The Bhutto Assassination and Pakistan as an Ally

As one whose family has been intimately involved with international politics involving the US, the UN, Lebanon, and France (1 ambassador, 2 Parliamentary members, 1 national level minister and cabinet member, 1 Chief Justice, 2 assassinations, 1 attempted assassination, etc…), and as a 10 year US Army Special Forces combat veteran, I have maintained more than a keen interest in international relations and foreign policy.

Though I agree with Senator Bob Corker, Congressman Jim Cooper, and Mr. Kevin Doherty on many points, I must respectfully and strongly disagree with several of their statements and positions.

President Musharraf is dangerous and ultimately untrustworthy. Make no mistake, he is a dictator, is hostile to US interests, and has little support within his own country. Regardless of what we are told by our government, he is at most an ally of convenience and necessity in the most dangerous country in the world as far as US foreign policy is concerned.

As our State Department knows well, he is at high risk of being assassinated in the near future. Pakistan will then be run by Islamic extremists who are sympathetic to Al Queda and Taliban proponents who will have control over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. We are one man away from a very serious problem unlike any we have ever seen. Should he be assassinated, we will be forced to ally with Iran in order to try to keep Pakistan in check as we try to prevent a hostile nuclear Pakistan from falling into terrorist hands. Russia is ahead of us here, and is likewise very concerned.

Just 3 weeks ago I spoke with Gail Sheehy who was the last journalist granted an interview with Benazir Bhutto just before she was assassinated (published in this month’s Parade magazine). Bhutto told her “I am what the terrorists most fear”. She was a force for democratic reform; however, though better than Musharraf, even she was tainted with corruption, impropriety, and less than ideal US values.

Contrary to Mr. Cooper’s opinion, we do have many Arabists - and very good ones. The problem is that this administration does not truly listen to them. Focus groups meet, people take notes, experts are consulted; but ultimately, their advice goes unheeded as we instead arrogantly proceed with our Americanized worldview devoid of other cultural paradigms and perspectives. We seem to want to colonize instead of convince by winning hearts and minds.

I agree we do need a fresh new approach that includes Palestinian autonomy (the real reason behind the Iraq war and much of the worldwide tension we now see). However, complete military disengagement “from the entire region” is a very foolish choice. It goes without saying, we do not need a “one country solution”, but need a deliberate, intentional, well thought out approach to how we interact on a global scale. Military intervention is a tool, and a powerful one – when used appropriately. We have recklessly abused it and are paying the price.

Iran Ready to Fill Power Vacuum in Iraq

Fox News reports that President Ahmadinejad Says Iran Ready to Fill Power Vacuum in Iraq.

Last night one of my old SF buddies from Tampa paid me a visit while I was pulling "Shock Doc" duty at Baptist Labor and Delivery. He's one of the most talented and intelligent guys I know, and has a great handle on foreign affairs - especially on the Middle East. In fact, I think he's knows more about the people, the culture, and the politics than Paul Bremmer. He was in Iraq for DS1 before hostilities officially began, and then again before OIF kicked off - when there were supposedly no US troops in Iraq.

We talked about almost everything - women, religion, commerce and trade, business, healthcare, politics, life, the future, CAG/SMU (Delta), and the intelligence community. Eventually, our conversation drifted to Iraq and what we believed to be prudent and correct military policy for the area. Unfortunately Congress disagrees, and I fear, will soon and rapidly fill Iraq with our absence. My friend's opinion was that Iran will immediately claim Eastern Iraq, Turkey will overrun Northern Iraq (as they've already tried to do on several occasions), and Saudi Arabians will slowly infiltrate the south.

I found it very interesting to see this article on Fox News this morning. He may be right on target. So much for the oil. (I really don't believe we'll leave the oilfields without some form of surveillence and defense - especially after spending all of that money to get Halliburton/KBR to lay pipeline from Kirkuk to Israel - though I understand they're having a little problem at the Jordanian border).

Officials Rethink Hopes for Iraq Democracy

CNN reported today that US officials have reconsidered plans to pursue democracy in Iraq, and would instead be satisfied with an effective government that can provide services and security to its people. (Wait a minute, didn't they have that 4 years ago - minus all the terrorists?)

MG Benjamin Mixon stated, "Democracy is merely an option, that Iraqis are free to choose or reject", and BG John "Mick" Bednarek said, "Democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future". (WHAT!!!???)

Forgive my cynicism, but these are things that many advisers told President Bush several years ago, but were summarily dismissed as pessimistic and unpatriotic forecasts. It was very telling indeed when the President made the comment that after the "liberation" of Iraq "We will be welcomed with open arms", as most who knew anything about Iraqi culture knew he was either deceived or completely ignorant of typical Middle Eastern culture which had been steeped in authoritarian regimes for millennia and would not be converted to a democratic state within a period of 2 to 3 years. (Ignorance, not in a pejorative sense, was the more likely option given that at the beginning of his first term, he knew neither the name of Canada's PM or of Mexico's President - the only two foreign countries that border the United States, one of which bordered his home state of Texas for at least as long as he was Governor).

This has been a major "Charlie Foxtrot" as we lovingly refer to it in the Army. The only hope is not to cut and run and hope for the best, but to do what it takes to fix the problem. As GEN/SEC Colin Powell said, "If you break it, you've got to fix it". This will mean a much larger surge, perseverance, commitment, and sacrifice on the part of all Americans, not just the 1% who have served or are currently serving in the US Military. If we maintain a shortsighted view of what's best in the next year or two, we will regret it in the long run. Like it or not, the American public has an aversion to casualties and we have history of retreating when it becomes politically unpopular to stay the course. (Remember Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia?) Our enemies know this and take advantage of it. Now we want to reinforce this belief?

In addition, we fight wars in the media and are swayed by public (non-warrior) perception instead of freeing up our commanders and soldiers to do what needs to be done in war - and that is fiercely engage and kill the enemy and destroy their will to fight. Instead they are destroying ours.

If a draft is necessary, so be it. What people fail to realize is that we are fighting for our survival. China and Russia are on the sidelines watching, waiting, building, networking, strengthening - all while we are trying to decide how fast we want to run away and lick our wounds. Forgive my language, but we have done our soldiers a disservice as our politicians have fought this war half-assed with one foot on and one foot off the battlefield.

We have created a monster. The only way to defeat it is to win this war decisively, not run away, retreat, ignore it, and hope it goes away. Turn this over to the Generals, don't make them answer to politicians, make everyone take ownership (as the end result will certainly affect everyone), get out of the way, and let the warfighters do what they do best - FIGHT!!!

Cry for Lebanon

Since last July’s month-long random and merciless Israeli bombardment, Lebanon has faced the very real threat of internal conquest by a ruthless, militant, and emboldened enemy. Hizballah has intentionally paralyzed Lebanon with the intent of overthrowing the current government, and claiming the throne for militant Islamic rule, courtesy of Iran and Syria. March 14th forces are holding on the best they can, but their grip is weakening. Unfortunately, Lebanon is far from any political solution, and faces a high threat of armed conflict, whether internal or external. On the other hand, Lebanon may get pulled into a regional conflict between Israel and Syria, because Syria will be sure to use Lebanon as a primary staging ground and will attack Israel from the Southern border, the Mediterranean, as well as the Golan. In fact, Syrian troops have already re-entered Lebanon and have fortified positions three kilometers inside Lebanese borders.

It's only a matter of time before internal violence increases given that Hizballah refuses to concede governmental control to properly elected officials and will not give up until they are in control. They also will never have a policy of peace with Israel, but will continually seek conflict once they achieve their goal of governmental control. The only way out of this debacle is open, deliberate, and armed intervention by a foreign power such as France, Germany, or the US, and I don't see that happening. Then there's the Palestinian problem with Fatah al Islam.......

The Lebanese Army, though enjoying wonderful and widespread public support, is weak - as we've seen from the past 2 or 3 months of fighting in Tripoli. This is a conflict that should have been easily completed within a week or two. The fact that it is still dragging on would be almost comical if it weren't for the sad fact that so many soldiers have been killed. Approximately two Lebanese soldiers have been killed for every one militant. That speaks volumes as to the Lebanese Army's knowledge of military doctrine and tactics, and of its ability to properly execute a military operation. They may be slowly winning, but certainly not in a decisive way, and then only because of superior numbers of soldiers available to replace the dead and injured, and open food, water, and ammunition supply routes. On the whole, however, they are being out fought and maneuvered hands down and could never effectively face an organized military force, Hizballah, or global civil unrest. Depending on them at this stage to maintain peace is not an educated or wise position. However, they are trying, and my heart certainly goes out to them. I am very proud of their efforts, but they seem to be little more than cannon fodder. I blame their training, leadership, and governmental support. Additionally, it is always easier to defend than to attack, and unfortunately they find themselves facing a hardened, well emplaced, and defensive enemy with ideal cover and concealment, while they are relegated to poorly emplaced positions that leave them open to sniper and mortar fire.

The social structure of Lebanon is fraying rapidly, and will continue to degenerate until all those who can leave do, and many already have, leaving Hizballah an open door to take over and place Lebanon under some form of militant Islamic law. The fact is that Hizballah has freedom of movement throughout the country, while the properly elected officials are limited to their heavily fortified homes with no freedom of mobility whatsoever. It is only a matter of time. Lebanon is under siege and will fall without aggressive external intervention, which, as we've seen, will not happen, at least not before violence erupts once again. I wish the US would get involved, but we can't given the despicable situation in Iraq, and the political turmoil we are facing within our own country on Capitol Hill.