would say that conservative foreign policy is divided into three main factions: realists, neoconservatives, and moral interventionists. The first two are the dominant factions. Moral interventionism, perhaps best represented by Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, isn't much of a force, though it seems to link up well with one of the dominant factions on the left, liberal interventionism. Isolationism, best represented by Pat Buchanan and once the most powerful faction on the right, is no longer a force at all. Now, the realists -- George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, et al. -- have always accepted and even encouraged the oil-dependent relationship with Saudi Arabia. Indeed, many of them have profited from it significantly. If we are to believe the neocons, however, one of the goals of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the lessening of dependence on Saudi oil -- and hence eventual regime change in Riyadh, not just Baghdad -- through control (via a friendly government in Baghdad) of Iraqi oil supplies and, it was dreamed, domino-effect democratization through the Middle East. But the neocons, as we now know, were wrong. Their pursuit of democracy may have been, and may still be, noble, but their idealism blinded them to any sense of what would really happen once U.S. forces invaded Iraq and took down Saddam. There hasn't been a swift and easy political transformation in Iraq and Iraqi oil production hasn't been what it was hoped it would be: Among the fringe benefits of removing Saddam Hussein from power, went the thinking in the United States at the time, would be a rapid recovery of that country's oil production. In some hawkish circles in Washington, it was thought that a free Iraq would eventually undercut OPEC's power and marginalize Saudi Arabia. Indeed, "Saudi Arabia has proved time and again that it is indispensable to the stability of oil markets". And this means that for the foreseeable future Saudi Arabia will continue to exert extraordinary influence over the United States. Given the friendliness between the two countries, it may do so in a fairly benign way, boosting oil production and generally keeping oil prices down at manageable levels, but, in return, there isn't much the U.S. will be able to do about what is still a relatively authoritarian regime at the heart of the Middle East, one with intimate ties to international terrorism (let's remember that the most famous Saudi of all, one Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose). The U.S. may say the right things, as Condoleezza Rice has, but it's unlikely, given this dependent friendship (and the Saudi royal family needs U.S. support and approval just as much as the U.S. needs Saudi oil), that the rhetoric will be backed up with anything in the way of substance. But this relationship of mutual dependence can't last forever -- and, indeed, it may end sooner rather than later for two reasons: 1) Saudi oil reserves might not be as deep as the Saudis themselves want us to believe. It may be that Saudi Arabia has maxed out at peak production. According to the Times article linked above, "[q]uestions still surround Saudi Arabia, fanning doubt over the country's ability to meet the world's growing demand for oil. These revolve around the true extent of its huge oil reserves, the rate at which its fields are depleting, and the output at Ghawar, the world's largest oil field, which accounts for half the nation's output." The Saudis deny such allegations, but the truth is that at some point the Saudi oil supply will begin to run dry. 2) There will soon be a generational hand-over of power in Riyadh. Since its founding in 1932, Saudi Arabia has been ruled in succession by Abdud Aziz Al Saud and four of his sons -- Saud, Faisal, Khalid, and, until his death this past week, Fahd. The new king, Abdullah, is a half-brother to these four and is hence of the same generation. But it may very well be that he's already something of a lame-duck king, and it's not clear what will happen when he dies and the next generation (or one of his more conservative brothers) takes over. Abdullah's been running Saudi Arabia, more or less, since 1995, but "most Saudi watchers doubt he will be much more powerful than he has been to date, given his age, his brothers around him who don't share his political views, and the questions left unresolved as to which line of grandchildren will eventually inherit the throne". Like the neocons (and many others), I would like to see a new regime in Riyadh. But that new regime could very well be one explicitly hostile to the U.S. and its allies. Similarly, I would like to see the U.S. and other developed countries invest more heavily in renewable energy and hence to lessen its dependence on oil generally and Saudi oil in particular. But, for now, there's simply no way to circumvent such dependence (contrary to conservative claims, drilling in the Arctic wouldn't help much). This means that we're stuck with this relationship of mutual dependence between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, that is, with a friendship with an authoritarian regime at the heart of the Middle East. All the U.S. (or anyone else) can realistically do now is encourage baby steps towards liberal democracy in Saudi Arabia, even if, realistically, a liberal democratic Saudi Arabia is a long way off. In the meantime, though, the U.S. (and everyone else) needs to prepare for the inevitable: a Saudi Arabia with a dwindling oil supply and a potentially hostile regime in Riyadh. Whatever we may think of the current regime -- and I, for one, don't think too highly of it -- a radicalized Saudi Arabia with nothing to keep it in check would be a lot worse. Comments
"as Iraq comes to look more and more like a quagmire from which there will be no easy withdrawal, We're still in Germany, and Korea -- were they quagmires? How many lives of Americans did you think it would cost to topple Saddam? Did Saddam's government surrender? To me it looks like a long nation-building exercise, with Bush on track to a) turn over sovereignty to a transitional Iraqi gov't, and b) create an elected group of Iraqi Constitutional Conventionists to write a new Iraqi Constitution. Now preparing for c) completion of the Constitution, d) voting on it; and e) voting in accordance with new Constitiution for a new democratically elected government. Has it been faster in Kosovo? Or where? Certainly slower than I'd like; but not so much slower than reasonable for good progress. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 8, 2005 04:41 PMFunny how we're cavorting around in the desert while Al Qaeda expands all over the planet. I guess the Administration needed an enemy to make us forget Enron. Now, phoenix programs, use of torture and the "Salvador Option." The same old mistakes, they just flat do not learn. Coincidentally, a Salvadoran paramilitary gang with connections to Bin Laden has 5000 members in DC alone. But the band plays on. You may be interested in a few blog articles I've written about arms proliferation and paramilitary gang activity on the Mexican border. The Nuevo Laredo situation is interesting in light of the US sweep netting over 600 suspected members of the gang MS-13, founders of which were members of the guerrilla army in El Salvador in the 1980s. They also have connections with Al Qaeda. http://organicwarfare.blogspot.com Posted by: Jeremiah at August 8, 2005 05:03 PMTom Grey, while I agree with you, and think it very important that we remember we're still in Bosnia (more than ten years now) and Kosovo (more than six years now) before proclaiming failure in Iraq after just two years, I don't think we're likely to convince many Americans to be patient. As a nation, Americans have become addicted to this instant gratification culture. We want what we want and we want it now, and if we can't get it now then we want to move on to something else. You see it permeated in everything from "day trading" (it wasn't enough to trade stocks, we had to do it instantly) to fast food restaurants. Unfortunately, not all things can be achieved instantaneously, but it lies beyond this generation's capability to understand that. Posted by: Bobby at August 8, 2005 09:18 PMTHe relationship between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is goes beyound oil. Posted by: Triple A at August 9, 2005 01:12 AMHey everyone, big surprise, this NYT story is as Fraudulent as Michael Moore's 911 movie. The central premise of this story is that the USA is "more dependent than ever" on Saudi Oil. Posted by: Susan at August 9, 2005 04:16 AMSusan, it sure is important to note that the percent of US oil imports from Saudi Arabia has steadily declined. Of course, that leaves aside the raw numbers. Since our total consumption is bound to have increased over the past 14 years, it's likely that the actual volume has been much more steady, but that the entry of other sources has cut into the Saudi's percent share. Anyone know? But regardless of the exact numbers, it seems pretty obvious that as of today, we're awfully dependent on Saudi oil, given that they provide, according to your graph, about 12% of it. I wonder if any other nation provides a larger percent of it. Anyone know? Unlike many others, I'm not reflexively critical of admin energy policy. Given our thirst for energy, it strikes me as reasonable to pursue additional sources fairly aggressively. But given both geopolitical reality and the fact that oil is a finite and shrinking resource, what does trouble me is that the admin's policy (much like in many other areas, BTW) feels one sided. The approach is, well, almost exclusively supply-sided. Most people are willing to grant that energy is a crucial issue for us on both economic and national security grounds. Not to mention environmental grounds. This is why I continue to wonder why admin policy going forward focuses on increasing supply, and seems to do little to try to curb demand. I encourage people interested in the US-Saudi relationship to make an effort to catch the Frontline documentary on SA. It makes it pretty clear both that SA is a pretty unique and peculiar government, and that the relationship between the US and the Saudis is one of co-dependency. Posted by: bk at August 9, 2005 08:12 AMOh Michael, BTW, why say "quagmire" unless your goal is to get a reflexive defense of the Iraq situation such as the one Tom offered? Tom, suppose instead of saying quagmire, Michael had said that the situation in Iraq was one that has turned out to be far more troublesome than some neoconservatives had expected. Suppose he had said that it is a difficult and challenging situation that is unfolding at a very high cost, and that the outcome is far from assured. Would you quarrel with that characterization? Posted by: bk at August 9, 2005 08:50 AMHere is the DOE page that documents oil imports.
Thought experiment: Who gets the worst of it if we stop buying Saudi oil tomorrow, us or them? I personally think it's them. We can find other sources if we need to. They on the other hand probably would have a real hard time filling the gap we left if we stopped buying. Yes it would be very difficult for us and prices would spike but it wouldn't have the same effect on us as it would on them. I'd be interested in seeing the percentage of Saudi oil we buy.
Oh and here's more information on our oil dependency, including the chart from Susan and another showing total gross imports for the same time period. Posted by: Scotch Drinker at August 9, 2005 09:31 AMThe three largest exporters of oil to the USA are Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm Posted by: Bob J Young at August 9, 2005 09:56 AMWell, I guess I'm a little bit more lenient. I don't have a good answer for the question of who bears the most responsibility for whatever special political meaning "quagmire" has become freighted with. I try not to use it because it's a button-pusher, but it doesn't honestly strike me as an especially inaccurate term on its face. We really have become bogged down in a difficult situation, even though there were arguably good reasons for becoming involved, and there remain good reasons for following through. I have serious doubts about whether the Saudis would suffer should we somehow find ourselves able to choose not to buy oil from them. There's a global market, and demand is both more than ample, and growing strongly. If we bought our oil elsewhere, I'm going to bet it would cost us the same or even more. If we buy the oil from better country A, that means that whoever was previously buying BCA's oil will have to find someone else to buy from. Posted by: bk at August 9, 2005 10:01 AMI reacted similarly to the term quagmire. It may be accurate if literally interpreted, as bk pointed out, but to me the usage implies a whole set of beliefs: such as "illegal war," "impeach Bush," and "the Iraq war is hopeless and we should pull out as soon as possible." The first time I saw it used was when Ted Kennedy hurled all sorts of accusations against Rumsfeld during an Armed Services Committee Hearing and demanded his resignation. Another Senator asked each of the panelists, our generals and commanders, if anyone of them considered it a quagmire. All replied in the negative saying that as the insurgency is not cohesive, lacks popular support, and has no real vision for the future of Iraq, it is destined to fail. They also did not agree with the "last throes" statement and said that the insurgency has maintained its levels. So it seems we could be successful in Iraq, at least a present, but the cost of success may be more than America is willing to bear. In any case, I have been a bit put-off by some of Michael's language recently. He has acknowledged himself that he has slid to the left. But it's not really the leftward sliding, it's more the tone and sometimes reflexive nature. For instance, Michael recently referred to Roberts as a "right-wing radical"; he later changed his mind. But Michael, I think you have to be careful to not be swept up in left-think, just as others need to be careful not to be swept up in right-think. But I guess it's mainly the tone and the use of move-on style "buzzwords" which are the most disturbing. Now, my tone has been bad before, but I'm learning. Again it's not so much a question of content than the use of buzzwords to which the audience is supposed to reflexively nod in agreement. Just my two cents, and I do tend to lean pro-war so this is likely coloring my comments as well. But I don't have the same reaction to MWS who opposed the invasion. Even when he takes me to task, he does it in more calm and methodical way with lack of buzzwords. Posted by: Adam at August 9, 2005 10:47 AMCNN was reporting that Afghanistan was a "quagmire" only 1 week after operations started there I believe. I think people tend to see what they want to see. Not saying that Michael or any of the others on the Left (outside of a few radical nutcases)actualy want things to go badly for us but... when things turn out to take a considerable amount of time or go slower then the most optomistic pre-war rhetoric (as historicaly they almost ALWAYS do in millitary interventions) they tend to see the worst in the current situation because it reinforces thier origional misgivings about the action and the people who sponsored it. Just as those of us who were more supportive of the action tend to emphasize the progress and see every victory as just about having the whole thing won so we can "bring the boys home by christmass" .... that view reinforces our orgional positions and the confidence we placed in them. The reality is neither is correct. I don't believe anyone can honestly look at the situation in Iraq and say that alot of progress hasn't been made. I also don't think any can look at the situation and pretend there isn't plenty of struggle ahead. For people who's perception of war is firing a bunch of Cruise missles at a bunch of empty tents and declaring victory on CNN, Iraq might seem like a "quagmire". For those of us who remember history, 1/3rd the male population of Britain as casualties and 4 years of battle for a couple thousand yards of turf in Flanders.... THAT'S a quagmire. To put things in perspective and without diminishing the very real sacrifice made by our men and women in uniform overseas, in 2 years fighting in Iraq we've lost less then 1/10th the number of people the British Army (alone) lost in the first 8 HOURS of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Posted by: cengel at August 9, 2005 11:39 AMNote the article says the U.S. depends on SA for a STABLE supply of oil. So how much oil, about one-sixth, SA supplies the U.S. is not the crux of the dependence. Our dependence lies in the fact that Saudi Arabia is the only producer with the spare capacity to replace millions of barrels a day of lost oil. As gas prices of late indicate, our economy, and way of life, has a very sensitive relationship to oil. Imagine what even a relatively brief oil shortage would do? The dependence on SA oil is real. I appreciated this article for pointing out that before 9/11, when the Bush admin. was planning the overthrow of Saddam, oil may have been a factor in favor of ouster. Probably the neocons genuinely desire a free (read: U.S.-style freedom) in the middle east. Those governments would naturally buddy up to the beacon of freedom, the U.S. U.S. Corporations would invest in Iraq, Iranian, and Saudi oil. Everything would be hunky-dory.
Maybe there's something wrong with the society of the spectacle-a world where our free and spontaneous desires are sold back to us in the form of pitiful commodity-spectacles. Posted by: Bing at August 9, 2005 12:13 PMCengel, With all due respect, comparing the losses in Iraq to the Battle of the Somme is irrelevant. It's like saying that, well, we lost 3000 on 9/11 but we lose 40,000 to traffic accidents. Context is important. I'm not going to get into a debate as to the merits of the Iraq War, but I don't think it's especially helpful to justify it by saying that we didn't lose as many as we did in, say WW II. It's still a lot of lives lost in absolute terms. And if you think the war is a mistake, it's lives lost for nothing. And to base your analysis of "progress" in the War on completely dissimilar historical analogies is just as flawed. We have a much different military today and war is much different. If your standard for a "quagmire" is Flanders or the Marne, that's going to justify virtually anything short of nuclear war. I don't think it makes much sense to criticize those concerned about the casualties in Iraq by saying, well, look what they could have been. If you're going to look at it that way, American casualites at Omaha Beach were far less than at Gettysberg, so I guess that means that D-Day wasn't really all that bloody. Posted by: MWS at August 9, 2005 01:12 PMI give the Bush Administration some credit on one front and that is their refusal (inability?) to drive down the price of oil. This may not seem like much to applaud, but it was only 5 years ago that the Clinton Administration tried to regulate a relatively modest price rise by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (http://people.howstuffworks.com/question478.htm). The first Bush Administration did the same in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War. And it was only 30 years ago that the Nixon Administration placed price controls on the oil industry to flatten energy costs to U.S. consumers. Nothing will encourage energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources like higher prices for gasoline and heating oil. In this case a laissez-faire attitude is a plus. Posted by: Henry Woodbury at August 9, 2005 01:13 PMWell, I see that my use of the word "quagmire" has itself become a quagmire. It is a loaded term, to be sure, but I think it reflects my own disappointment at the conduct of the war -- a war that I supported (perhaps on false premises, but I supported it nonetheless). Or perhaps, to be more precise, the conduct of the occupation (although I realize that that, too, is a loaded term). Look, I'm not on the "left," even if I'm to the left of some of you. Trust me, I've had my own run-ins with the Daily Kos types, and they weren't pretty. On this setting -- Centerfield -- where the readership is at a very high level and people are smart enough to think through ideas, I tend to write more literally, assuming that my words will be taken as they are, not as they are perceived to be. So, to me, "quagmire" means, if I may quote from answers.com, "[a] difficult or precarious situation; a predicament". Surely that describes the current state in Iraq. In fact, it probably UNDERstates it. Adam, I am sorry if you've been put off by some of my language recently. When one write, one does try to provoke, but I do not necessarily write solely for the sake of provocation (especially here). Looking back over my recent posts, I think my language has been quite neutral overall. It's true that my first reaction to Roberts was a negative one, but I corrected that in a subsequent post (and in fact I've come around to him despite lingering concerns). The problem with the 24-hour news cycle is that it creates a demand for instant commentary. If you don't comment now, you're done, and anything you say even a couple of days out will seem tired and stale. Perhaps I was wrong to judge Roberts so quickly, but I did make an explicit point of admitting that that quick reaction was, well, too quick. On this, however, I do thank all of you for your comments. Believe it or not, it's important for me to hear from readers, and I do learn from all of you. Not just in terms of substance, but in terms of style. Posted by: Michael Stickings at August 9, 2005 01:15 PMAnd I think it's unfair to criticize Michael for a throw-away line when it wasn't the point of the post. He was actually trying to make the point that we need to get beyond the leftist criticisms of the war and figure out how we can make it better. But no one seems to want to talk about that--they just want to talk about how offended they are because Michael dared use the word "quagmire." But no one seems to want to talk about that--they just want to talk about how offended they are because Michael dared use the word "quagmire." Well Marc, my point is that if you want to focus discussion on certain things, it may be worthwhile to anticipate such proclivities and endeavor to avoid them. Isn't this thread evidence of the veractity of this? What's the first post? For my part, I didn't make any assumptions about what Michael meant, but as soon as I read his post, I knew that his word choice was unfortunate, and knew what was likely to ensue as a result. And it did, with the first post. My point in addressing the exchange between Michael and Tom is this: if you want to avoid having your threads devolve into partisan RUTS, you have to take responsibility for the extra care that trying to avoid them requires. I think most of our regulars really don't enjoy these ruts. And as you may be trying to suggest here, we should try to get past them. Part of that happens via familiarity and the resulting assumption of reasonable good will. But it's not always enough, and its and endless battle even among us. Brian, I really do think people are taking this stuff too seriously. Look, I don't know about others, but I write in a hurry and, while I try to be careful, I'm not editing everything I write. I assume that's true for most. So, without speaking for Michael, it's easy to use language that is not necessarily what you mean. I know there is a tendency to take these posts personally, especially since all of us have had bad experiences in that regard, but I think Michael has shown that he is not denigrating anyone's opinion. So I think we need to chill out; yes, people should be careful about what they write, but let's also give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they have a previous track record. I think it's clear that Michael is moderate in his politics and has tried his best to be respectful of other opinions. Moreover, I think we have become obsessive about avoiding "partisan rants." I certainly don't want the blog to devolve into the "Daily Kos" type of nonsense, but people have strong opinions and I don't think we should insist on a rigid straightjacket simply because we all want to get along. I certainly agree that civility is important, but civility should also be able to survive strong opinions. And, by the way, I made a mistake in talking about the purpose of Michael's post. That was the previous post. Posted by: MWS at August 9, 2005 01:53 PMAnd it wasn't even Michael's post. My apologies to you Brian. Posted by: MWS at August 9, 2005 01:54 PMMWS, Lets not play games here. Alot of people like to spout flowery verse that a single death is every bit as much a tragedy as a thousand.... and to the person that died and thier family, I'm sure that's very much true.... but to society as a whole it simply isn't. Whether something is "worthwhile" doing in real world politics DOES depend upon both what is gained from doing it and the cost involved.... and the actual number of lives lost really does matter in determing that cost. It might make for inpolitic verse but there really is a difference between hundreds of lives lost and hundreds of thousands. Alot of people consider our past intervention in Bosnia as a "worthwhile" decision because it achieved some good and only cost us alot of gunpowder and cash (and possibly some non-combat casualties?) . Do you really want to contend that view wouldn't have changed radicaly if we had achieved the exact same results but at the cost of 5 million American lives? Whenever I watch the 11:00 news at night, whatever tragedy that happaned that day is always portrayed as the "Greatest Tragedy Ever!"(tm). Polticians and media always use the tragedy of the moment as a bludgeon to try to drive home the point they want to make. Critics of the Administration, the media and anti-war activists have made a large point about the number of casualties we've sufferd in Iraq in trying to show how our policies were flawed, the decision to go to war was wrong or what a huge problem Iraq is. I have no desire to downplay the real tragedy that those casulties represent or the fact that what is happening over in Iraq is a very serious thing indeed. But I do think it prooves insightfull to put it in the context of our history as a nation and the expected costs of modern warfare. When you look at in the context of the history of modern warfare and our history as a nation some things become alot clearer. Seen in context, the "quagmire" and "disaster" of the moment suddenly starts looking alot more like a relatively smooth and efficient operation, that despite some setbacks is progressing at a relativly reasonable pace and at a cost in lives that's far less then most previous operations of it's type have been. A campfire is an "inferno" if you've never seen a city block ablaze. Posted by: cengel at August 9, 2005 02:23 PMCengel, I didn't think I was playing games. I'm certainly not saying that we should never accept any losses in pursuit of national policy and, of course the relative cost makes a difference in terms of whether a particular policy is worthwhile or not. But you are using extreme historical examples to argue that the costs in Iraq have not been that great. Obviously, in comparison to other wars, our losses in Iraq have been relatively light. But that doesn't mean they are not substantial. The fact that we lost 300,000 men in WW II doesn't mean that the 1700 we have lost in Iraq is not a lot in absolute terms. For one thing, you are talking about completely different types of wars and historical circumstances. If you want to say that our policy in Iraq is correct and, therefore, our losses are justified, so be it. It might even be correct to say that our losses are light relative to other similar kinds of actions. But you are analogizing to dissimilar events (World War I) and using the disparity in casulties to argue that our losses in Iraq are, therefore, not substantial. IMO, that's not a fair use of history. Posted by: Marc (formerly MWS) at August 9, 2005 03:30 PMMarc, I thought I was comparing a millitary intervention by our country with a millitary intervention by our country. I'm at a loss in seeing the dissimliarity there? Unless you are talking about the dissimilarity in scope and scale.... which is basicaly part of the very point I was making. Posted by: cengel at August 9, 2005 04:28 PMMWS, He was actually trying to make the point that we need to get beyond the leftist criticisms of the war and figure out how we can make it better. But no one seems to want to talk about that I would agree, but go even further as to note that I don't think most people are even capable of figuring out how to fight the War in Iraq better. We're talking about a very specialized field that very few Americans have any exposure to, training in, or background in-- most military professionals are at a loss as to how to fight a counter-insurgency, and they've at least studied military strategy for their entire careers. Expecting the layman to understand the issues and come up with solutions is like expecting the National Bowlers Association to come up with a working Social Security Reform plan-- they may be able to do it, to be sure, but there's nothing in their background that suggests they could (or should). I'm not saying that we don't have the right to critique conduct of the war-- of course we do-- I'm just pointing out that we're not likely going to come up with the solutions. And that, I think, explains why the "left" is so critical of the Administration without coming up with any real alternatives of their own-- very few of them know how to do so. Posted by: Bobby at August 9, 2005 08:44 PMWell I don't know about the rest of the posters, but I've never been very big on bowling. However I do love history, especially military history. The problem with an insurgency is that its not quite war and its not really police work.(You can't carpet bomb Baghdad) One military tactician I heard speaking on the subject suggested that we do know how to fight an insurgency. You base your tactics on how police fight gang violence. When the police show up at the scene of a crime no one will talk to them. The locals know that in an hour the police will be gone, but the gang members will still be there. So to fight gang violence the police establish a permanent presents in the neighborhood. Unfortunately we just don't have enough troops to do that for an entire country. That leave the outcome of Iraq very much in the hands of the Iraqi's. Posted by: Bob J Young at August 9, 2005 10:27 PMThat's kind of the problem. We're all experts in our own field so we think that we're therefore smart enough to know how to fight a counter-insurgency. But it's not about "smarts," it's about experience and relevant knowledge. I know a lot about computers, but I don't think that I can design "Baldur's Gate III." Nor do I think I can build the Golden Gate Bridge, establish an airline, or draft a Constitution superior to that developed in Philadelphia over 200 years ago. There's nothing in my background, training, or experience to suggest otherwise, even if I have read all about those things on an amateur basis. I think you either misunderstood that military tactician or he misrepresented his position (or doesn't know what he's talking about). An insurgency is war, and it does require managing violence-- but it is far more complicated than "police fighting a gang"-- there's language and cultural barriers for one thing, not to mention a carefully-crafted political strategy, intelligence-driven kinetic operations, an information operations campaign, political reconstruction, economic development, and a horde of other operating systems that must be incorporated-- and which don't translate cleanly to "police action." (You're more closely replicating a peacekeeping operation). You're right that it is all about the Iraqis, however. We could never manage a counter-insurgency without their cooperation, participation and, eventually, succession. That much is true. That's also why LTG Petraeus is investing so much effort into developing the Iraqi security forces. But since you're convinced we're failing because we don't have "enough troops" on the ground to establish a "permanent presence", let me ask you this? How many troops would be enough? GEN Shinseki's 200,000? Why? Because he said so? Or do you know the historical correlation of force matrix for a peacekeeping and counterinsurgency operations? And if it's just about the number of troops, then how do you explain the more successful effort in Afghanistan, where there's one-sixth the number of Coalition forces in Iraq (for a country of approximately the same population)? The strategy is shaky in Iraq, I agree, but it is far more complicated than simply "adding more troops would have equaled success." That's the product of someone who doesn't understand warfare... which, of course, goes back to what I said in the first place. Posted by: Bobby at August 10, 2005 02:16 AMFirst you say that you unqualified to discuss the topic (Using your own criteria: You're only a computer programmer)? Then you say; only you know what to do, and everyone else should shut up? I think you just argued yourself into irrelevance. Posted by: Bob J Young at August 10, 2005 08:47 AMCengel, My point was that you are comparing two dissimilar kinds of interventions in two completely different historical contexts. World War I and World War II involved mass armies of relatively equal scale fighting huge set piece battles. In addition, the scope of the interventions were much greater in that (at least WW II), were essentially wars for survival. Naturally, there were going to be huge numbers of casualties. Iraq is different. It involves essentially an invasion by one enormously great military power of a very small power. The technological and material advantage for the United States was enormous. So, you would expect US casualties, at least, to be far smaller than in the world wars. Yes, you were comparing interventions by the US. But they were pretty dissimilar comparisions. So, yes, the casualties in Iraq are small compared to WW I or WW II. But that's not the point. You have to look at it in historical and military context. Again, I'm not saying you can't justify the Iraq War or say that the casualties are reasonable given our objectives. I'm just saying you can't, IMO, compare the casualties to other wars where the ojectives and military situations were vastly different. Bobby, I certainly don't disagree with you. I don't think lay people have any idea how complicated military strategy is. In fact, my wife once looked at one of my books on WW II and was amazed at how much was involved in military strategy. But I don't think it's necessarily unfair to use "need more troops" as a proxy for criticizing the conduct of the war. Obviously, it's more complex than that, but it's about all we have. And, frankly, I'm a little reluctant to accept blindly that the military professionals have a handle on Iraq. Posted by: Marc at August 10, 2005 10:24 AMWhat Bobby said. The media shows us little or nothing but what bleeds. If your source of information for Iraq and our military actions there is the media, you're not getting very much of the story--and you're certainly not getting enough to even accurately assess what our position is or what our options are for improving it, much less enough info to construct workable arm-chair quarterback "solutions." (Bob J? I would suggest to you that you just argued your own self into irrelevance by intentionally misreading Bobby's post, and by not bothering to figure out anything about him.) So let him post his resume. The people on the ground should get the lion's share of input on how to fight. But to call everyone else's opinion irrelevant is absurd. Bob, I made the same mistake with Bobby (over defence options for South Korea) and got schooled properly. What you and I like to read about in our history books, he is busy doing for a living. Posted by: cengel at August 10, 2005 12:00 PMBob J, I'll note that misrepresenting an analogy as a statement of actual biographical fact about the person posting it (as you did) is at best a misreading of the post. I assigned the kindest interpretation. The mileage of others may vary (considerably). But if you can't tell an analogy from personal exposition...and if you can, your comment was dishonest. But to call everyone else's opinion irrelevant is absurd. Especially since this is a democracy and the 2006 election is shaping up to be a referendum on the war. I didn't see anyone calling "everyone's" opinion irrelevant. I saw you calling Bobby's opinion irrelevant, based on a blatant misrepresentation and misassignation of what he actually said. In a democracy you do indeed have the right to your own opinion. That doesn't makes your opinion relevant, informed, or sensible. Or your "facts" correct. If you're interested in Bobby's resume and bona fides, you can visit his blog. Posted by: Tully at August 10, 2005 12:18 PMI openly profess my ignorance about the current situation and military strategy, but I have several questions. Although it is true that we were able to succeed in Afghanistan with far less troops, isn't it the case that Karzai's reach is not so great outside of Kabul? Maybe we could use more there, so as to solidify Karzai's power and to check the growth of narcotics. To my untrained eyes, it seems that the initial looting and the fact that we seem to need to reconquer areas--playing whack-a-mole as it is sometimes described--indicates to me that we could use more troops. I understand that intelligence is critical and that other factors are important, but the question I have is, "Are our troop levels optimal?" and if so why do you say that? I guess in cases where my knowledge is minimal, and I have to choose between Bush's assessment and McCain's, I usually go for McCain. McCain seems to have a track record of being more honest. Posted by: Adam at August 10, 2005 12:19 PMTully: But more to the point: Bobby said: "Expecting the layman to understand the issues and come up with solutions is like expecting the National Bowlers Association to come up with a working Social Security Reform plan-- they may be able to do it, to be sure, but there's nothing in their background that suggests they could (or should). " I completely disagree. Wearing camo doesn't make you a saint or a genius. We are not talking about making widgets. The public has a right and duty to look over the war fighter's shoulder. Being a military officer is a profession, and like any other profession you have good ones, bad ones and a whole lot of average ones. Their view of the world is colored by their politics, religion and personal experience. Something is not gospel just because they say it! I get million of dollars of equipment dumped on the loading dock every year. I don't have to know how to design the stuff in order to figure out it doesn't work. Bob Young, Far from saying that "everyone else's opinion is absurd," I actually noted: I'm not saying that we don't have the right to critique conduct of the war-- of course we do-- I'm just pointing out that we're not likely going to come up with the solutions. Of COURSE we have the right to discuss or argue these topics. But that doesn't mean we should expect to be the ones who come up with all the answers. Some will make great contributions (a young South Beach corporate lawyer is actually one of the leading thinkers on defeating terrorist financing), but generally speaking this is going to be the exception, not the rule. Marc, But I don't think it's necessarily unfair to use "need more troops" as a proxy for criticizing the conduct of the war. Obviously, it's more complex than that, but it's about all we have. And, frankly, I'm a little reluctant to accept blindly that the military professionals have a handle on Iraq. That's exactly my point. We're frustrated with the War-- and understandably so. We're frustrated with the conduct of the War-- and understandably so. We don't really know the details of the operations and strategy that are being utilized (partially because they're CLASSIFIED, of course). And so we default to what we CAN criticize which are the troop levels-- something finite, concrete, and quantifiable that we can actually talk about. As you say, "it's all we have." I'm not even just a little reluctant to "blindly accept that the military professionals have a handle on Iraq"-- I'll say I'm downright concerned about many of them, not to mention the State Department guys who are managing the nation-building effort (although far less so since Ambassador Khalilzad moved from Kabul to Baghdad). But simply raising "troop levels," all by themselves, are not the answer. Adam, Having just spent a lot of time there, I wouldn't say we've "succeeded" in Afghanistan-- but I would agree that we're farther down the path to victory than in Iraq. The idea to use more Coalition troops to extend the central government's authority into the provinces comes with unintended consequences of its own: an increased foreign footprint, which might cause the Afghan people to view the presence as an "occupation" and not "security assistance," and thereby turn the center of gravity (the Afghan people) against us; worse still, perhaps even a tendency for the Coalition to see the extra troops as meaning that a kinetic solution could be reached, causing the Coalition to eschew much of the great asymmetric results they have accomplished with their carefully-crafted civil military strategy (and leading to a Bosnia/Kosovo, where there may be foreign-provided "security" but there is clearly no "exit strategy" because we haven't developed those capabilities indigenously). Karzai's legitimacy is being extended, but it is a slow-going process: potential spoilers (including warlords and narcotics traffickers) are having their powerbase slowly eroded by disarmament and economic opportunities provided to their militias; Reconciliation is bringing in former Taliban fighters, leaving Taliban leadership as increasingly detached from the forces they would need to be successful; and the democratic process and participation is allowing the citizens of Afghanistan to have a say in their country for the first time in history. There won't be a decisive, quick victory and counterinsurgency therefore requires an enormous amount of patience. That's what worries me. Our culture has become addicted to instant gratification and wants to believe that we can achieve that "immediate" victory, if only we just did "X" (whether "X" is change leaders or add more troops or whatever). But that doesn't exist-- it's a mirage. Victory will require numerous changes to our strategy, to be sure, but it will also require time. Posted by: Bobby at August 10, 2005 02:00 PMOk! I have to say that last post was a skillfully worded defusing. It tasted like something, from someone, with officer training. Posted by: Bob J Young at August 10, 2005 02:22 PMBobby, Thanks. That was a terrific comment and I appreciate your expounding some of your expertise. Is it your view that the military professionals are hamstrung by the civilian leadership or that they are simply not up to speed? Do you think the military would be doing things differently if not for the civilian leadership? And would they be doing it better? Posted by: Marc at August 10, 2005 03:29 PMYes, thank you, Bobby. And all of you. It's great to follow this fascinating discussion (a long way from the "quagmire" was the beginning of the thread). Posted by: Michael Stickings at August 10, 2005 04:31 PMMarc, It's hard to say. I suspect that's the lesson the US Army wants to take away from OIF: (obvious parallels to Vietnam here) that we won every battle, killed far more of the enemy than they killed of ours, and dominated the terrain wherever we were. And all of that will be true, but it will also be irrelevant. The unfortunate reality is that US Army officers are the product of a military culture that has developed from a tradition of linear battlefields-- combined arms forces conducting kinetic operations to destroy an enemy's forces through decisive operations. That's great for defeating the Soviet Army pouring through the Fulda Gap or the Kranovian horde attacking through the Whale-Furlong Gap, and (as we saw) it's even useful to conduct a "Thunder Run" on Baghdad. But it has its limitations in fighting a war of occupation or counterinsurgency where you have to target the enemy's strategy, and not just his forces. Intelligence-driven kinetic action takes a secondary role to information operations, reconstruction becomes paramount to establishing legitimacy of the central authority, and foreign internal defense becomes critical to ensuring that authority has the security to protect itself against foreign and domestic threats. And all of that needs to be tied to a political solution, since that, after all, is what is going to defeat the enemy (you can't possibly destroy him). I suspect, when left to their own devices, too many military officers do what they know (i.e., detect and destroy the enemy) without thinking through the second- and third-order effects of what they're doing, and this in turn leads to the "whack a mole" strategy that everyone recognizes will have no end. Success does require killing some insurgents and terrorists, but it's a product of a successful strategy, not a successful strategy in and of its own. Posted by: Bobby at August 10, 2005 05:41 PMI would also be remiss if I didn't point out that there are lots of officers who do get it. LTG David Barno, who commanded Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan from 2003 until two months ago, was definitely one of them. But by and large they are swimming against the tide of an Army culture that has come see technology, maneuver, and firepower as the Holy Trinity, and don't quite know how to leverage all of the other combat multipliers in full spectrum operations. Posted by: Bobby at August 10, 2005 05:47 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
