Benghazi: Common Sense Slowly Prevailing
Trying to get to the bottom of what happened at Benghazi on September 11 2012 is Congress's responsibility, and as citizens we should be gratified it has taken this seriously. The Republicans have not been inordinately preoccupied with Benghazi.
That said, I do not see a conspiracy here either to abandon the base under attack or to cover up the aftermath. Ignorance, poor analysis, bureaucratic stumbling, and basic ass-covering probably are the main drivers here.
Some have blamed Ambassador Chris Stevens for his foolhardiness in going to Benghazi at that time. Ambassadors are on the front lines every day, or should be. They have to take some risks to promote and defend American interests. Stevens may have been an idealist, but by visiting Benghazi he was operating in tthe best tradition of the Foreign Service.
I don't know why senior State department officers who had decisionmaking responsibility for the security of the mission facility (it wasn't a consulate; it don't know what to call it) in Benghazi have been reinstated in their jobs. That no one was fired over these lapses is a travesty.
All the fuss over "talking points" is a distraction. The CIA clearly didn't know what was going on. It was still locked on to the idea that this was a "demonstration" by "extremists" over a youtube video insulting the Prophet. State department thought the same thing. Probably this flaccid analysis was due to lack of any decent intelligence whatsoever. Susan Rice should have known better than to be still hawking this flawed line of analysis days after the attack, and it rightly cost her the Secretary of State job. (One good thing came out of Benghazi, at least.)
The Pentagon may be off the hook for the Benghazi lack of response, but its whole "rapid reaction" force approach to security emergencies at embassies has been exposed as inherently flawed. The response after the event was weak and ineffective. (No airlift was available for the Marines, among the many issues.)
Was this a mission by Al Qaida to kill Stevens? Doubt it. AQ as we once knew it know longer exists. Groups aligned to its ideology do. To me the link between the demonstrations at the Embassy in Cairo and the Benghazi incident seems strong. But the attackers at Benghazi seemed to be improvising. It is unclear if they knew they had killed Stevens. They didn't try hard to look for him and verify if they were successful.
In the end, like the Kennedy assassination, the truth probably won't be clearer over time. And likely the killers will never be brought to justice. But bad guys are getting killed in Benghazi and nearby areas all the time, wasted by other bad guys. So we might take some solice in knowing that some of them are probably dead already.
Here's a link on a good summary of the Benghazi investigations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html
Friday, April 11, 2014
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Geo-economics vs. Globalism
This piece nicely captures the essence of the (flawed) US strategy over the last few decades. Mandelbaum says keep pushing globalism, the free movement of goods and people, and the use of American power to break down the pockets of resistance (in the BRIC nations). It is the economic version of Fukuyama's "end of history" and liberal democracy: the end of history is the unfettered global market.
The trouble is this ideology is it is leading to a decline in American power and relative prosperity. This form of global capitalism cuts the rug out from under us if we no longer have a manufacturing base and if we are constantly importing poverty in the service of the free movement of peoples.
Anyway, Berkowitz writes approvingly on it here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/09/global_capitalism_a_vital_foreign_policy_tool_122212.html
We will post more extensively on this theme. As Edward Luttwak has written, we should let "strategy" determine our global economic policy. His book on China and the logic of strategy goes into this in detail, which will be the theme of a later post.
This piece nicely captures the essence of the (flawed) US strategy over the last few decades. Mandelbaum says keep pushing globalism, the free movement of goods and people, and the use of American power to break down the pockets of resistance (in the BRIC nations). It is the economic version of Fukuyama's "end of history" and liberal democracy: the end of history is the unfettered global market.
The trouble is this ideology is it is leading to a decline in American power and relative prosperity. This form of global capitalism cuts the rug out from under us if we no longer have a manufacturing base and if we are constantly importing poverty in the service of the free movement of peoples.
Anyway, Berkowitz writes approvingly on it here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/09/global_capitalism_a_vital_foreign_policy_tool_122212.html
We will post more extensively on this theme. As Edward Luttwak has written, we should let "strategy" determine our global economic policy. His book on China and the logic of strategy goes into this in detail, which will be the theme of a later post.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Defend the Interrogation Program
Former Senate staffer Thiessen stands up for the agency. Will Brennan? http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-brennan-must-defend-cias-terrorist-interrogation-program/2014/04/07/ba0382d2-ba7f-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
The Global War on Terror must really be over. Remember: it is okay to assassinate suspected terrorists, but not interrogate them harshly.
Former Senate staffer Thiessen stands up for the agency. Will Brennan? http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-brennan-must-defend-cias-terrorist-interrogation-program/2014/04/07/ba0382d2-ba7f-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
The Global War on Terror must really be over. Remember: it is okay to assassinate suspected terrorists, but not interrogate them harshly.
Identifying the Pivot of History
Here's an interesting piece on Halford Mackinder, one of the most important 20th century strategists. His ideas on how geography shaped history still enjoy influence. Strategy transcends politics. Think of our current attempt to "pivot to Asia." http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/bookman/article/mackinder-geography-and-history/
Here's an interesting piece on Halford Mackinder, one of the most important 20th century strategists. His ideas on how geography shaped history still enjoy influence. Strategy transcends politics. Think of our current attempt to "pivot to Asia." http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/bookman/article/mackinder-geography-and-history/
Monday, April 7, 2014
NOAH: An Okay Epic
A lot of people in the press will pretend to like this movie either because they like the "green" message (secularists) or they are just relieved that Hollywood will take the Bible seriously (Christians suffering from cultural war battle fatigue).
Some of the public discussion of the Russell Crowe movie "Noah" has focused on its departure from the Genesis narrative. The film's writers had to introduce dramatic tension and character development, and I didn't think the liberties taken were excessive. I thought the movie was imaginative and in some parts beautiful. Naturally it had a vegan message: save animals, don't eat them. I didn't mind that Noah didn't entirely understand his tasking, but he thought that all mankind, including his family, had to perish. He came off like a early version of the Rev. Jim Jones.
The overall message is a little skewed. A bad local king, who improbably chops his way into the gigantic ark, delivers the message that the "creator" gave man dominion over animals. The movie omits that God told Noah that all animals now are our food.
I recall the older movie "The Bible" with John Huston as Noah. He gave the role a bit of a comic twist. That would have been welcome, as this movie labored. Noah has always been a vaguely endearing figure--he gets drunk on wine--but this guy was a bit of a jerk.
A lot of people in the press will pretend to like this movie either because they like the "green" message (secularists) or they are just relieved that Hollywood will take the Bible seriously (Christians suffering from cultural war battle fatigue).
Some of the public discussion of the Russell Crowe movie "Noah" has focused on its departure from the Genesis narrative. The film's writers had to introduce dramatic tension and character development, and I didn't think the liberties taken were excessive. I thought the movie was imaginative and in some parts beautiful. Naturally it had a vegan message: save animals, don't eat them. I didn't mind that Noah didn't entirely understand his tasking, but he thought that all mankind, including his family, had to perish. He came off like a early version of the Rev. Jim Jones.
The overall message is a little skewed. A bad local king, who improbably chops his way into the gigantic ark, delivers the message that the "creator" gave man dominion over animals. The movie omits that God told Noah that all animals now are our food.
I recall the older movie "The Bible" with John Huston as Noah. He gave the role a bit of a comic twist. That would have been welcome, as this movie labored. Noah has always been a vaguely endearing figure--he gets drunk on wine--but this guy was a bit of a jerk.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Our Unemployment Rate Stinks. Could be Worse.
According to the latest labor statistics, our national rate of unemployment is now 6.7 percent. We regained all the jobs lost since 2008. Whoopie. In Spain for a conference last week, I asked a Portuguese colleague how his country's recovery was progressing. Better, he said. Unemployment has gone down to about 16 percent. Europeans have just gotten used to this.
According to the latest labor statistics, our national rate of unemployment is now 6.7 percent. We regained all the jobs lost since 2008. Whoopie. In Spain for a conference last week, I asked a Portuguese colleague how his country's recovery was progressing. Better, he said. Unemployment has gone down to about 16 percent. Europeans have just gotten used to this.
Defending CIA's Hard Interrogations
In the WaPo this am, the man who ran the CIA's enhanced interrogation program, Jose Rodriguez, defends it against a highly critical Senate report. See the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-ran-the-cia-interrogation-program-no-matter-what-the-senate-report-says-i-know-it-worked/2014/04/04/69dd4fae-bc23-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
One takeaway from Robert Gates's memoir--see my review in an earlier post--is how psychologically affected the Bush administration was by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Gates states the administration felt it had let the country down, and it would do anything to prevent another attack. That observation came in 2006, when he joined the government; five years later, it still weighed heavily upon the White House. When Bush was presented with the option of approving enhanced interrogation techniques, according to his own memoir, he replied, "damn right." (Or words to that effect; I quote from memory.) Clearly the administration was committed to do whatever it took within the law to unravel the Al Qaida network.
Gates mentioned somewhat obliquely that it would have been beneficial if some more reflection had been undertaken to determine whether "waterboarding"--the hard technique used--was consistent with American values. That's a legitmate point. With the benefit of hindsight, I wonder if any of the proponents would have approved it, given the endless fuss it has caused. It is 2014, and we are still debating a program that ended 10 years ago, was used on few people, and probably did yield some intelligence on our enemies.
Hard interrogation was not torture. Some Hollywood actors and journalists have willingly submitted to it. Obviously its proponents did it to break some very tough men WITHOUT using torture. These were men who planned and committed mass murder, without remorse. Some people will see this issue differently, and that is their right. Glad they weren't in charge after 9/11, though.
I always thought it was somewhat telling that Leon Panetta, a liberal if ever their was one, always defended the hard interrogation program when he was CIA head. Obviously the Democrats on the Hill are attacking the CIA over this because, well, because they can. Let's be clear: principles have nothing to do with this.
As for American values...well. We've always been hard on our enemies. We are killing them now with drone strikes, and sometimes this leads to death of innocents. (Not as many as people would suppose, though.) This program has been undertaken by a conservative and a liberal administration. We the People seem more than okay with it.
In the WaPo this am, the man who ran the CIA's enhanced interrogation program, Jose Rodriguez, defends it against a highly critical Senate report. See the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-ran-the-cia-interrogation-program-no-matter-what-the-senate-report-says-i-know-it-worked/2014/04/04/69dd4fae-bc23-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
One takeaway from Robert Gates's memoir--see my review in an earlier post--is how psychologically affected the Bush administration was by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Gates states the administration felt it had let the country down, and it would do anything to prevent another attack. That observation came in 2006, when he joined the government; five years later, it still weighed heavily upon the White House. When Bush was presented with the option of approving enhanced interrogation techniques, according to his own memoir, he replied, "damn right." (Or words to that effect; I quote from memory.) Clearly the administration was committed to do whatever it took within the law to unravel the Al Qaida network.
Gates mentioned somewhat obliquely that it would have been beneficial if some more reflection had been undertaken to determine whether "waterboarding"--the hard technique used--was consistent with American values. That's a legitmate point. With the benefit of hindsight, I wonder if any of the proponents would have approved it, given the endless fuss it has caused. It is 2014, and we are still debating a program that ended 10 years ago, was used on few people, and probably did yield some intelligence on our enemies.
Hard interrogation was not torture. Some Hollywood actors and journalists have willingly submitted to it. Obviously its proponents did it to break some very tough men WITHOUT using torture. These were men who planned and committed mass murder, without remorse. Some people will see this issue differently, and that is their right. Glad they weren't in charge after 9/11, though.
I always thought it was somewhat telling that Leon Panetta, a liberal if ever their was one, always defended the hard interrogation program when he was CIA head. Obviously the Democrats on the Hill are attacking the CIA over this because, well, because they can. Let's be clear: principles have nothing to do with this.
As for American values...well. We've always been hard on our enemies. We are killing them now with drone strikes, and sometimes this leads to death of innocents. (Not as many as people would suppose, though.) This program has been undertaken by a conservative and a liberal administration. We the People seem more than okay with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)