As part of relaunching and restarting the StrategyUnit blog, we’re moving to StrategyUnit to a new home at www.StrategyUnit.net with a new RSS address at http://feeds.feedburner.com/strategyunit. Please update your bookmarks and RSS Reader appropriately.

We’re losing lots of links and traffic by this move, so I would really appreciate it if you update your blogroll and other links appropriately.

Thanks so much and looking forward to contributing again to discussion on Global Security!

Cheers,

StrategyUnit 

Palestinian Children Gather as Human Shields (Source)

Irregular Warfare: Exploiting Morals and Values of the Enemy 

Recently, Israel was pushed towards deferring launching airstrikes against Hamas, to retailiate against continuing rocket attacks against Israel.

Hamas was able to effectively leverage the use of human shields to deter Israel, as reported by AP in "Palestinians form human shield to protect militant’s home from airstrike":

"Hundreds of Palestinians formed a human shield around the home of a militant in the northern Gaza Strip late Saturday to prevent an Israeli airstrike on the building, residents said.

…

Israel routinely orders occupants out of homes ahead of airstrikes on suspected weapons-storage facilities, saying it wants to avoid casualties. The incident in Beit Lahiya was the first time Palestinians have tried to prevent such an airstrike."

How can a modern military, a miltiary that aims to upholds the Geneva Convention under tight media scrutiny, respond to such tactics?  

Easy Answer: They Can’t. They have to find something else to target.

What happens when more and more groups/states start following suit when risking military strikes by a Western Power? How will the West balance its normative values with the bluring definition and position of the military and civilian space?

Hamas (and Hezbollah): Perfecting the New Actor on the Global Stage

On the global chessboard of world politics, there are the usual players like international governmental bodies, NGOs, transnational gangs and, of course, nation-states. Hamas and Hezbollah brings has created another category, the "Total Social Movement Organizations". "TSMO" is a wordy phrase, but an apt description.

Hamas and Hezbollah function as a network of charities, religious movement, social movement, political movement and military force. Only such an organization can easily enlist the people as human shields at the face of death. I doubt Hamas was using much if any coercisve force to encourage the Human Shields - faith in Hamas and what it represented was enough.

An organization that combines the full spectrum of human activities - from religious to social justice to military force - will be a resilient force compared to the secular (Post?) Nation-State system that exists in the Wetern countries. They will not replace Western style Nation-States, but will be adapt challengers in the world stage.

But with events continue to unfold and grow in importance, StrategyUnit will be returning albeit at a far lighter schedule, maybe 2-3 articles a month.

Looking forward to jumping back into discussions on global security!

Cheers!

Via WindsofChange, in "Treasure in the Waters", Publius Pundit covers the story regarding Devon and Chveron’s recent energy discovery in the Gulf of Mexico:

Treasure was discovered in America’s Gulf of Mexico waters today, black gold so vast and so deep and so surprising and so recoverable that overnight, America’s energy reserves have just increased as much as 50%. Chevron, Norway’s Statoil and deep-sea driller Devon Energy have just discovered as many as 15 billion barrels of previously unknown oil in a vast underwater pool five miles under the floor of the sea. No one even had a clue about this huge oil’s existence up until new high technology of deep sea drilling (cost: $1 billion a pop, and every bit as weird and high-tech as a spaceship) came to the fore.

The Many Inaccuracies of Energy/Oil/Natural Gas Discovery

First off, always be very sceptical of new energy (oil, natural gas) discoveries. If you read closely, you’ll usually find a large amount of speculation and political pressure. Randy Kirk brings a very sobering example here:

[The] announcement is reminiscent of the Mexican "huge oil discovery" announced last year, of a possible 10 billion barrels, which was quietly revised this year to around 43 million barrels, a downward revision of 99.57%. This similar "discovery" was made in Mexico last year a few months before the Mexican parliament was to vote on Pemex (state oil co)’s budget and rights to expand drilling. This illustrates the potential political pressure to announce oil and gas discoveries.

 Political Pressure

"Timing is Everything" so the saying goes. Regarding the recent claims of massive discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, timing seems to be an factor to look at regarding the enormous energy claims:

As news of a huge oil discovery deep in the western Gulf of Mexico unfolded, informal talks began in Congress to break an impasse over competing House and Senate plans to expand offshore oil and natural gas-drilling.

Massive Oil and Natural Gas discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. Right while the Senate battles over opening the Gulf of Mexico to offshore drilling. Coincidental?

Speaking of timing, doesnt the Senate report on the lack of links between Bin Laden and Saddam seem very well timed for the coming anniversary of September 11th?  

Links

• "Clarification of the Huge Chevron Gulf Oil Discovery", Energy Bulletin
• "Offshore-drilling legislation heats up", USA Today

I’ve been abstaining from commenting on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict since so many other bloggers and analysts are providing better coverage. But, the analysis from StratFor is very fitting (from "Special Report: The Ground Offensive" 08/01/06):

As we have said before, the strategy looks more like the way the Japanese defended Pacific islands against the U.S. Marines during World War II than anything else. Hezbollah fighters are defending in depth from interlocking strong points…They are forcing the Israelis to close with the strong points and take them in close combat.

… 

If it can fight a battle of annihilation yet delay and hurt the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Hezbollah might well force a political settlement. If not, it can still gain a political victory by being the first Arab force to force Israel into high attrition combat.

[The Conclusion?]

… 

Time and casualties could turn a military success into a political defeat for Israel. Moreover, if the outcome of the attack is that Israel is forced to occupy Lebanese territory for an extended period of time, then the cost of counterinsurgency operations mount. Israel’s strategy is clear. Move in fast, deal a catastrophic blow to Hezbollah, withdraw leaving the Lebanese army or a European peacekeeping force in its place. Hezbollah has drawn Israel in. It expects a catastrophic blow but its intention is to impose tremendous costs on Israel and then create a situation in which peacekeeping forces will not deploy, forcing Israel into a counterinsurgency.

Conclusion: Hezbollah

Unfortunately, the Israel-Hezbollah conflict may be a casebook example of the superior political and (to a lesser extant) military power of non-state actors against nation-state states. In the coming days and weeks, we may see a Hezbollah victory - be it political and, maybe, militarily, as noted by Daniel Sensing at Winds of Change.

Israel may still be able to inflict great military damage to Hezbollah, but in the end - unless Israel effectively destroys Hezbollah or neuters it - Hezbollah will win the real victory, the political victory.

Let’s remember that Hezbollah’s advantages include:

• Decentralized Network Strucure = Resilience Against Attrition
  - Provides for non-linear approach to warfare (unlike Western approach)No Logistical Tail (as opposed to convention high-tech army like Israel’s)
• Cheaper, Open Source Procurement of Weapons
• No sense of "Casuality Aversion" like Western Militaries
  - Allows Hezbollah to bleed Israel to political victory, despite severe losses on both sides
• Seen as a charity, education and community institution, not just an instrument of war (e.g. IDF)
• Not Bound to "Geneva Conventions" norms of wars that Nation-States are:
  - Media tends to be harsher on violations by nation-states than non-state actors
  - Soliders in Civilians clothing = More Difficult to Detect, Prove to Media as Enemy
  - Place assets (missiles, artillery etc) in civilian heavy areas but not take the blame when civilian deaths occur (e.g. Israel bombing Hebollah artillery and accidentally killing civilians in apartment nearby)

Summary
While intentional or not, Israel’s incursion into Lebanon (aimed at Hezbollah) is now a proxy war against Iran via Hezbollah and Hamas, a violent mirroring of the US-Iran maneuverings in the UN and in Iraq. The incursion also demonstrates how powerful the Iranian hand is with Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Sadr and others in Iraq and influence in Afghanistan, relative to the U.S. and Israel and even the other Middle Eastern states like Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

Israel’s endgame is not clear, as it cannot militarily defeat Hezbollah unless it shuts down Syria’s border with Lebanon (along with a conventional ground offensive), which would bring Syria into an open conflict with Israel, as well as, Israel incurring the wrath of the region and the world for widening the war.

Being a guerilla force, Hezbollah can take the blows of the IDF very resiliently. Even with infrastructure degraded and supplies gone, Hezbollah can afford to wait and rebuild slowly and even bring Israel into wider protracted war on Lebanese territory. Indeed, as long as the border between Syria and Lebanon remains open, Hezbollah will have a safe-haven for retreat as well an area to gather supplies.

A far worst case scenario is for the Lebanese government and the military to throw its weight behind Hezbollah. This is something it has not clearly done yet, but if the war widens and causalities mount, Israel may find itself in an open war against an Iranian-backed Lebanese-Syrian front on the north and Hamas in the east.

One possible end game is for Israel is to find, rescue and bring home the two IDF soldiers, granting Israel the ability to withdraw while saving face abroad and more importantly at home.

The better solution would be to use the Lebanese incursion as a platform to pressure Lebanon, the U.S. and others to finally act on fulfilling UN Resolution 1559, disarming Hezbollah.

To lay the ground work, Israel must make it explicitly clear that its offensive maneuvering is an attack on Hezbollah, not the Lebanese people, the government - which rules out the bombings in Beirut and other major Lebanese cities. It should attempt to clandestinely reach out to the fragile Lebanese government led by Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, pushing it to deploy its army against Hezbollah in the south in the name of “reasserting” control of the south.

While a realistic assessment of the current situation forbids such an optimistic assessment, there is some truth when Kyle Spector of Foreign Policy declares:

“But some Lebanese and other Arabs around the region (including the Saudis), while obviously not in favor of the Israeli assault, are seeing this crisis as a death knell for Hezbollah and quietly cheering it on”

This is not a guaranteed death kneels for Hezbollah as Spector calls it, but the dislike of Hezbollah in Lebanon and regionally is there – Israel needs to take advantage of it.

At the same time, US and its partners must work via to diplomatic channels - be it public, the UN or other channels - to get Syria and Iran to back-off. How is another question, but it must be done as alternative scenarios are dire.

Perhaps the second option is being carried out by US, Israel and its allies. Time will tell what paths history will take.

Some Suggested Readings

• NYT’s “Israel’s Invasion, Syria’s War” by Michael Young
• “Crisis in the Middle East: Local Bloggers Report” by The Truth Laid Bear

How Did We Get Here?
The Kidnapping

Israel is a tiny nation the size of New Jersey of 6 million people, which as “Fortress Israel” feels constantly threatened by far larger, greater Arab population that surrounds the tiny nation.

In this context, Hezbollah attack and kidnapping of two IDF soldiers was not just a bold and brazen raid but is seen as direct threat on Israel. In Israel, nearly all citizens do double duty in the Israeli military, so the kidnapping was not “just” of soldiers but also that of Israeli civilians.

The unfortunate issue is that:

• The kidnapping of the two IDF soldiers by Hezbollah was pure carelessness on the part of their respective IDF commanders. They should have had better force protection.
• While it is understandable that Israel sees the kidnapping of the two soldiers as leading toward an existential threat to Israel itself, in truth it is not. Israel had the option to act with more restraint and still not appear weak.

The Disarming of Hezbollah

During the G-8 Summit, Russian President Putin, and G-8 chair, declared “[It] is our impression that aside from seeking to return the abducted soldiers, Israel is pursuing wider goals.” While Putin did not elaborate, Israel is seeking to self-implement UN Resolution 1559, which declares for the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Jerusalem Post reports that Israeli officials are looking to Lebanon’s Government to go with Israel and assert control on Hezbollah-controlled South Lebanon:

The officials noted positively that Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora had said Saturday at a press conference that his government would reassert government authority over all Lebanese territory - an allusion to the possibility of deploying the Lebanese army in south Lebanon, which is effectively controlled by Hizbullah.

It is unclear whether Israel thinks it can disarm Hezbollah on its own, which is foolish considering Iran and Syria’s backing and the lack of active support from the Lebanese Government. Israel could be forcing world leaders to act to enforce UN Resolution 1559 and create momentum to disarm Hezbollah, but at the high risk of the conflict.

Analysis
Iran is now clearly the key and dominant player in the Middle East. The current Israeli strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon shows the limits of Israeli power and the weakness of the US position and inability to act to resolve this conflict.

Israel and the US are applying all their power and influence right now in the region with dismal results thus far. Hezbollah, Syria and Iran still have many resources and options, esp. with Iran still having many cards to play in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria and in Hezbollah and Hamas in Palestine.

Even with a ground invasion to hammer Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, Israel cannot win this war in any military terms against Hezbbollah unless it eliminates all potential supporters - that is, the use of genocide. Hezbollah is, as John Robb calls it, a “Guerrilla Proto-State“, will simply revert back to a guerilla force under Israeli pressure, but a guerilla force backed Syria and Iran, with the potential to bring in the Lebanon government on its side. (Additionally, Iran wields wide influence in Iraq and, to a lesser extant, in Palestine via Hamas.)

Indeed, Hezbollah is a guerilla army and is suited to be resilient against possible ground invasion Israel maybe contemplating. As long as Syrian-Lebanese borders remain open, no amount of destruction on Lebanese infrastructure and Hezbollah supplies would stop Syrian support and supplies coming across the border in to Lebanon.

Thus far, Arabs have been either quiet or blaming Hezbollah/Iran for the current conflict, which appears particularly surprising when its Saudi Arabiaa:

“A distinction must be made between legitimate resistance and uncalculated adventures undertaken by elements inside (Lebanon) and those behind them without recourse to the legal authorities and consulting and coordinating with Arab nations,” a statement published on the official news agency SPA said.

“These elements should bear the responsibility for their irresponsible actions and they alone should end the crisis they have created.”

But how long can this possibly last?

A Way Out

For now, Israel still has the initiative but soon Israel will be on the defensive politically and weakened militarily:

• If Israel does not end this decisively or if the situation deteriorates with more civilian casualties Israel will been harshly condemned internationally, more so than now, bringing with it isolation and further restraint in its ability to militarily and politically maneuver.
• Secondly, Israel risks bring brought in to a long protracted war that could solidify the Lebanese behind Hezbollah (something not true now) and reassert and strengthen Syrian and Iranian hand in Lebanon and the region. Israel could become exhausted militarily, as Hezbollah and Hamas gain strength via Iran and Syria. This would be of tragic consequence to Israel.

  While protesting against Israel, the Lebanon Government also has not come behind Hezbollah, but it can occur if the conflict draws out for too long. What would be the tipping point for the Lebanese military to join ranks with Hezbollah? Does anyone know?

For Israel, and indeed the world, there are only two outcomes that would bring some resolution:

• If Israel is able to find, release and return the kidnapped IDF soldiers, Israel would be able to withdraw and save face internationally and perhaps more importantly domestically.
• If Israel was able to bring the US, Lebanon and the UN together to decisively act on Hezbollah and Syria, with the end-point being a process of disbarment as per UN Resolution 1559. This would bring true independence for Lebanon, security for Israel and a major blow to Iran and Syria.

The situation on the found is still fluid but any day the events can radically swing in many directions. The World Waits.

Introduction
A few months back, I wrote in “India, the US and the Anglosphere“, that India should be positioned by the US as the next global leader “just as Great Britain gracefully passed its world power status to the United States, the United States must look to do them same with India or else face decline in the face of a raising China”.

The New York Times op-ed, “The Myth of the New India” placed forward many criticism of such a promise for India, such as stating “Recent accounts of the alleged rise of India barely mention the fact that the country’s $728 per capita gross domestic product is just slightly higher than that of sub-Saharan Africa”. Indeed, the July 11th’s Mumbai bombings is a tragic reminder of the instability and security risks facing India.

Admitedly, India is not as glowing as some articles on the July/August edition of Foreign Affairs claim (indeed, some of the articles read like well crafted press releases). And while it does face many challenges in poverty and socio-economic issues, the much talked about “The Myth of the New India” NYT articles ignores three main points: 1) the large progress India has made thus far; 2) how much potential it has already shown; 3) and how much India’s political weight is growing - all this despite the economic underdevelopment that persist through most of India.

India: Not Quite Half Empty

Pankaj Mishra, who wrote “The Myth of the New India”, astutely points to several critical areas that has still dodge India despite its high-tech boom:

• Wealth Distribution - especially in Urban versus Rural (70% of India) populations
• Extensive and Deep Poverty - “nearly 380 million Indians still live on less than a dollar a day”
• Political Instability - Kashmir Issue, Religious Militants and a growing Communist Insurgency

Mishra is correct that these issues are a tremendous obstacle to the great power ambitions many increasingly confident Indians are voicing. There are other issues too, like India’s inefficient bureaucracy and its social economic system, which is considered unfriendly towards the type of more open market that is thought needed for high sustained growth.

Yet somewhere between the hope and ambition for India to become a great power and Mishra’s dire warnings, lies progress and great hope for India. Indeed, we should keep in mind that the progress it has made, in the high-tech and financial industry, despite such underdevelopment is impressive and no small feat.

Keeping Things Within Balance

While socio-economic development should ideally be uniform throughout a nation, it is often not. Issues like Rural v. Urban populations and continuing dire poverty in the face of a small, but growing, wealthy elite are real, but common problems faced buy many developing nations and characterize the struggles of many now developed Western nations.

For example, China is facing similar issues, especially as life-time employment at public factories makes way for layoffs and semi-private ownership. And the Urban versus Rural gap is evident in China, as it is in Paris compared to the surrounding banlieue and America’s urban centers in the coasts with the rural areas in the South.

Geopolitical Considerations

Mishra contends that India will not be considered a loyal ally that the United States hopes for as long as it continues making pragmatic deals with China and Iran. This maybe true, but to take this situation on a different view: Perhaps, India will show that constructive engagement between India and countries like Iran and like China are possible. To be sure, Containment is a valid strategy, but the US needs to be reminded that so is Engagement.

Myth and Promise

The essence of Mishra’s article is this: “Many serious problems confront India. They are unlikely to be solved as long as the wealthy, both inside and outside the country, choose to believe their own complacent myths.”

This is no doubt true. India’s growing elite must be confident, but never arrogant nor ignorant of the tremendous challenges that are clearly ahead of it.

India’s growing high-tech industry demonstrating that India is capable in developing their vast potential, not that they have already acheived it. Indeed, being part of one of the world’s oldest civilizations, Indians should know that the IT boom of the past 20 or so years, is not even a flicker in time.

But while Mishra’s article acts as a warning to those that forget the challenge, we should also take note of the following:

If a government like China’s, an oppressive authoritarian government, is beginning to address environmental concerns and wealth distribution with some postive action (see “China - Environmentalism as a National Security Issue”) - we should hope India, the world’s largest democracy, can do even better.

There are injured and dead people lying on the tracks. No police in the picture, no fire brigades. Its the local people, the shopkeepers and the people wo live close to the house who are coming into help. Carrying bodies both alive and dead in bedhseets. Some tiny bundles, perhaps with limbs within, or maybe children.

***

Whom were you trying to target? The working class men who struggle for an inch of space in local trains? The working women who knit and cut vegetables in trains on their way home? Young, dreamy students discussing exams and love? The babies accompanying their mothers, smiling back at the women around them?

Darkness is fast falling. Its raining like it will not stop. Will the rains wash away the blood? Will tomorrow be a new day. Here’s to lost lifes and broken dreams.

Follow these links for updates and analyses:

• Counterterrorism Blog - 7 Bombs detonated on Bombay Rail System
• Pajamas Media - Mumbai Blasts

“America tends to underestimate the political cost of this. One post-communist minister recalls trying vainly to convince his American counterparts that staying in Iraq was rather unpopular at home. American military aid to the new democracies has been stingy. And the cost and hassle of America’s visa policies grate harshly. “Estonians don’t understand why their sons are dying in Iraq for democracy and freedom, and yet their families can’t get visas for the United States,” says Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a former foreign minister.

So far, only Slovenia’s 1.9m people have visa-free travel to America. Poland and the Czech Republic have lobbied hard; so did Mrs Vike-Freiberga on her recent trip. But there is little sign of change. In most post-communist countries, each visa application costs a non-refundable $100—a week’s wages. In Romania, even the appointment costs $11, for seven minutes of telephone time.” (Empahsis Mine)

Comment
To be fair to the Bush Administration, the US has lobbied hard for the “Big Bang” approach that has led many of “New Europe” states to be accepted into the EU and has given Central Europe some voice in the world stage through branding them as part of a “New Europe”.

However, the US must follow though on building a relationship with these states. While sending troops to Iraq has bought countries like Estonia closer ties to the US, simple things like visa-restriction fail to show what clear benefit such sacrifices provide back.

Just like at home, the Bush Administration should pursue a campaign to show the people - of Estonia, Poland etc - the benefits of closer ties with the US. Currently, we’re not doing that (or enough) and worse than that we’re losing our chance to prove these people right the next time around.

Additionally, while countries like Bulgaria and Slovenia are small, they represent members of a growing bloc - the European Union - and a post-nation-state identify of “Europeanness”. The US must reach out - both at government and public level - to those who are receptive to the US.

Indeed, reaching out to the Central Europe region (where in Hungary there is a statue in honor of Ronald Reagan in remembrance of the Cold War), can act as a balance to the German and French states, while the US could also provide security against the fear of a possibly reassertive and aggressive Russia (as long as the EU remains anemic in security terms).

Let’s hope that the Post-Bush Administration, whatever that maybe - will take things into the positive direction, if the current Administration cannot.

Your July 4th History Lesson of the Day: While this picture is often depicted as the signing of the declaration, it actually the drafting of the document. But alas, this picture by Trumbull, as a depicting the declaration, is now a tradition of sorts regardless of what it actually is. Read more here.

Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post does an excellent job in “What ‘Energy Security’ Really Means” on broadening the general public’s view of energy security. Read on.

What everyone thinks about energy security:

“For many American leaders, energy security means producing energy at home and relying less on foreigners. But the United States imports three-fifths of its oil, and the share is heading up. For the foreseeable future, alternative fuel is unlikely to change that.”

The alternative view:

“Energy interdependence can actually be good for energy security: Just look at natural gas markets. Right now nearly all the natural gas that Americans consume comes from U.S. and Canadian fields; only 3 percent comes into the country by tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas. This renders the United States highly vulnerable to disruptions on its home continent. If terrorists or a hurricane took out a key pipeline, it would be hard to bring in alternative supplies from outside North America, and prices would spike upward. By buying more liquefied natural gas from a diverse range of foreigners, the United States would reduce its energy independence but enhance its energy security.”

Also see Daniel Yergin’s Foreign Affairs article, “Ensuring Energy Security“.

Results of the experiment demonstrated dramatic cultural differences in financial value estimations, as well as on the influence of variables such as framing effects. Chinese participants made higher object value estimates than Americans did, even when adjusting for differing national inflation rates. In addition, the results showed that contextual information, such as framing, morality information, and group membership affected judgments of financial values in complex ways, particularly for Chinese participants. The results underscore the importance of understanding the influence of cultural background on economic decision-making. The authors discuss the results in the context of behavioral law and economics, and propose that importing cultural competence into behavioral models can lead to cognitive debiasing, both temporary and permanent.

Realism, Decision Making and Culture
One of the fundamental flaws of the school of realism is the belief that all actors are self-interested rational actors. We can assume that all actors are rational, yet we need to recognize that different value systems (as influenced by one’s culture and enviorment) can bring about very logical, but very different decisions.

From my own personal college experience in International Relations courses, I never once remembered a serious considering on how cultural values shaped decision-making, policy objectives and grand strategy objectives. Yet despite all this, we know there’s a difference. There are business consultants who consult on the different business styles of Americans, Indonesians, the French, Russians and others.

While I am sure those inside the walls of the State Dept., DoD and other policy-making and shaping groups know this, there should be a more frank open discussion by the mainstream media, which too are policy-shappers in the area of public opinion.

The recent arrests in Toronto, aborting a potential attacking, and a recent article by Michael Scheuer (author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War), reinforce the position that Islamic Terrorism is an organic, decentralized beast. Its bigger than Al-Qaida, bigger than Bin Laden and bigger than the now deceased al-Zarqawi. Al-Qaida does have an important role, but as the instigator, the proclaimed vanguard, of a wider Islamist social movement.

Indeed, as StrategyUnit has noted: “As this war is more of cross between an insurgency and a social movement, there maybe no clean cessation of violence in the near or distant future. And in this conflict, there will be no battlefields, but rather our adversaries will be attached as a Global Swarm as Global Guerillas.”

The Toronto 17
The 17 potential terrorists arrested in Tortonto has direct connections to Al-Qaida and were, like the July 7 Londong bombers, homegrown groups. While the details are coming out, the Internet played a major role in communication, indoctrination (recruitment) and training (bombing making).

The suspected terrorists were, luckily for us, inept. A group of “foreign looking” men doing weapons training in the open and later buying three tons of fertilizers (not a fact easy to hide) are not the hallmarks of terrorist masterminds.

Bin Laden - Status: Success or Failure

Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War, notes that many experts have written off Bin Laden as a failure:

Over the past two years, U.S. and Western commentators have concluded that Osama bin Laden is largely irrelevant as the leader of the worldwide Sunni insurgency. Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria, for example, has said that “by now it is surely clear that al-Qaeda can produce videotapes but not terrorism…And the bad guys are losing” (Newsweek, March 15, 2004). James S. Dobbins at the National Review added that bin Laden “made many threats of course, but was never able to back them up, creating an unbridgeable credibility gap” (National Review Online, September 28, 2005). The new CIA chief, General Michael Hayden, has described bin Laden’s recent audiotapes as a public relations campaign to prove he is still alive. “These attempts,” Hayden said, “may be an attempt on their part [bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri] to kind of re-establish authenticity with their followers” (AP, February 5). Finally, from Sarah Lawrence College, Fawaz Gerges all but dismisses bin Laden’s relevance, arguing that “we are in the throes of the beginning of a new wave [in the Muslim world]–the freedom generation–in which civil society is asserting itself” (Christian Science Monitor, February 4, 2004). In short, these arguments assert that the situation has improved.

But indeed, this is not the case. Scheuer correctly points out that Bin Laden, sees himself and Al-Qaida as the final means, but the “match” to light the Ummah (Islamic World) on fire, motivating it against the West:

“[Bin Laden] has never claimed that al-Qaeda could achieve this goal by itself. Quite the contrary, he has consistently maintained that al-Qaeda is only the vanguard of the large-scale movement that is needed to achieve this goal.”

The recruitment of Europeans to fight in Iraq, the Madrid and London Bombings, the abortive attempt in Toronto, the recent alliance of “”Islamist leaders in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan and Jerusalem” all point to the face that the “flame” is alive and thriving.

Conclusion
The recent Toronto arrests shows that the threat is still very real and is far more diverse than a threat “from over there”, but it is a threat that can be as homegrown as meatloaf and apple pie (for you American readers).

Menzie Chinn, while discussing the new appointed Sec. Treasurer Henry Paulson, puts out to a laundry lists of major and mounumental challenges the U.S. economy is facing. His full article, “Does a new economic team mean a new economic policy?“, is worth the read.

the economy has both underperformed along a number of dimensions, and faces serious challenges in the future.

Regarding the past and present:

• Real compensation has been stagnant.
• Job creation has been lackluster.
• Income inequality has been increasing.
• Federal debt has been exploding and is set to explode further, as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended.
• Federal government entitlements-based liabiities have been expanded tremendously by the Bush Administration and Congress(Medicare Part D) even as the Bush Administration attempted to modify Social Security.
• Tradable sector output share has been declining.

Regarding future challenges:

• The trade and current account deficits are increasing without seeming end.
• The determination of interest rates on government debt in the US are ever more in the hands of foreign governments and other actors.
• The net income account in the balance of payments is set to go into the negative range.
• High energy dependence exacerbates the problems reserve accumulation in oil exporting countries.
• The possibility of a “hard landing” for the dollar.

Sobering Look at Brazil’s Energy Independence as a Model for the US

“Lessons from Brazil“, TheOilDrum’s Robert Rapier:

Yes, Brazil has in fact “figured it out” with respect to energy independence. But the reason they achieved energy independence is primarily because of their frugal energy usage, not because of ethanol. Increase their energy usage to U.S. levels, and the “energy independence miracle” would quickly vanish. This is the factor that the media and the politicians have overlooked. On the other hand, if the U.S. had the same per capita energy consumption as Brazil, we would be net oil exporters. In fact, our per capita energy consumption could be 11 barrels per person per year - triple the consumption of Brazil - and our production and demand would be in balance. We would be energy independent.

Noah Schachtman of DefenseTech is always a persistent source of great information regarding the technology and equipment that is used in today’s battlefields. (Via Op-For) In PopularSciences, Schachtman and David Axe write on “Winning—and Losing—the First Wired War“: “U.S. forces in Iraq are waging a pivotal campaign in modern warfare—combat on the first “networked” battlefield. One problem: the enemy has a few networks of its own ”

Schachtman and David Axe go to the heart of the issue in Iraq:

“But now, more than three years into sectarian conflict and a violent insurgency that has cost nearly 2,400 American lives, an investigation of the current state of network-centric warfare reveals that frontline troops have a critical need for networked gear—gear that hasn’t come yet. “There is a connectivity gap,” states a recent Army War College report. “Information is not reaching the lowest levels.”

This is a dangerous problem, because the insurgents are stitching together their own communications network. Using cellphones and e-mail accounts, these guerrillas rely on a loose web of connections rather than a top-down command structure. And they don’t fight in large groups that can be easily tracked by high-tech command posts. They have to be hunted down in dark neighborhoods, amid thousands of civilians, and taken out one by one.”

Net-centric Warfare v. Global Guerillas
Net-centric Warfare defined in a monograph at DODCCRP (same folks who published “Shock and Awe”):

“We define NCW as an information superiority-enabled concept of operations that generates increased combat power by networking sensors, decision makers, and shooters to achieve shared awareness, increased speed of command, higher tempo of operations, greater lethality, increased survivability, and a degree of self- synchronization. In essence, NCW translates information superiority into combat power by effectively linking knowledgeable entities in the battlespace”

As Schachtman and Axe noted, NCW is layman’s term the “Walmart-ification” of warfare. (Indeed the monograph of the excerpt above, goes into great detail analyzing the logistical success of Wal-Mart and Dell and other corporations.) But what does NCW look like on the battlefield, Schachtman and Rose describes the following:

“The air-ground collaboration is one of dozens of different ways that network-centric tools are slowly starting to rejigger the military’s hidebound hierarchies. In the Gulf War, the various armed services didn’t talk to one another much, except at the highest levels. That’s partly why there was a six-week air campaign and then a ground attack. During the 2003 invasion, the air and ground assaults struck at once.”

But one of the most powerful tools in battalion command posts like these, notes Garstka, the network-centric theorist, may be one of the simplest: a Web browser, so junior officers can log into secure online forums. There captains and lieutenants can swap tactics, well before they appear in printed field manuals. This is critical in a place like Iraq, where insurgents’ strategies change almost daily. ”

With exception of advance weapon systems and resource intensive efforts like building a Carrier battle group, it is John Robb’s “Global Guerillas” which are best suited to adopting and adapting to technology. For more information on “Global Guerillas”, I strongly suggest reading John Robb’s “THE Bazaar of Violence in Iraq” and “THE Bazaar’s Open Source Platform “. It is required reading in my book.

The US Military and Global Guerillas are both fighting as net-centric agents, but the US Military is after all a hierarchal system, a tool of the nation-state and thus structurally it is slower to adapt. Meanwhile as decentralized and organic entities, “Global Guerillas” naturally evolve into ever more sophistication: the weaker insurgent groups get killed and captured, while the more successful groups sharing and help others replicate their success.

The advantage of the US military (or conventional militaries in general) is its ability to focus its resources into a certain direction in a more coordinated fashion, while the “Global Guerillas” can afford to use a slower trial-and-error method - attrition is not as much as a concern for them.

John Robb’s “Global Guerillas” will always be more nimble and faster that traditional nation-state militaries. The state and its military are by definition more slowly moving, more hierachial and more bound by policies and laws - then numble, adapting, loosely networked, nimble and Global Guerillas. Its not so much that the Global Guerillas are networking better than the US Military, its that the Global Guerillas can afford to adapt more quickly.

Net-Centric Warfare - Myopic Pipedreams
Setting aside the “Global Guerilla” issue, NCW has great limitations. When reading defense experts and their whitepapers/monographs on “Net-Centric Warfare” and “Effects-Based Operation”, we see terms phrases like “information dominance” and “complete situational awareness” and the like.

But the case-studies such war studies experts like to review - Amazon.com, Wal-Mart and Dell - are a world aware from an actual, fluid and “fog” ridden battlefield. There are collecting and analyzing information from a relatively static “battle space” so to speak.

Planning, preparing, executing and adjusting to the changing and fluid battle-space of fourth generation warfare is utterly different than keeping an excellent inventory over your retail logistics network – basically what the Wal-Mart, Dell and Amazon.com case studies are all about. It’s a joke to assume that future soldiers will be equipped with electronic devices to depend on a full host of communication and information share – where will the electricity come from? Are these devices anti-virus proof or even from protected from rough use?

The “Fog of War” will always be a factor that will be foolish to underestimate. Thus, the premise of complete “information dominance” and complete “situational awareness” is a false hope. Net-Centric Warfare is one of the new components of warfare, but it won’t be the last nor the only.

“The release of the data-mining story to USA Today obviously was intended as a means of shooting down his nomination — which it might. But what is important here is not the fate of Hayden, but the fact that the Bush administration clearly has lost all control of the intelligence community — extended to include congressional oversight processes. That is not a trivial point.
…
Leaks of information about secret projects to a newspaper is a symptom of the disease: a complete collapse of any consensus as to what this war is, what it means, what it risks, what it will cost and what price Americans are not willing to pay for it. A covert war cannot be won without disciplined covert operations. That is no longer possible in this environment. A serious consensus on the rules is now a national security requirement.” (Emphasis Mine)

Last week on Thomas Barnett’s blog:

“Putin’s backtalking, along with Ahmadinejad’s and all the rest around the world, just signals the growing awareness internationally that the Bush Administration is a spent force. This crew is not inclined to change their spots now, and the world knows it.

So, quite frankly, our debates should focus most on who and what comes next for America. The conversation is basically over with the Bush Administration. So it’s time to focus on the new ideas, the new leaders, and the lifers within the bureaucracy who will both rule–for all practical purposes–in the meantime and be there when the new crew arrives.”(Emphasis Mine)

Comment
At a moment the US is facing many critical issues domestically (immigration to domestic intelligence) to challenging foreign policy issues (Iran, Iraq, to Latin America) and overarching issues regarding energy and the environment, the United States is quickly finding itself in a rut with a sitting-duck presidency. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has lost control of any stern party leadership, control over its own agencies and department and directions on policies.

While the “sitting-duck presidency” is a sickness befalling just about every president on his/her last term, its only May, 2006. What happens six-months from now?

Bottom Line:
Will the security environment deteriorate vis-à-vis the US? What power plays will foreign adversaries, competitors and even some allies pursue against the US while we are in this state of flux?

In the coming months, we should expect to see interesting maneuverings from China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran – among others.

John Podhoretz has done an excellent job in trying to provide some clarity on the immigration debate by understanding that what is the “immigration debates” is actually three different, but overlapping debates:

There are really three immigration debates. There is the cultural debate, there is the economic debate, and there is the security debate. (Emphasis StrategyUnit’s) On matters of culture, I believe as everybody else here does that our immigration policy makes no sense if it is not directed at the process of turning non-Americans into Americans through the instruction of English, knowledge of civics and American history, and helping to instill a sense of pride and commitment to the country.

On economic matters, I agree that if immigrants are not of net benefit to the country, it makes no sense for us to allow newcomers to do harm in this way — and here, in my opinion, the case made by restrictionists is by far the weakest. On security matters, an uncontrolled border is clearly unacceptable, and a panoply of measures, including a border fence, is more than called for.

As for dealing with the illegals already here, there’s a sense in which this debate has been radicalized to such an extent that the Right won’t be satisfied with a policy that does not explicitly advocate expulsion — all other policies being dubbed “amnesty” and therefore illegitimate — while the Left refuses to consider any policy other than special-treatment affirmative-action line-jumping legalization. In other words, there is nothing our politicians can do, absolutely nothing, to satisfy the activists — because neither extreme will be reflected in any kind of law or policy that emerges even from a Washington energized to deal with them. (link)

All discussions on immigration must be careful to not freely mesh-up these differing strands (intertwined as they may be at times) - cultural, economic and security spheres.

Immigration - An International Issue
While the US debates and (hopefully) finds its own path towards intelligently reforming the process of immigration - from Europe to Africa. Note also how these select news items below (by no means representative or exhaustive) can under the issues of security, culture and economic.

Botswana (Via AfricanFiles):
” Zimbabweans are fleeing their politically and economically troubled nation in large numbers. The relatively prosperous Botswanans resent this influx as a threat to their livelihoods, especially the possibility of the spread of foot and mouth disease to their cattle, their second largest earner after diamonds. The electrified fence Botswana is building along the border is viewed by one group as a barrier against animals; it is considered an insult to humans by the other.”

Spain - (Jamestown Foundation, 04 May 2006):
“Spanish security officials continue to worry that members of al-Qaeda will take advantage of the clandestine immigration pipeline route by inserting terrorists to make their way to either the enclaves or to the Spanish mainland. To this regard, the Directorate General of National police recently advertised 357 posts for anti-terrorist officers to monitor potential Islamists in areas where the presence of Muslim immigrants is well known, such as Melilla, Ceuta, Granada, Malaga and Alicante.”

Belgium (Via Brussels Report, 11 May 2006):
“The crisis between the Catholic Church and the government is escalating in Belgium. So far over 30 Belgian churches have been occupied by illegal immigrants or so-called “sans papiers” (“people without papers” [=staying permits]). The latest church taken over by squatters is the Saint Susanna Church in the Brussels borough of Schaarbeek, where a group of thirty women with small children have installed themselves. They were invited in by the local parish priest.”

Conclusion
Immigration is an issue that is not going away. Any historian will tell you that the migration of people has been a fact of human history well before the development of states and of nations. It is simply that globalization has accelerated the course of human migration as compared to decades pasts.

Understanding how to deal with immigration - from the cultural, economic, and security perspectives - will be an important factor in the success of many states, be it those in Europe, United States to Botswana to Japan.

A state built as an anti-immigration fortress will fail in its isolation, but an open door policy may bring more change than a state and its society can be able and willing to handle. As with all things, it is through the middle we will find the answer. I hope that the leaders - in political circles and activist groups - in the US will understand this.

Italy: Prime Silvio Minsiter Berlusconi’s lost in April’s elections has paved the way for Romano Prodi to take lead as the succeeding Prime Minister. Prodi has discussed pulling out the 2,700 Italian troops (3rd largest contingent in Iraq). The latest targeting against Italian troops in Iraq will expedite such moves; indeed, CounterTerrorBlog discusses that Al-Qaida hopes to bully Italy to withdraawing, doing what it did against Spain with.

US: Mid-term elections are coming around very soon for the US, leaving many Republican nervous. With President Bush hitting every lower and lower approval ratings and increased Republican-infighting, we should expect Democrats to make gains against the Republicans. If they will recapture Congress is not known, but things can only get worse for the Republicans – and so the support for the Iraq War will suffer.

The Consequences
The fourth largest contingent of forces, from South Korea, are already beginning their partial pullout, paring down “1,000 of its 3,200 soldiers remaining in the country” by the end of this year. Italy, with the coming establishing of Prodi’s government, will most likely pull out its forces out of Iraq perhaps by the end of the year. The UK, American’s venerable ally, could be next when Prime Minister Tony Blair steps down. A very scary situation for supporters of the Iraq War.

With the “Coalition of the Willing” already mocked for its lack of many major powers, the list of nations (listed by the Coalition’s web site) will look even thinner.

Shakeup in the CIA, raising oil prices and the Iran Crisis are putting President Bush in an ever weaker position in the mainstream press and the masses (as the polls show). As more announcements on withdrawals will be announced, support of the war will fall into an ever deeper lull.

Still, the StrategyPage still looks pretty optimistic over the conditions in Iraq:

“[Violence] keeps the foreign journalists happy, but the local reporters are more concerned with the street crime and corrupt government officials…Most of the patrols and raids are now conducted by Iraqi troops, who are well aware of the fact that they are still fighting Saddam.”

But the overall feeling Americans and the world will have is “if the US is wining the war in Iraq, why is everyone pulling out? Abandoning the US?” The counterpoint that the more successful Iraqi government troops continue to be the more the Coalition Forces can step down will sound too convenient of an answer.

While the US has been and needs to slowly withdrawing some troops from Iraq as Iraqi Government forces standup, US withdrawal under media and public calls for an immediate pullout may only embolden and encourage the insurgents and US enemies.

While not perfect analogies, British troops remained in Malaysia for over 10 years to quell the Communist rebellion and similar numbers of years were spent by US forces in the 1899–1913 Philippine Insurrection (though with a high cost of civilian life). A better analogy is that Japan did not receive its sovereignty from the Allies until 1952.

We are only in Year 3 of the Post-Saddam Iraq Era. While the world and even the US public will increase pressure on withdrawing US forces, we need to remember that the Iraq Project is a long term project – longer than a single election cycle – and will have a profound effect on the Middle East, the World and most importantly the Iraqi People for generations to come. It is sad irony that elections in the democracies of the UK, Italy et al may imperil democracy in Iraq.

For a view supporting “Cut and Run” from Iraq, see Lt. Gen. William E. Odom’s article “ Cut and Run? You Bet” in Foreign Policy, May/June 2006.

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article, “Bold idea for energy woes: global cooperation“, weighing in on the need for some sort of global cooperation among major importers in terms of energy security and alternative fuel development.

The article touches on a speech Senator Lugar gave at Brookings Institute early March. I highly recommend reading Lugar’s excellent speech here. Additionally, Sen. Lugar (R) and Sen. Obama (D) introduced a bill late March 2006 pushing for alternative fuel development.

The CSM article chiefly focuses on International Energy Agency (IAE) as a potential vehicle for energy cooperation:

So is it time for an OPIC - an organization of petroleum-importing countries - as a way to build up cooperation among the world’s booming and increasingly competitive energy consumers?
…
One hurdle in the road to developing cooperation among energy-consuming countries is the Bush administration’s distaste for the kind of international bureaucracy that might be charged with overseeing such a project, some experts say. But others add that the bones of what might be a starting point already exist in the International Energy Agency (IEA), a branch of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that serves developed countries.

James Bartis, an expert in energy security at the RAND Corp. in Arlington, Va., says the IEA or something like it could serve as an “umbrella of oil consumers” that could begin to address fears about stable supplies and develop joint energy-investment strategies - and therefore become a force for stability in a world of tightening energy supplies.

The IEA was founded in 1974 in the wake of the 70s energy crisis. Its last major move was to coordinate the release of +2 million barrels of oil after Katrina. Will it take a bigger energy crisis to move the IEA towards a more robust, pro-active stabilizing force for energy security?

Conclusion

As noted in January 2006 at StrategyUnit, India and China has declared a “Year of Friendship” centering on energy cooperation on the development of alternative fuel, sharing information on energy bids and joint energy development.

That such emerging powers like China and India are taking steps to coordinating their energy policy is a telling development in global affairs. The US must see this as an opportunity to take the next step and slowly build a wider forum for major energy importers. In order to be taken seriously by other states, the US must also take steps to put its own house in order.

Holding hearings on high gasoline prices, while makes on popular with the public opinion, does little and to address the core concerns of our energy security.

Global energy security and coordination is in the US interests as it must seek to avoid a global dependency on oil-rich regimes that are far too often hostile to the US and its interests and even including those of other importing nations. The questionable stability of oil supplies, environmental damage, hostility of oil rich regimes, and oil peak concerns should be more than enough motivation for the US to help lead and shape a global forum to combat these issues. If not by the current Bush Administration (which is facing a lame-duck problems), than hopefully the next.

The long held criticism of this plan was that Sharon and Israel was essentially boxing itself in, creating an Israel surrounded on both flanks by two Palestinian failed-states. The Hamas-led victory in the recent elections was no comfort, especially after the opportunity for new leadership given by the passing of Arafat.

Olivier Guitta noted on April 5th that “a Jordanian intelligence source confirmed to Al Hayat that a major Al Qaeda attack was just very recently foiled in Gaza. This source also confirmed that Al Qaeda has been expanding in Gaza and tried to penetrate the West Bank but with less success there.” A mix of Israel’s withdrawal, Arafat’s death and the democratically-elected Hamas is paving the way for Al-Qaida’s presence in Palestine, furthering Al-Qaida’s overall reach and adding another dimension to Israel’s security threat.

The other path presented to Israel, continuing to occupy Palestinian territory and building settlements, is unsustainable in the eye of global opinion and Israel’s moral position. Yet, unfortunately for Israel, the imposed two-state solution provides Israel with some higher moral ground, but presents its own strategic challenges.

Fortress Israel - But for How Long?
So far, Israel is shifting from being a quasi-occupying presence (the settlers) in Palestine to fully embracing its image as Fortress Israel. But..
- As Palestinian terrorists switch from suicide-bombings to rocket attacks (thwarting the barriers), there are clearly limits to this strategy.
- While Israel can withstand the occasional rocket attack, Israel cannot indefinitely retaliate each attack without causing escalation on both sides, eventually compromising any security provided by its barrier.

A Future War between Israel and Palestine
The passing of the Arafat era brought a lot of promise, promises so far dashed by the Hamas victory in the recent elections. But as Israel continues (for now) on its path to unilaterally creating a two-state solution, the question must be asked:

What happens if a democratically-led Palestinian government leads a popular war against Israel?

How would Israel be able to fight an all out war (surely a fourth-generation war) against Palestine, where the line between the Palestinian militants and civilians would be a blur?

That’s a question Israel must ponder as it continues its withdrawal from the territories.

During every Passover, it is tradition to declare “L’shana ha’ba-ah b’Yerushalayim” (Next Year in Jerusalem)

Israel already has their Jerusalem, but when will there be peace?

The cycle of violence between the Jews and the Egyptians continues with no end in sight in Egypt. After eight previous plagues that have destroyed the Egyptian infrastructure and disrupted the lives of ordinary Egyptian citizens, the Jews launched a new offensive this week in the form of the plague of darkness.

Western journalists were particularly enraged by this plague. “It is simply impossible to report when you can’t see an inch in front of you,” complained a frustrated Andrea Koppel of CNN. “I have heard from my reliable Egyptian contacts that in the midst of the blanket of blackness, the Jews were annihilating thousands of Egyptians. Their word is solid enough evidence for me.”

Read the whole “story” over at WindsOfChange

The Observer reports leaks regarding the July 7 London subway bombing inquiry by the British Government:

The official inquiry into the 7 July London bombings will say the attack was planned on a shoestring budget from information on the internet, that there was no ‘fifth-bomber’ and no direct support from al-Qaeda, although two of the bombers had visited Pakistan.

While this is not surprising news in itself (if indeed, these leaks are accurate), this confirms the difficulty and the nature of the threat in this (for a lack of a better name) the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The enemy we face is larger, bigger than Al-Qaida or Bin Laden - it is a worldview, an idea - something that cannot be easily stopped.

According to the report, the attacks were largely motivated by concerns over foreign policy and the perception that it was deliberately anti-Muslim, although the four men were also driven by the promise of immortality.

As mentioned in earlier post, “Global Swarm: Explaining GWOT through Thomas Barnett, Huntington, Global Guerillas “, the threat we face is a cocktail mix of religion and issues of social justice (mix of real/exaggerated/false etc) with an overall feeling of the persecution of Muslims (The Ummah) around the world. Defeating such a “movement” will indeed be a Long War.

This week John Reid, the British Defence Sec, called for a revamp of the Geneva Convention due to the changing nature of modern (post-modern?) warfare at the Royal United Services Institute.

“We risk trying to fight 21st-century conflict with 20th-century rules which, when they were devised, did not contemplate the type of enemy which is now extant,” he said. “The laws of the 20th century placed constraints on us all which enhanced peace and protected liberty. We must ask ourselves whether, as the new century begins, they will do the same.” (2)

Reid makes the argument that Geneva Conventions was not designed for a time where “non-state actors [are] capable of operating on a global scale, crossing international borders” and where “accelerating scientific and technological progress which has facilitated the proliferation of, and easier access to, the means of wholesale human destruction – particularly in the form of chemical, biological or radiological weaponry.”

Put simply, in today’s changed circumstances are we convinced that it adequately covers:
• the contemporary threat from international terrorists?
• The circumstances in which states may need to take action in order to avert imminent attack?
• Those situations where the international community needs to intervene on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity in order to stop internal suppression - mass murder and genocide – as opposed to external aggression? (3)

Conclusion
“Laws such as the Geneva Convention had been drawn up at a time when the main threat of war was between states but the 21st-century world was under threat from terrorist groups unconstrained by any sense of morality or adherence to any conventions. “We now have to cope with a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents,” he said. “The legal constraints upon us have to be set against an enemy that adheres to no constraints whatsoever.”

The phrase “unconstrained by any sense of morality” is somewhat inaccurate. The type of warfare (fourth-generation) we are seeing today is not driven by any sense of immorality. It is the gulf (asymmetry) between Western-style militaries (and their societies) against enemies that have radically differing ethics, moral code, organization, structure and motivations. Not superior or inferior, but rather on an entirely on a different plane.

Indeed, the beginnings of the Geneva Conventions go back as far as the 1864 - a very different world from today. Yet, for better or worse, these conventions are a part of the West’s sacred documents that cannot be thrown into the dustbin of history - least the West loses its own identity and values.

Change must happen and John Reid is right in pointing this out, but it must be examined critically least the West loses its identify in the fight against its enemies.

Links and Sources
1) Reid calls for Geneva Convention to be rewritten
2) Reid urges review of Geneva Convention on prisoner treatment
3) Full transcript RUSI - Event - Lecture: Secretary of State for Defence

If anyone would like to guest blog on my site, send me articles, tips, etc to post. Let me know and post a comment below.

Cheers,

StrategyUnit

Summary
In a move echoing Nixon’s trip to China, India and the US have announced a groundbreaking nuclear deal, which many have warned as “Nuclear Madness” helping to accelerate dangerous nuclear proliferation. “Unsettling” this thought is, the reality is that nuclear proliferation cannot be stopped, so the US must well to play the nuclear card when it can. The hope is that this deal is the beginning of growing closer ties between the two world’s leading and largest democracies, which includes the recognition of a new Core power into the fold of the Core states.

The great challenge is for the Post-Bush Administration to carry on with increasing US ties with India for the Bush Administration and the one after to resist temptations to make India a bulwark against China. India is too confident, important and practical to be a pawn for the US; hopefully, the US will not only recognize that, but can see India as a way for bringing more stability to the South Asia and its neighboring region and expanding the Core. India should not play any role in competing against China, but rather help bring China in to the Core as a responsible and productive partner.

Click here for further analysis including sections on:
- Nuclear Fears
- Risking Nuclear Issues for New Realities
- India and the Anglosphere? And What about China?

Related Past Postings:

Nuclear Fears
The grand deal between India and the US on India’s nuclear program was seen as a major concession by the US to India (at what many say, a high cost), as the Economist (March 02) reports:

Details of the final separation plan have yet to be made public. It is understood to list as civilian 14 out of 22 reactors, accounting for some 65% of india’s nuclear-power capacity. India will have the right to choose how to classify any future reactors. In return for assurances about the supply of nuclear fuel, it has accepted that once it has put a nuclear facility under international safeguards, it will not be able to withdraw it. These arrangements—giving India far more leeway than America had been demanding—may not be enough to enable Mr Bush to fulfil his offer to amend American laws and persuade other countries to change international rules which prevent nuclear trade with states that do not accept full safeguards.

Many fear that the weakening of the NPT and nuclear proliferation will be the prime consequence of the nuclear deal, especially considering questions on India’s nuclear weapons ambitions. The Economist notes that India has arguing against any agreement that would cap their ability to rapidly produce plutonium (fast-breeder reactor), raising fear of India’s nuclear ambitions especially when it initially stated that it would produce only enough to deter as a defensive weapon. Bob Herbert of NY Time, expresses such fears, when he calls the US-India nuclear deal “Nuclear Madness”

Additionally, there’s the question of the difference between India and Iran (despite that fact has signed the NPT, and India has not signed the NPT). Indeed, this Monday, the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns stated that “while Tehran was trying to extricate itself from the obligations to the IAEA, India was moving towards it. ‘India is the responsible one, Iran is the irresponsible one,’ he said.”

Risking Nuclear Issues for New Realities
While everyone has been concentrating on the nuclear consequences, especially on nuclear proliferation vis-à-vis Iran and North Korea, a wider dimension is required than the limited view of nuclear weapons.

As William Langewiesche of the Atlantic has pointed out proliferation is at the “Point of No Return”, so any analysis on the Indian nuclear deal must understand that the risk of proliferation is not as great when measured against getting building a relationship with a major New Core power.

The Economist does rightfully warns that are “there are plenty of opportunities for the world’s richest democracy and its largest to cement their friendship. Helping India to hone its nuclear skills is hardly a good place to start.” However, its misses the point that China, Russia and Japan can also offer India business deals and even coordination on hydrocarbon energy policy, but blessings on a nuclear program is something only the United States can do at this time.

If the US can reach out to India by addressing its security needs - especially difficult considering India’s energy dealing and stance on Iran and on US relationship with Pakistan - the US can then take the next steps of furthering and sealing economic ties, helping solidify India’s place in the Core and in the Anglosphere. Indeed, beyond helping India both modernize and normalize its nuclear energy program, what else does the US offer that China, Japan and Russia cannot readily offer as well?

Security has to be the foundation of a US-India and eventually an Anglosphere alliance, economics and energy will help solidify it.

India and the Anglosphere, but what about China?
Stephen Green of VodkaPundit is a little too eager when he announces “Welcome to the Anglosphere, India” last Thursday, a single deal wont make an Anglosphere with India a fait compli. But, its a great step indeed.

A number of pundits have commented on India as a potential counterweight against China. This is seen not only by folks in the US but Australia, Indonesia, Japan and others. But this is a false a dangerous hope.

Firstly, China is not a threat as long as it can become ever more integrated with the Old and New Core in the economics. An embraced China is less of a threat than an encircled stubborn China.

Secondly, India (like China) are too much of pragmatist and confident to acquiesce itself as a pawn in Washington’s game. India is recognizing its place in the world as a major partner and will pursue its interests as it sees fit, even if it means friction with the US.

The Bush Administration risked nuclear proliferation and the NPT to bring closer ties with India, recognizing that a new world paradigm is shaping up. Hopefully, the Bush Administration and one after take the next step to not only strengthen ties with India but also reach out to China.

The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.

In an interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show “prudence” when covering religion.

“The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” he told the newspaper. “We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.” (Empahsis Mine)

In StrategyUnit’s commentary on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed Cartoons, I stated:

The gulf and difference in values, assumptions and perception between millions of Muslims and what the West (esp. the sacredness of the freedom of speech) is not to be underestimated. This is a real division that exists between the cultures and a wedge that fundamentalist at both sides can drive and finally nail down to make the “Clash of Civlizations” a defacto truth.

Sadly, StrategyUnit has miscalculated the sense “sacredness” over free speech that EU officials are willing to state publicly. Eugene Volokh sums it up well, here:

When you say something like that against a backdrop of thugs burning embassies and killing people in reaction to your citizens’ speech, appeasement and surrender are exactly what’s going on, “voluntary” rules or not. Millions of Europeans should feel humiliated that one of their super-government’s officials is even proposing this.

For my day job, I am an Internet marketer, so I happen upon lots of interesting Internet-related technologies all the time. One of them is 3Bubbles, a way to integrate live chat to every blog and web site. As one of the early beta testers, I’ve enabled chatting on all postings. I know I dont generate enough traffic to really take advantage of this new technology, but I cant help but give it a try.

Cheers,

StrategyUnit