Russia is ahead on points

Stratfor has an article, Russia's Strategy that gives the devil his due.  Russia is no longer on the ropes.  They are not where they want to be, but their strategy is sound.  That strategy is to keep the US distracted.  It seems to be working.  Well, maybe.

We seem to be pretty good at keeping ourselves distracted.  Okay, we left Iraq in a huff because they wouldn’t give us a status of forces agreement that treated us as gods.  Still, we found a way to get involved in Libya and are trying to get into the Syrian mix.

Stratfor sees that it is the Russian goal to keep us tied up so we can’t un-distract ourselves.  With all due respect, to the very well informed fellows at Stratfor, the Russkies have several years, if ever before we de-distract.  Oh, maybe sanity could attack and a sensible rapprochement between us and Iran could occur, but that will take awhile.  Then again, Romney has promised to up any Obama ante so that’s a problemo there.

An interesting point made by Stratfor is that the Russians, either as empire or union was economically always a loser, but imperially, more often than not, a winner.  

The last paragraph recaps well enough.

Russia has come far from where Yeltsin took it. The security forces are again the heart of the state. Moscow dominates Russia. Russia is moving to dominate the former Soviet Union. Its main adversary, the United States, is distracted, and Europe is weak and divided. Of course, Russia is economically dysfunctional, but that has been the case for centuries and does not mean it will always be weak. For the moment, Russia is content to be strong in what it calls the near abroad, or the former Soviet Union. Having come this far, it is not trying to solve insoluble problems.

Even if we don’t do stupid on Iran, as long as we are bugging China, we are distracted from Russia.  The Russkies may not have forever, but they do have time.

Russia is the most successful loser ever.

Iraq; The final scorecard-A seven year enema

The Neutralist was moved to write today because of John Glaser's post on Antiwar.com's blog, ‘Lasting Pride’ For the Hell We Left in Iraq.  If you remember, we were going to bring democracy and good government of Mesopotamia.  Last year, our troops pulled out not with bands playing and applauding locals lining the streets in gratitude, but in the dead of night without telling the Iraqis.  This is not accounted as the recognition that we had lost something, but as Glaser quoted,

“We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” – President Barack Obama, Fort Bragg, N.C., December 2011

“You will leave with great pride – lasting pride.” – Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to U.S. troops, December 2011

Mr. Glaser than states the obvious,

I’ve written repeatedly about the terrible dictatorship and lasting sectarian violenceWashington left in Iraq after the troop withdrawal of December 2011. Contrary to the lies of these indecent politicians, the enduring effects of the illegal U.S. war in Iraq are still causing havoc and bloodshed throughout the country. Iraq is neither secure, nor is it a democracy as was promised by warmongers in Washington.

I have an open question for anyone.  It would be nice if someone in government would make the effort, but if anyone would take the time to tell the Neutralist how the Iraq War was not a mindless mistake, there would be unending gratitude on my part.

There is, of course, a larger question.  How could anyone think that intervention in Syria or Iran could be anything less than loserville.  We have the recent example of Libya being a non success.  An even larger question is not why are the people running foreign policy allowed to run amuck, but why are such people considered sane.  

I remember when the Iraq war was new.  chickenhawks Michael Graham on Boston radio was exclaiming how he had Steffens like seen the future and it worked.  How anyone could not see as he had was mindlessness.  Wisely, he has moved on.  Would really like to hear from him how it was all not a mistake.

Now the right wing mantra is not that it was not winnable, but it's Obama's fault.  It's alvays Ludnendorff und ze stab in ze back, but never our fault.

Why are there NGOs?

There is a good article on the meddling of NGOs in The National Interest by its editor, Robert W. Merry.  It is titled Unmasking the Democracy Promoters and is Posted today.  It led us to think about foreign policy and why a country would fund NGOs.

When I was very young, we were in the thick of the Cold War.  The American, and I would think, the Soviet goverments felt themselves to be in a mortal struggle.  Large military establishments were maintained in readiness in case cold turned to hot.

The war was not just tank armies staring at each other across the Fulda Gap.  Proxies engaged us in Viet Nam and the Soviets in Afghanistan.  there were other peripheral side shows with varying degress of heat.

Another front was one side or the other setting up and/or funding groups not ostensibly connected with either government.  The Soviets had front groups such as the   The World Peace Council and others.     Supposedly, the CIA funded hi-brow publications like Partisan Review.  The reader is asked to do his own research.  It was such that Jay Ward, the man behind Rocky and Bullwinkle held a dinner with themed tables such as one for “All those who believe the Diners Club is a Commie Front.”

So the Cold War ended and as one historian put it, history ended.   Maybe not.  The Neutralist would have wanted our nation to bring home the fleets and armies and the air force, but it was not to be.  We found a bogeyman in Iraq, or, depending on viewpoint, he found us.  

That is not to say we left Europe.  The end of the Soviets still sees divisions billeted in Germany and our continued activity in the leftovers of the two multinational entities, the USSR and Yugoslavia.  One would think just getting the Russkies to leave would be enough.  We had promised not to run NATO up to Russia’s border, but so what.  Poland had to be Poland, even though that meant having secret rendition prisons.

But, we are the good guys.  Everyone should be good guys.  That’s where NGOs come in.  People helping people be nice.

So the US is funding lots of nice people around the world guiding people of other countries toward the light of free, open elections with governments that are run honestly.  Now I live in a state where the last three house speakers are convicted felons, so at the Neutralist, we are not sure we are uniformly the example.

To believe that we just love the world and that’s why this is going on is silly.  In fact, the Neutralist, with our characteristic lack of effort have come up with a self evident law;  No one sends lots of bucks and folks overseas without thought to the benefits accruing to the giver.  Even in such beloved organizations as the Peace Corps, we would posit that is so.  A bit murky there.  Certainly, when it started in the Cold War there was some sense of countering the Evil Empire.  Whether it still serves a geopolitical purpose, who knows, but at least it serves as kind of a continuation of summer camp for college grads who did well in Post Modern lit and can’t get a job.

So money is being thrown around to “to support what we like to call ‘universal values’—not American values, not Western values, universal values.”  according to Michael McFaul, once the NDI representative in Russia.  Don’t know about you, but Mike’s sentiments make me wanna sing Kumbayah.

The NDI is National Democratic Institute, a nonprofit U.S. agency whose mission is to promote democracy around the globe.  Now according to the TNI article, NDI gets oodles of lucre from the Uncle Sam’s coffers.  If he who pays the piper calls the tune, a doctrine we think self-evident, then why are these called non governmental organization.  Well, TNI gives out the doctrine how that is so.  “But Wikipedia helpfully explains: “In cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status by excluding governmental representatives from membership in the organization.””  Call me cynical, but isn’t that just a tad of a distinction without a difference.

I’m not the only one who feels that way.  Mr. Merry begins the piece by noting that the United Arab Emirates have shut down the NDI in the UAE.  the nerve!  Why Hilary exclaimed, “we very much regret” the UAE action and adding that NDI plays “a key role in supporting NGOs and civil society across the region, and I expect our discussion on this issue to continue.”  That last part, after the conjunction, “I expect our discussion on this issue to continue.”  sounds a bit ominous.  Was it slightly threatening?  Why would the sheikhs not want something so helpful in their midst?

Mr. Merry has a reasonable suggestion, “But perhaps there’s merit in stepping back just a bit and seeking to look at it from the perspective of the receiving country.”  Novel that.  someone might have a different perspective than Foggy Bottom.

The truth is, NGOs are great meddlers. No one likes a meddler (unless, maybe they are on the take from said meddler).

Mr. Merry has it nailed, “For anyone trying to understand why this anger is welling up in those countries, it might be helpful to contemplate how Americans would feel if similar organizations from China or Russia or India were to pop up in Washington, with hundreds of millions of dollars given to them by those governments, bent on influencing our politics. One supposes it would generate substantial anger among Americans if these groups tried to tilt our elections toward one party or another. But suppose they were trying to upend our very system of government, as U.S.-financed NGOs are trying to do these days in various countries—and have done in recent years in numerous locations.”

One would think the push back long overdue and should not be surprised if the various targets compare notes and work together on dealing with all the little sinecuristas in their midsts.

Mr. Merry ends the article by writing, “crusades on behalf of presumed “universal values” have a way of going awry.”  Didn’t we just “celebrate” the 95 anniversary into the “War to end all wars?”

*Mr. McFaul is now ambassador to Russia where one hopes he is behaving himself.







Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
Source URL (retrieved on Apr 5, 2012): http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ngos-not-beyond-reproach-6719



Source URL (retrieved on Apr 5, 2012): http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ngos-not-beyond-reproach-6719

The Great Man-History may not be bunk as Henry Ford said, but historians are

Toward the end of his presidency, Bill Clinton was looking to his legacy, or so it was reported in the press.  According to Larry Kudlow, Clinton had governed as a supply sider on the economic front.  That is not a record to warm the cockles of the hearts of his party faithful.  By many, he is remembered as the goatish fellow serviced by an intern.  What does a guy have to do to go down in history?

Bill knew what a man needed to be considered great, war.  Outside of killing a few Serbs with bombing, Clinton never had one.  Too bad for him.  His claims about balancing the budget are not going to get him on a top ten list, cause that’s the way it is.

Yup, according to historians, to be considered a great president, you have to have a war.  To really hit the big time, you need deaths.  Death and war are go together for great pres. rankings.  Not just any death, but deaths of American soldiers really gets you noticed.  According to Patton no one won a war by dying for his country.  It was making the other poor bastard die for his that did the trick.  Not if you want to build a rep as a towering figure.  First in war, is better than first in peace.

Two economists, David Henderson of the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School and Zachary Gochenour of the Department of Economics at George Mason University have studied how presidential scholars do the rankings.  Of course, everyone already instinctively knows how it works.  Remember the movie, Young Millard Fillmore? Poor sap didn’t have a war.

Henderson and Gochenour’s work is valuable as it studies the positive correlation between war and US servicemen’s death.  Now on the face of it, this might seem perverse.  The historian might answer that the rankings are deserved because the great man successfully overcame a challenge.  It is a difficult argument, and in truth, if a war is foisted on a president and he brings it to a successful conclusion, even with a high kill rate, is that not greatness?  But what if the war could have been avoided without harm to the nation.  A president who could have kept us out of war and still needlessly got us into war is the opposite of great.

The Neutralist has in other places stated that Wilson was a villain for getting us into World War I.  I’ve heard the new Hoover book makes the case that Roosevelt did us no favors by sparking our entry into World War II.  

People say, what about Lincoln?  Well, he might have made the South the offer of reducing the tariff to the level that they could have lived with.  Instead he increased it.  It may not have averted the war, but he never made it.

That is the point.  A war president could only be a truly great man if war was unavoidable.  In truth, most of our wars were wars of choice.  It says much about historians as a class that there is so much worship of men who were by a valid measure failures.

You’ll have to excuse the Neutralist, I’m working on setting up a War of 1812 re-enactor group.

Link to the Henderson paper here.

Hat tip to John Glaser at Antiwar.com.

The Myth of Grand Strategy-Fabius Maximus 2006

The Fabius Maximus website is indispensable for anyone considering the problems America faces today.  The article, The Myth of Grand Strategy, was pubished in 2006.  It is just as timely today.  In fact is is of more resonance than almost anything you will see at Stratfor or similar sites.  It will be so a hundred years from now, but today its relevance comes from the fact that we are flailing about in a so called War on Terror with no resolution in sight.  Whatever our strategy is, It does not seem to grand.

After the introduction, there is a discussion of what is Grand Strategy.  We quote the following:

As one of Boyd’s closest associates, Chuck Spinney, summarized Boyd’s concept:
… grand strategy is the art of pursuing national goals in a way that improves our nation’s fitness to shape and cope with the conditions of an ever-changing international environment. A nation’s grand strategy is about its organic vitality and growth … or in Sun Tzu’s words, it is the “road to survival or ruin” over the long term.

This is not bad.  so if we were to issue a report card on our Grand Strategy since 911, what would it be graded on the standard set above.  The bogeyman OBL is gone, Al Qaeda is puported to be near gone, but the fighting them over there strategy has worked so well that Americans have to be felt up at airports.

The next section discusses Primal Grand Strategies:

We often see something like a grand strategy in the early years of some societies, when the people have a single-minded commitment to a goal, often just a drive to grow. A primal strategy is an expression of this people’s core beliefs. It is non-intellectual, with no need for theories and plans.

This could be expressed simply in terms such as Romulus did not lay out a system by which Rome would conquer the world.  It was just get these hills and go from there.  That primal drive took off, but it was not intellectualized.

The next section, Ambitious Grand Strategies – a Chimera for a Global Power discusses how, after the primal is over, a nation continues.  The attempt to recapture the primal is impossible and the result is a system that cannot succeed.  The words below summarize the problems a grand strategist faces.

It is hubris to believe that any person or small group has sufficient information to develop a plan on a global scale. There are too many complex, unknowable factors. Social factors, such as ethic and religious dynamics. Plus economic, military, and political factors. We lack the understanding to process the data into accurate patterns — a plan. That requires a science of sociology developed to the degree of modern chemistry, so that we could reliably predict results of our actions. Unfortunately sociology is at the stage of chemistry in the Middle Ages, when it was called alchemy. In fact, the yearning for a grand strategy is the equivalent to the search for the Philosopher’s Stone.


The next session discusses Barnett’s Grand Strategy.  Thomas P. M. Barnett wrote and article for Esquire an age ago in  March of 2003 outlining an ambitious grand strategy.  The article, The Pentagon’s New Map   begins,

LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good. When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point — the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.

Barnet outlined a plan as to how US power would change a lot of countries.  The two we have gone into have not heralded success for his vision.  One only a fool would want to stay in and the other we snuck out of in the dead of night.

In the last two paragraphs of the section, Fabius Maximus has a good critique of the Barnett thesis.

Barnett’s vision failed in Iraq in many ways, but perhaps mostly in his assumption that they wanted to be like us. Liberating them from Saddam was good, but the recent elections demonstrate that most of the Iraqi people(s) reject our economic and cultural systems.

Is there a plan to conquer the world? Yes, of course. You could conquer the world with 150,000 men. Provided, the rest of the world wanted to be conquered. Hah. You see, it takes the cooperation of the losers. A brilliant plan that was impossible. Generals like those sort of thing.
— Death Check, page 510.

After ages of nations and empires, one would think an educated man would be incapable of writing Barnett’s article.   One wonders if Mr. Barnett has changed his mind.  That would be a sanity test.  We learn from a quick perusal of a wikipedia page about him, he still appears to be desirous of managing the world and is making a living out with a sinecure or two, if not actually doing it.

The next section, Why do Grand Strategies Fail? has a lot of common sense stuff as to why the grand vision does not work.  It is best summed up by quoting two parts,  

No single person or small group has the necessary knowledge necessary to do more than a cartoon sketch of our complex and changing world; and even that will be riddled with errors.

We all have biases, prejudices, and parochial views. These limit our ability to see and think broadly enough to shape a global grand strategy.

So, if you’re thinking about running the world, that’s what you’re up against.

The Seventh Section is worth quoting in its entirety.

(7)  America’s Need for a Humble Grand Strategy
The point of this essay is not to compare our performance with an impossible perfect ideal, but to suggest that humility is appropriate when conceiving a grand strategy. Because, of course, we always have a grand strategy — our collective policy with respect to the external world — either by design or default. Perhaps we should consider building our grand strategy on lower, more solid ground. Consider these four principles as the foundation for our grand strategy.
1.             Respect for other peoples, their values and beliefs. We speak of multiculturalism, but often act to impose our “universal values” (aka human rights).
2.            Reluctance to use our power and awareness of our limited wisdom.
3.            Defense in preference to offense.
4.            Defense is inherently the stronger posture, and more appropriate for a hegemonic state like America. A kinetic and unpredictable hegemon disturbs other States — both friends and foes — exacerbating the natural tendency for other States to ally together against a it.
5.            Firmness in response to clear threats.
Game theory shows “tit for tat” to be the most effective strategy in many games. Our system of international law, going back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, justifies military action only in response to an attack by another state — not preemptively. The Iraq War is another lesson in the wisdom of that policy.
As William Lind said, “So long as we are on the grand strategic offensive, threatening to impose our ways on every one else through military force, we will be defeated regardless of how many battles we win. Like Germany in both World Wars, we will generate new enemies faster than we can defeat old ones” (“Election Day“, 29 October 2004)

When I first read the article title, The Myth of Grand Strategy, I thought the author was suggesting that Grand Strategy does not exist.  In the sense that most ideas of Grand Strategy are not so grand, it would seem so.  At best the attempt would be better called, Big Ideas About Strategy That May Work For Awhile, But End In Failure Usually, or BIASTMWFABEIFU for short.

But, Fabius does believe in Grand Strategy, we always have a grand strategy — our collective policy with respect to the external world — either by design or default. Perhaps we should consider building our grand strategy on lower, more solid ground.

I disagree in calling what he suggests a “Grand Strategy.”  As he is suggesting, a humble policy, not a mange the world concept, it would be better called “National Strategy.”

Stretch it out a bit and one can see it fits in with a Neutralist foreign policy.  If you aren’t out there looking like a drunk in a bar and soberly are aware of your weaknesses as well as your strengths, you cut down the need to get in a fight by more than orders of magnitude.  Not a bad policy for the individual as well as the country.

In the odd case where someone is coming at us absolutely unprovoked, the policy of firmness (part 5) works as well.

Harry Browne said America has a strong offense, but no defense.  That is as true today as when hes said it.  Harry said it before 911 and the event proved his point.  A Neutralist grand strategy may not mean we never have an enemy, but it will mean we would have a lot less of them.  After a number of years of not trying to be the indispensable jerk nation, maybe we can do away with some of our overwrought security theater.  Maybe do away with the department of Homeland Paranoia.  In all honesty, the Neutralist is not optimistic, but lives ever in hope.

I just wish Fabius could say the other N word.

Times have changed, World War I no longer a holy war

There was a back and forth between Humanities Professor Paul Gottfried and Sean Gabb The Professor’s started with an article at Takimag about how the Brits were anxious to start a war, and got one in the early 20th Century.


Mr. Gabb is an English libertarian and director of the Libertarian Alliance across the pond.  He admits the Brits were not blameless, but has a few points in defense.  


It was all interesting, but what struck me was how things have changed since my childhood.  I am a boomer and when TV was new, they were constantly showed old movies while they were getting up to speed on providing constant vapid programming. There were a lot of flicks shown showcasing our involvement in World War II.  There were less, but still a number doing the same for “The Great War.”  Yankee Doodle Dandy, about George M. Cohan glorifies his role in stirring up patriotism with “Over There.”  The Fighting 69th was about how a unit of New York Irish made the Kaiser Howl.  Dawn Patrol had Errol Flynn as a Brit hero.  They never showed the Gary Cooper version of A farewell to Arms though.  There was a film that was hagiographic about Wilson.

The point is, nobody then said anything against World War I.  It was a right and just crusade to make the world safe for democracy.  A war to end all wars, blah, blah blah.
How times have changed.  neither Gottfried or Gabb thinks the war was anything but stupid and US involvement mistaken.  All thinking people have to believe that their nations’s participation unfortunate at best and buffoonery at worst.

At least the Euros and claim that they drifted into the war and mistake brought mistake.  A statesman, if we could resurrect him today and ask him why he did what he did, could only give the defense I give over all my bad choices in college, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”

Wilson, however has no excuse.  A war an ocean away did not call us.  We dialed it up.  The question as to why he did it has only one of two answers.  Either he was the pawn of the American financial interests or he was an idiot.  Or maybe both.

That was another century.  So to our own age.  The Neutralist was of course against both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Iraq was dopey on the face of it.  As to Afghanistan, we had been wronged and were going to have a war because, well, we had been wronged.  Dr. Gottfried has the best words on the subject, writing about WWI,  “The Germans should have restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand.”  One would think the descendants of both the Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns wish he had.  Yet to go to war probably seemed like a good or least worst idea at the time.

We shall think about Afghanistan in the same way someday.

There is the Wilson Quaterly and probably some Wilsonians, but the Wilsonian doctrine is so patently foolish, that one wonders how anyone could believe it.  Yet most everyone did.