Kvick Tänkare

As if dinosaurs weren’t cool enough, now we find out some of them had poison.  Godzilla isn’t looking quite so fictional now, is it?

How Russia and China got the deal for all that Iraqi oil…

…and why that may be an indicator of much bigger financial problems for us (and by ‘us’ I mean those who use the dollar)

Yet more on Swedish holiday traditions:  This time Slate.com explains how the Swedes stop everything at 3pm on Christmas Eve to watch old Disney cartoons.

The Gävle goat succumbs to flames yet again.

Gangs and insurgencies

Foreign Policy has an interesting looking article about the organized crime and insurgencies.  In it, the author cites a new paper in the Small Wars Journal by John P. Sullivan titled “Future Conflict: Criminal Insurgencies, Gangs and Intelligence”.  I don’t know how but Sullivan somehow manages to sucker me into reading his stuff every time and every time I’m disappointed.  The paper is a motherload of unexamined assumptions, outdated information and self promotion (17 of his 24 footnotes cite himself).  I don’t know Sullivan and I’m sure he’s a great guy but if this is the sort of thinking that’s driving policy as Robbert Haddick is kinda-sorta implying, we’re in big trouble.  Sullivan has been promoting essentially the same idea for over 10 years, that gangs are going to politicize and become the major threat to the nation state system as these modern day barbarians storm the gates and plunge us into a new dark age.

Oh…he also seems to have a bizarre obsession with the number 3.  There are three ‘generations of gangs’ and three types of cartels.  Why three?  Beats me, since the categories are entirely arbitrary and there’s no evidence to support these divisions.

He begins with a bold statement:

“Gangs dominate the intersection between crime and war.”

I don’t even know what the hell that means but he tells us he’s going to examine areas where “acute and endemic crime and gang violence challenge the solvency of state political control.”  Therein lies his major defect, as I see it.  For Sullivan, gangs are a cause of instability rather than a function of it.  Therefore…eliminate the gang and stability returns.

Too bad there’s no evidence for that.

Gangs don’t form to ‘challenge the rule of law’ as Sullivan states, but rather, form to fill a void where the rule of law is absent.  In the absence of order, people organize and when a group of people are in a Hobbsian state of nature (whether in a Brazilian slum or an urban housing project here in the U.S.) the people who can wield force tend to run things.  They may get more ambitious later but I think you’ll find very few people entering the life of crime with the goal of undermining the Westphalian system (check out Gang Leader for a Day if you want a brilliant 320 page example of this).  They want to meet their basic Maslow(ian?) needs initially.

Transnational gangs aren’t the reason there isn’t a strong, stable democracy in Russia, Columbia, Nigeria or Mexico.  Those nations have a history of corruption, instability and lack of public safety that precedes the arrival/creation of transnational gangs in their territories.  Gangs certainly don’t make the situation better but I’d like to see the evidence that they are the cause of these problems.

He then describes ‘criminal enclaves’ and uses Ciudad del Este as an example.  He discribes it thus:

A jungle hub for the world’s outlaws, a global village of outlaws, the triple border zone serves as a free enclave for significant criminal activity, including people who are dedicated to supporting and sustaining acts of terrorism. Denizens of the enclave include Lebanese gangsters and terrorists, drug smugglers, Nigerian gangsters and Asian mafias: Japanese Yakuza, Tai Chen (Cantonese mafia), Fuk Ching, the Big Circle Boys, and the Flying Dragons. This polyglot mix of thugs demonstrates the potential of criminal netwarriors to exploit the globalization of organized crime.

That certainly seems to make sense but if there’s such a good case that the area is as bad as all that why does he use a reference that’s ten years old?  Are we to assume that this area of the world has been untouched by 9/11 and its aftermath?  There’s certainly been work done to assess the nature of Ciudad del Este in the past ten years why not mention any of it?

Ciudad del Este is a cartel?  Who’s running it?  Is there some sort of Evil League of Evil pulling the strings or is it an anarchic wonderland that attracts all sorts of criminal and terrorist group because they can all do their own thing?  If the latter, how could it be a cartel?

There’s just so much to critique in the paper I’m not sure how much detail I should go into.  His ‘generations of gangs’ is absolutly terrible and has no utility when discussing gangs or anti-gang strategy.  It’s uselessness is demonstrated by his definitions of the generations which require the existance of gangs which exist in more than one generation at a time.  So, does that mean there are five generations?  Four and a half?  It starts to feel like the papal astronomers adding more and more orbits to the planets in order to keep the Earth at the center of the universe.  Just dump it and find a better explanitory tool already.

I’ve been looking at gangs for about 10 years now and ever since that time I’ve been hearing horror stories about how gangs are just about ready to destroy civilization.  I suspect scaremongering like this has a lot more to do with securing grant funding and speaking engagements than it does with depicting reality.  Some gang leaders in the U.S. do occasionally attempt to transform their gang into a politically motivated force.  There are even some examples of short term, local successes on their part.  But they don’t last over time or space because of a number of inherent contradictions between the conditions needed for a politically motivated group (even if criminal) and an economically motivated one.

There are some interesting parallels between gangs and insurgencies.  They both feed on disenfranchisement.  The Sunnis fueled the insurgency in Iraq because they were out of power and looking to be on the wrong end of a payback spree.  The reason street gangs went from neighborhood nuicence to serious criminal problem has a lot to do with collapsing economic systems in inner cities in the 70s and 80s, the rise of narcotics as an opportunity to achieve financial well being and neglect by government of social services.  Both populations had little to lose and so elements of that population decided ‘What the hell’.

There are important lessons to our response to both as well.  Our current anti-gang strategy (such as it is) much more resembles our Iraq strategy (such as it was) in 2003-2006.  We generally isolate ourselves from the population, do the occassional ‘kenetic operation’, engage in the usual post operational chest pounding and declarations that we’ve ‘turned a corner’ and then find ourselves right back where we’ve started.

Perhaps the answer isn’t what Sullivan recommends (more riot police, counterterrorism forces, high intensity policing, etc. – you know an M-16 armed balaclava wearing dude on every streetcorner to kick the shit out of anyone who questions state authority) but rather the same principles advocated for COIN operations.  Hearts and minds.  Clear, Hold, Build.  Restore order, establish you’re there for the long haul and rebuild infrastructure, opportunity and trust.  Yes, it’ll be expensive.  Yes, it’ll take a lot of time.  Clearly building and filling prisons isn’t proving to be the answer so perhaps it’s time for a different approach.

A bit of brewski

Apparently the military is relaxing General Order No. 1 and allowing soldiers to have up to two 12 ounce beers during the Superbowl.  Now there were one or two times I really could have used a drink in Afghanistan but then I’d remember we were all carrying around loaded M-16s and the last thing I’d want is a bunch of drunk knuckleheads with loaded weapons.  Even with our no alcohol policy, some people smuggled booze in and we had a number of incidents as a result.

The Washington Post continues:

The only other reprieve from soberness U.S. troops in Iraq can get is a four-day excursion to the Persian Gulf state of Qatar, and not all are entitled to such trips. Service members there can have three drinks per night under close supervision.

Perhaps things have changed but when I went to Qatar for my ‘R&R‘ there wasn’t much in the way of ’supervision’ over the drinking.  In fact, I sold my beers for $10 a piece and there were plenty of drunks stumbling over themselves (no weapons however).  I find it hard to believe they’ll be able to maintain enough control to prevent drunkenness over there and it would be interesting to see if there’s any sort of increase in criminal activity over that time period.

Suspicious Swedes

You have to love the Swedish press.  Every once in awhile you’ll see a headline like:

“Swede detained by US forces in Iraq”

And you’ll think “Wow, that’s pretty unusual.” and then be compelled to read the story.  What kind of activity could a Swede get involved in that would get him detained in Iraq?  What the heck is a Swede doing in Iraq?

Then, when you delve a bit deeper in the story you find out that the Swede in question is named Ahmad Hamad.

I kind of feel cheated when I get to that part of the story.  I was really expecting a 6′ blonde haired, blue eyed Swede with a name like Lars Larsson and instead I get some dude who moved to Sweden (from Iraq).

This is apparently quite common in the Swedish press and if you just read the headlines there you might get the impression that Swedes, fed up with their centuries of neutrality had begun shuffling off to trouble spots around the world to spread mayhem.  But, that’s rarely the case and instead it’s always someone who has most definitely a non-traditional Swedish name who gets mixed up in some sort of trouble.

Still, there are always additional details to the story that make it interesting…

His wife, Susin Hamad, told newspaper Norrköpings Tidningar that her husband had struggled to find work in Sweden and had moved to Ramadi, around 100 kilometres west of Baghdad, on May 2nd with the intention of setting up a construction company.

Now, I understand times are tough but c’mon!  Is it realistic to assume that a guy who’s having trouble getting work (in a nation known for providing pretty decent social welfare) feels his best (or only) option is to leave his family and haul off to Iraq?  I’m pretty sure they build things in Sweden, too.  In fact, there’s a whole black market revolving around people who hire workers to do home improvements for pay ‘off the books’.

Hmmm…maybe we can expect to see the thousands of American unemployed streaming to Iraq to find their fame and fortune.

Susin Hamad said she did not know why her husband was being held captive as she did not believe he was politically active.

Whew…thank goodness for her the Newlywed game isn’t still running, they probably wouldn’t do so well.

So this is success?

There are two National Intelligence Estimates floating around in draft form, one about Afghanistan and one about Iraq.  The NIEs are classified but people are leaking the jist of them…and it ain’t good.

Afghanistan is in a “downward spiral”

…the breakdown in central authority in Afghanistan has been accelerated by rampant corruption within the government of President Hamid Karzai and by an increase in violence by militants who have launched increasingly sophisticated attacks from havens in Pakistan.

…unresolved ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq could unleash a new wave of violence, potentially reversing the major security and political gains achieved over the last year.

The findings of the intelligence estimate appear to be reflected in recent statements by Army Gen. David Petraeus, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq, who has called the situation “fragile” and “reversible” and said he will never declare victory there. (emphasis added)

The biggest piece of nonsense peddled about Iraq is that we can achieve some sort of VE/VJ day type of ‘victory with honor’.  Neither Iraq or Afghanistan are going to become free, secular, Western style democracies.  With Iraq we need to figure out what we want to acomplish already and work towards that.  My ‘off the cuff’ suggestions:

1. Prevent al-Qaeda from establishing havens in the Western part of the country
2. Prevent Iran from turning Iraq into a client state
3. Keep the Kurds from starting a regional conflict

Those are things we can do without running our military and economy in the ground.  There’s very little evidence to support the idea that we can turn Iraq’s kleptocracy into a functioning democracy.  We’ve overseen a rough segregation of Iraqi society along sectarian/ethnic lines which can avoid a major bloodbath so long as all the players keep to their corners (that’s a really big ‘if’).

Oh…one thing both of these reports agreed upon:

U.S. officials familiar with the new National Intelligence Estimate said they were unsure when the top-secret report would be completed and whether it would be published before the Nov. 4 presidential election.

Wow…what a shocker.

An open letter to my dear aunt.

I just received the following letter from my aunt who’s one of the famous undecided voters.  I think she asks some great questions that many others would ask.  I was preparing to send her an email response but figured this might be a better place to put up my thoughts and encourage a discussion.  First, her letter:

…the only decision I have made thus far with regard to “my” future as an American, is that I am now open-minded to both sides!  Mr. Obama had (please note the word had) deeply impressed me in the beginning and Mr. McCain was not really a contender in my estimations, but he (Mr. Obama) all by himself has left me in my current state of quandary.  I am extremely dismayed by the “once again” negative campaign attacks both sides have chosen to partake in….ENOUGH WITH THE BULLSHIT!!!!

Please offer me constructive and concrete plans to allow me to chant proudly…”land of the free and the home of the brave”. I still well up with pride, my sweet boy, when those 10 words are sung; and I WILL NOT succumb to anything less.  The one question I still have not heard answered by anyone of caliber is “what else would they have done when our land was attacked..what else could have (or should have) been done to stop the “filth” from pretending to be better and stronger than we are??  And if we had chosen not to defend..what would (or could) have happened? Can Mr. Obama answer that…what would he have decided if he were President for less than a year???? I, as many Americans do (I am sure) cry intensely when a member of our land is defeated by death in this horrible charade called “war”, but could we have done something else?  Let your incumbent share with me “his” views on that… then I will listen… Please remember, my love, that I do not in any way approve of Mr. Bush’s bull-headed and pompous continuations… I just have not been given any “credible” arguments  to the contrary.

I still cannot go the area (twin towers) where we lost sooo much (more than huan life) of our world. I grew up loving and living New York and now, to this day, cannot fully appreciate or accept its full majesty when I visit   (Mr. Shit-head Bin-Ladin took that from me). I cried, worried, and mourned ALL WHO LOST THEIR LIVES that day, because of a psycho path that, you might remember, had once shook hands with our “Democratic Leader MR. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON.  Should he had taken him down back then??  He knew the threat!  We wouldn’t be where we are or have lost so much if ” he had done his job” (instead of banging (oh, wait..it wasn’t sex) his impressionable intern).

And my response:

My dearest Aunt,

I can’t say what others would have done after 9/11 but I can (and of course will) spell out some of the serious errors that the current administration has made, why I think McCain would act in the same vein in the future and why Obama, while certainly not perfect, represents a much better choice.

1. If 9/11 and al-Qaeda was, in fact, the opening salvo of a conflict that threatens our very existance, as was, and continues to be argued, than a national mobilization would have been called for.  Not just our military forces, but all Americans could have been encouraged to pull together to help in this struggle.  Americans could have been encouraged to conserve energy, engage in some sort of national service (the military, Peace Corps, etc.) and made to feel like we were all in this together. Instead, the American people were told to go shopping.  I believe this was an intentional plan to seperate the American people from any sort of hardship the ‘War on Terror’ would impose and therefore buy their support.  While both Obama and McCain have encouraged national service, Obama has a plan for national service while everyone at the RNC convention except McCain seemed to regard service (except military) as some sort of punch line.  In short, I think its safe to say that you can expect ‘more of the same’ from McCain on this point.
2. The invasion of Iraq was a disastrous mistake.  This isn’t hindsight.  Even someone as uninformed as I was quite clear in 2002 that Iraq was not the threat it was being made out to be and that a war there was definitely not in our best interest.  While blowing crap up and kicking ass (with or without taking names) may make us feel better, it doesn’t necessarily get us closer to our goals:  making al-Qaeda less able to attack us, bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice, and eliminating (or reducing) the underlying incentives for people to try to fly airplanes into our buildings.  Iraq just highlighted something that I believe has become a fatal flaw in current Republican ideology:  the military is the answer to everything.  In this regard, McCain may be slightly better than Bush but his constant sabre rattling (and poor decision making skills) should give one serious pause.   Obama was also clear that Iraq was a mistake and also believes that there is value in attempting other ways of getting what we want from the world.
3. John McCain and the Republicans don’t understand the world we live in.  For all the talk about pre 9/11 thinking and post 9/11 thinking many (Republicans and Democrats) don’t understand the world around us as well as they think they do.  I am convinced that McCain still sees the world through the lens of Vietnam and is still trying to ‘win’ that war.  Obama doesn’t see the world in those terms and could be the first step in getting us out of the 1960s mindset.
4. Over most of the past seven years we seem to have gone out of our way to ensure the long term survival of al-Qaeda.  We have allowed Pakistan to play footsie with militants in their North West Frontier Province, giving Islamists a safe haven to regroup.  We have given Islamists (now, more than just al-Qaeda) the opportunity to use our actions as both a powerful recruiting tool (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, unnecessary civilian deaths, etc.) as well as an opportunity to get training against our military for years while we were failing about.
5. I don’t know of any time in which any U.S. president shook hands with bin Laden.  Certainly, the Clinton administration did not persue him as vigorously as it could have.  I will not defend that administration which, I believe, made some other serious foreign policy errors during their watch.  I will however, remind you of the reaction he got when he did try to attack bin Laden with missile strikes.  We were told that the bin Laden threat was being exaggerated in order to provide cover for the Lewinsky scandal.  It’s not an excuse (for a leader should do what’s right regardless of the fall out) but let’s be clear that he would have received little support or acclaim had he killed bin Laden that day.  And, of course, George Bush knew of the same threat and did nothing as well.
6. I think both candidates have learned some lesson from 9/11 and will not likely take threats to the U.S. lightly.  That’s no guarantee that we won’t be attacked again.  That is, in fact, an unrealistic hope.  You must come to accept that at some point in the future, despite our best efforts, we will be attacked again and people will die.  We can minimize the chances but not eliminate them.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
7. From my own personal perspective I can tell you that I think the Bush administration has been the worst for military personnel since I’ve been in (that’s 1986, if you remember).  They have let us down in many ways over the years.  McCain’s recent opposition to the new G.I. Bill is quite enough, thank you, for me to see in how he would treat those who’ve served in uniform, but here’s some more if you’d like it.
8. We have ignored Afghanistan.  When I left Afghanistan in 2004, it was with a sense of disappointment since I felt that little progress had been made in the ten months I was there.  It was no secret as to why that was.  All the attention and resources were focused on Iraq.  It’s only been recently that we have begun to look at Afghanistan and we still don’t have a coherent strategy there.  Because of the errors of the last four years (which I believe will be maintained by a McCain administration), we could very well end up losing that war as well.  That will mean that we betray the Afghan people a second time and loose to the people who supported the 9/11 attackers.

So, I hope this begins (and believe me, I could keep going on but I’ll spare you) to address some of your questions.  I agree, I would prefer there not be petty bickering between the candidates during the election but, unfortunately, it is what works and it is what people want.  So we’ll have to put up with it.  I do think the Obama camp has been generally more fair and tried to focus more on issues than personal attacks but certainly neither side can claim to be ‘clean’ in this regard.

So, you can vote for Obama or demonstrate publicly that you don’t love me and vote for the other guy (just kidding).

Your favorite nephew.

Some bad news from Iraq

Despite claims from many of the uninformed, confused and just plain goofy, there are some serious questions about the success of the ’surge’.  Yes, violence is down and that’s wonderful.  Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of discussion about why it’s down.  The assumption seems to be that the huge influx of guys with guns and American flags had the effect of a collective bonk on the head for the Iraqi people and they all suddenly realized how much they loved each other and how they just couldn’t wait to put down their IEDs and start caucusing.

In fact, the success has relied on some measures that are inherently temporary and therefore reversible.

For example, the Sunni areas have been quite in part because of Al-Qaeda blunders (note to self:  don’t play the merciless overlord bit when you absolutely need the cooperation of the populous) and in part to the huge outlays of cash, weapons and training that we offered to insurgents in exchange for them not attacking us.  Now, while some seem to think the ‘Anbar Awakening’ signal some sort of fundamental shift among the Sunnis indicating a desire to accept their new role as a junior partner in the government of Iraq I don’t think it’s nearly that clear at all.

The Sunnis realize it’s a chancy deal we’ll stay in Iraq indefinitely and so (as I’ve said many times in the past) would be stupid to look a gift horse in the mouth and turn down free protection, cash, weapons and training from the Americans.  There is a very real possibility that they’ll be fighting a Shia force that has been trained, equipped and paid (also by us) and so will need every bit of help they can get.

The Shia apparently think it’s a possibility as well, which is why they’ve begun their attempt to take out the Sunnis now.

A couple of signs that Iraqis might not be ready to all join hands and buy the world a coke?

“These people are like cancer, and we must remove them,” said Brig. Gen. Nassir al-Hiti,”

“The state cannot accept the Awakening,” said Sheik Jalaladeen al-Sagheer, a leading Shiite member of Parliament. “Their days are numbered.”

Yep…sounds like victory to me.

Books reviews

I just finished reading/listening to the books above and they made an interesting trilogy.  Legacy of Ashes was a phenomenal book which traced the history of the CIA from its origins until 2007.  I found it particularly interesting how, from its very inception, the agency was characterized as one that saw any sort of control (from the President, congress, or the constitution) as interference.  The inability of the agency to voluntarily stay within the limits of its charter raises serious questions about the wisdom of having a secret agency whose central function requires deceit and subversion in an open democracy.

I have to admit, I’ve bought into the myth of the CIA as much as everyone else so it was a bit of a disappointment to hear the numerous instances where intelligence and analytical work was shoddy or took a back seat to political considerations or cowboys who decided they knew what was in the best interests of the U.S. and did their own thing.  It was that covert action, usually done with no consideration of possible consequences that has to make one wonder if we wouldn’t be better off without such an agency.

A good (semi) counter point would be Robert Baer’s See No Evil which is a brilliant description of the CIA from a covert operators point of view.  After reading his book you do kind of think that perhaps Baer (and those few like him) really does know what’s best for the country and should be allowed to just ‘get on with it’.  I’ll have to spend some time trying to reconcile those two accounts.  Both books do seem to agree, however, on the idea that the CIA is hobbled by a new wave of inexperienced analysts, agents as well as a glut of bureaucrats.

State of Denial doesn’t really tell you anything you don’t already know providing you haven’t been in a coma during the past five years.  Still, it just lets you know that the gross incompetence is a well documented fact and not just a strong suspicion.

Armed Madhouse is great because its one of those books that gives you an alternative narrative to what’s going on today in America’s political landscape.  I’m not entirely convinced that Palast is providing the best explaination for what’s been going on in America since 2001 (when a book tries to question so many closely held assumptions like this one does, it would be a big help to provide links to supporting evidence) but it does get you to think.  I found his defense of Hugo Chavez particularly interesting.

Welcome to the 51st state – Iraq edition

Remember way back at the beginning of the war in Iraq? People like Donald Rumsfeld were saying that the probability of the U.S. wanting permanent bases in Iraq were “so low that it does not surprise me that it’s never been discussed in my presence — to my knowledge.” (Heck of a qualifier there, Brownie)

There’s an interesting piece in Salon about the issue here which not only highlights other administration weenies (like the wonderfully incompetent Karen Hughes) stating their shock, SHOCK that anyone could even think we’d want permanent bases in Iraq. It also raises some interesting questions as to why the media (at least here in the U.S.) hardly bothered to raise the question at all in the first few years of the war. I’m not sure if that was a reflection of the shoddy journalism that greased the wheels to get us into Iraq (sorry Charlie) or just a realization that asking the administration about permanent bases would just be a waste of time since it would be unlikely that they’d actually tell the truth.

So, it should come as no surprise that there are now reports (well, one report) that the U.S. is seeking permanent bases in Iraq (up to 58!) as part of a status of forces agreement. According to CNN this morning, the pentagon is saying such an agreement might be finalized by next month. If such an agreement comes into being, that’ll be another nail in the argument for withdrawing from Iraq, regardless of who’s elected in November. “What? Withdraw? But we just got these nifty new bases. We just built a Pizza Hut! If we leave now, the terrorists win. Perhaps we can revisit the issue in 100 years or so.”

By the way, McCain’s argument makes no sense. He says he wants to stay in Iraq so long as Americans aren’t getting “injured, or harmed or wounded or killed” but the reason for being there is because it’s a volatile part of the world where Al-Qaeda is active. So, how exactly would we defeat this huge Al-Qaeda threat without getting any Americans harmed? An eternal pillow fight war?

Which leads to the beauty of the Republican argument about staying in Iraq. We can’t leave when there’s fighting going on because that would be ‘cutting and running’ and we can’t leave when there’s no fighting going on because it might break out any time. So, under what conditions exactly could U.S. troops be brought back?

The Surge part 2

From the people over at the Defense and the National Interest blog (which I just added to the blogroll), here is a great interview put on Canadian TV (in early March, I believe).  Perhaps I like it because it validates my existing beliefs about the war in Iraq and the surge more specifically.  Unfortunately, I don’t know if there’s anything in the interview that can be put on a bumper sticker or in a 10 second soundbite.