#Putin, #Syria, #Realpolitik, blind pigs and American exceptionalism

Update, Sept. 18: The UN investigation seems to tie the attacks to senior officers of President Bashar Assad. Whether they were following orders or not may still not be final, but the linked New York Times story indicates the answer is yes.

That said, per the oft-cited piece by William Polk at the Atlantic? His "cui bono" was, and still is, a good question. And, if part of why he wrote that piece was pushback, given America's generally poor history of regime change in the Middle East, the neocons leading the charge again on this one and Obama not having a Syria exit plan, the shoot-first warmongers can still look themselves in the mirror.

Now, back to the original blog post.

I certainly don't agree with everything Vlad the Impaler, aka Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, wrote in an op-ed that's in the New York Times and The Guardian.

Let's just say that blind, or self-delusional, or self-inflating, pigs can still find acorns, even multiple ones.

Yes, his invocation of the pope as part of the reason to oppose strikes on Syria is funny. His discussion of how the "Big 5" permanent members of the UN Security Council got absolute veto powers conveniently overlooks the fact that his predecessor leader and country, Joe Stalin of the USSR, pushed for that.

Even more laughable is his worries that America is too randomly attacking other countries. That said, most of the worst against Chechnya happened under Boris Yeltsin, not Putin, who just uses natural-gas based economic blackmail.

And, his claim that "God created us equal" is massive hypocrisy, when he clearly believes gay people aren't equal.

All those caveats aside, there's two important points he makes.

The first is about realpolitik. If John Kerry is going to consult The Phantom of the Chilean Opera, Henry Kissinger, the alleged master of realpolitik, then he should listen to Putin:

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough al-Qaida fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations.

This gets back to the whole, broader issue of nation-building, and how US presidents, US governments, and the US bipartisan foreign policy establishment continues to think it can create democracies out of nothing, pick "winners" and "losers" in this process (to riff on libertarians), and force this down countries' throats.

That, in turn, gets to the other issue, of American exceptionalism, and how we think "we know better" because ...

We're America, fuck yeah (apologies for the "French," and for much more of it in the video.)


That's the best version of that video, by the way, in my opinion.

Anyway, despite all my previous caveats, Putin's last paragraph is spot on about this. The "Assad did it" fanatics, besides re-asking, "do we know who did it," need to read Putin on American exceptionalism:

"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional". It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

Throwing out my previous caveats, plus the new one of Putin buttering up Obama, the American exceptionalism warnings are well taken.

Basically, this whole excursus and debate on Obama's stance toward Syria in part reflects how liberals and left-liberals in America split on seeing American foreign policy, as I see it. And, I proudly stand accused of being some sort of left-liberal on this issue. Most American liberals on foreign policy? Wilsonian interventionism, when preached by liberals rather than neoconservatives, is the foreign policy equivalent of neoliberalism.

I am in no way saying Putin's perfect. That said, as far as surrender/punish, again, punish who? Remember Iraq, where Hussein kept telling us, I don't have any WMDs, and ... he didn't? Here, it could be rogue generals, or al Qaeda groups. That's why, again, we have to have a reasonably surety of who did it. Then, if it's not Assad, but rogue generals, the Free Syrian Army, or Al Nusra, we have to have a reasonable game plan for what all our steps are.

I don't think Obama has a game plan for anybody but Assad, and that's part of what scares me. We were lucky, so far, to muddle through Libya, ignoring the Islamicists attacking our spook shack in Benghazi. Syria's far more complicated as well as more dangerous.

And, to restrain America, there's only two people in the world who have a chance of doing that.

Contra Putin, Pope Francis is not the other one besides him. It's Xi Jinping, president of China. Actually, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has enough weight in NATO to be somewhat of an anchor weight, though not enough to stop him.

If some people don't like that, well, sorry.

I'd rather have America ask more questions first, before shooting, if we want to riff on an old cops joke.

‘The Limits of Power’ – Bacevich’s lucid take

Andrew Bacevich’s new book, “The Limits of Power,” is blindingly brilliant in its simplicity.

This slim tome ought to be required reading in every high school American government or civics class.

On this blog, I have repeatedly excoriated “American exceptionalism” in BOTH its Republican and Democratic forms.

And now, Bacevich gives a professional historical take on this. Building on historians such as Paul Kennedy and his “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” Bacevich notes we also transitioned from an empire of industry (and yes, we’re an empire) to an empire of consumption, more than 30 years ago. (Kennedy speaks of the move from industry to finance as the mainstay of an economy as what has been a sure sign of decline in previous post-Renaissance great powers.)

Bacevich uses as a fulcrum Jimmy Carter’s famous — and famously misquoted and distorted — 1980 “crisis of confidence” speech.

At the same time, Carter, through the “Carter Doctrine” declaring the Persian Gulf a vital American interest furthered the problems with the “empire of consumption,” Bacevich notes.

And, what Carter said, and what Bacevich says, is that the problem lies not just in Washington, but in Austin, Albany and county seats. It lies not just on Wall Street, but on Main Streets.

The third main section of the book, on military policy, is the most interesting. Unlike “citizen reader” critics on places like Amazon, what Bacevich said in this section is certainly not dry, nor difficult to follow.

Some of it, though, sounds exactly like he accuses Tommy Franks of doing — settling scores. Perhaps we should be thankful that Bacevich just got his bird and not any stars. Of course, his unwillingness to play Army politics may explain that in the first place. And that, in turn, although Bacevich kindly doesn’t say so, is why we’ve had what he also kindly does not call “detritus” to generally lead our armed forces in the last generation or so. (Colin Powell was widely seen as a political officer already in Vietnam.)

Some critics claim the book doesn’t offer solutions, but that’s quite untrue. The solutions include:
• Stop believing we’re more enlightened abroad than we actually are;
• Actually do something serious to cut our oil consumption;
• Live m ore within our means otherwise;
• Practice Cold War-type containment, not regime change, in the Muslim world.

Those are simple solutions, but Nos. 2 and 3 rely in large part on Main Streets and individual Americans, not Wall Street or Washington.

And, that’s probably why negative critics and low raters on Amazon claim it doesn’t offer solutions. The truth is, it doesn’t offer either “magic bullet” or NIMBY-type solutions.

Informed American voters and readers call this book a screed, and ignore its warnings about their own behavior, at the peril of themselves and the nation.

That said, the book, like “The New American Militarism,” has one shortcoming. While Bacevich talks a lot about oil supply, he never discusses Peak Oil.

China guarantees Pakistan loans – price is???

Beijing’s guarantee of Pakistan’s foreign debt has a number of possible ramifications.

Isn't it wonderful China has all that money to, in essence, guarantee Pakistan's foreign debt? Do you kind of think Beijing will want to have a word with Islamabad about cracking down on al-Qaeda and Taliban in the North West Frontier? And, do you supposed Beijing's renbimbi might make Pakistan listen?

The Chinese remain vigilant about unrest among their own Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. And, surely, will be speaking with Islamabad about patrolling the North West Frontier more tightly, both to crack down on native Taliban and to prevent crossovers from Afghanistan.

Of course, Pakistan is itself devolving into chaos. It may be, if not a failing state, a C-minus/D-plus state right now. Whatever Beijing wants, Islamabad may not even be able to deliver.

The world financial situation, combining with inflation already in Pakistan, has sent the economy into free fall. Meanwhile, things like suicide attacks and kidnappings are on the rise. Per the second link, S&P downgraded Pakistan’s financial rating earlier this month, for the second time this year. (Why doesn’t S&P rate OUR government’s financial strength, BTW?)

That said, this is why I, like better known and knowledgeable bloggers like Juan Cole, have blogged repeatedly that Obama is (yes, allowing for political pandering) an idiot for proposing more troops in Afghanistan with the refusal to cooperate from Pakistan. The rising instability just underscores that.

And, unilateral intervention? Pakistan North West Frontier is about as rugged as Afghanistan. And, if Beijing is guaranteeing Pakistan’s foreign loans, they’ll want a say about that anyway.

The real price is, even if Beijing can’t get total order reinstated there, a changing of geopolitics in central Asia.

And, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. And by “we,” I mean “we,” not Bush in particular or D.C. in general.

And, this is beyond a Republican and Democrat issue. Both parties supported the formation of the World Trade Organization with no more environmental, labor rights or human rights protections than mercenary Republicans and sellout Democrats like Dick Gephardt (and Senate-presiding Veep Al Gore) got put into NAFTA.

Beyond that, though, too many Americans too lazy to bother looking beyond the “made in China” labels at Wal-Mart (and Target) as well as dollar stores, have contributed to this.

If you argue that many people had to do that, I’ll only partially agree. Many of the trinkets were unnecessary.

Besides, many of the non-poor bought made in China trinkets at places like Bed, Bath and Beyond, Linens ’n’ Things, etc.

If you’re knowledgeable about foreign policy, look in the mirror a little more when you worry about expanding Chinese influence.

Schizoid Tom Dispatch article on Iraq

I agree that, as we all know, this has been the neocons’ clusterfuck. I strongly disagree with Michael Schwartz, though, that the rest of the world has any obligation to get involved.

Morally? To riff on Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn, neither the EU nor the Arab League “broke” Iraq. We did.

Realpolitik? Iraq ain’t that big on China’s radar screen other than to watch us waste money and help out their soft power drive here and in sub-Saharan Africa. Russia? Green light to do biz as usual in Chechnya. EU? They want to keep a 10-foot-pole distance between Euro foreign policy and ours.