The New York Times observes:
The disclosure that the United States ambassador in Kabul has expressed written opposition to deploying more American troops to Afghanistan lays bare the fierce debate within the Obama administration over the direction of the war, even after weeks of deliberations and with the president on the verge of a decision.
And for those not quite privy to the ways of leaks and press manipulation, the Times notes that the anti-counterinsurgency-we’d-like-this-on-the-cheap contingent (Gens. Axelrod, Biden, and Emanuel, we presume) “seemed pleased that his perspective had entered the public debate, which has been dominated for two months by the leaked assessment of General McChrystal.” In other words, time to leak, gum up the works, and make it that much more difficult to come to a conclusion. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, for one, is fed up with the leaking and has exclaimed that “everybody ought to just shut up.”
One senses that the president is buffeted by this and that group, seemingly unwilling or unable to just decide. The helpful spinners both on and off the record assure us the president is being more “assertive” and “challenging” the advice. But still, alas, not reaching a final call. How’s it working out? “The behind-the-scenes tug-of-war over policy has become increasingly bitter.” Not as bitter as I imagine those in the field and their families may become as the seminars churn, the equivocation continues over the precise numbers to be deployed (38,000 or 36, 500? or maybe just 26,750?), and both our allies and adversaries look on slack-jawed.
It is quite a spectacle, one unlikely to endear the president to the voters or bolster his image as a wartime leader.
“Russia and China this week have made it clear they will side with Iran until the theocrats announce they have the bomb” Doesn’t this then mean that China and Russia are unilaterally determining UN policy in regards to Iran?
All of Bush’s brown-nosing flattery of Putin appears to have been in vain. Only Dubya can be surprised. As for the United Nations, how much longer can the farce go on?
buzz, any nation that has a Security Council veto can determine–or at least block–U.N policy. China and Russia, as you know, have vetoes.
Banjo, the U.N. can last many years, but its days as an effective institution are coming to an end. I suspect that the Security Council and the General Assembly will become irrelevant by the end of this decade.
I also think the world has long outgrown the United Nations — the institution founded when Chiang Kaishek was still reigning over mainland China and the U.S. was the only nuclear power. To say the least, when the communist China hijacked the permanent seat at the Security Council from the Republic of China in 1971, its days started being counted. This is true not only with the UNSC, but also with all other U.N.-based multilateral frameworks such as the IAEA and the WFP.
What puzzles me is that the autocracies in Russia and China are acting against their own interests,
Iran has regularly been a problem for Russia. Imperial Russia expended vast amounts of blood and treasure conquering the Caucasus and the various people, including Muslims such as those led by Shamil, living there. During World War I Imperial Russia occupied the whole country. Former Soviet Central Asia, now independent, is increasingly Muslim and, equally, even its Russian speaking secular elite feel threatened by Russia and above all China. That area was once independent West Turkestan and will probably be that again.
As for East Turkestan, the Manchu Qing empire, which included China along with Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet, and so forth, conquered it after massive fighting and wholesale slaughter in the nineteenth century. General Tso, after whom is named that sweet sauced chicken you all love in Chinese restaurants, was one of the bloodiest of the slaughterers. (Spare a thought next time you tuck in). During the Cultural Revolution, mosques throughout the area were razed to be replaced, after the storm had subsided, by small poorly constructed substitutes. This area–Chinese occupied East Turkestan (called Xinjiang, or “new dominion” by China– a name which means, among other things, no one can claim it has always been part of China) is potentially explosive. Sadly, we Americans have bought the idea that the Turks there are terrorists rather than fighters for independence. Our FBI cooperates with the Chinese secret police oppressing Uighurs, as the Turks in the area were dubbed by the Soviets and Chinese communists.
And Iran? She is an active promoter of Muslim causes and provider of arms to them. Admittedly, she is Shi’ia. Nevertheless, given the threat that their own oppressed Muslims pose to Russia and China, as well as the anger of the forcibly incorporated Muslim populations within their borders, it makes NO SENSE for Beijing or Moscow to be providing bows and arrows, let alone stinger missile equivalents, anti ship missiles, air defenses, missile technology, and nuclear know how, to Iran.
I would argue that Iran is like North Korea. Hers is a very dangerous regime to be sure. But she is rendered even more dangerous by her current alignment to Russia and China. As with North Korea, I believe we should–with our eyes WIDE OPEN–try to move her away from that alignment in our direction.
As with Korea, the start would be to send some smart Persian-speaking diplomats, just a few, with no money or programs or processes or US reactors to substitute for Russian, but rather plenty of tea, coffee, and pistachio nuts (maybe some single malt hidden away), a supply of anecdotes and deep appreciation of the greatness of Persian culture–maybe the ability to quote some verse–and a secure facility in which to chat–just to get to know these people.
My experience with, for example, Pakistani generals, is that they are quite happy to accept all the nuclear bombs and missiles China wants to give them, but that personally they despise the godless Chinese and prefer to have a nice scotch with me and speak English.
Gordon:
With regard to your response to Banjo: the question I have is whether the world will be here in a decade NOT
whether the UN will be in existence !
Sorry fo the pessimism but I am very afraid that nuclear war is on the horizon.
Bob