There Ain't No Good Guys

 --Middle East Countries, 
Arend Van Dam

 So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy,
There's only you and me and we just disagree 
--There Ain't No Good Guys, 
Dave Mason 

Isolation is much less dangerous than the dangers
of being dragged into wars that don't concern us
--Lord Salisbury

 --How old are you? 
--Twelve... more or less
 --Let the Right One In (2008)
______________________

The first thing a young military leader learns is that the choices in most situations do not follow a simple algorithm to a good outcome. This is especially true when the problems are multi-layered and entrenched, often in place long before you arrived on station. Like the hostilities in Iraq, for example, which are not "twelve (years old) ... more or less," but more like 600 years old.

The choices are rarely between good and bad, but rather, bad and worse. Leadership instruction omits this critical point.

Witness Iraq, Syria and the muddle that is United States foreign policy in Asia and the Middle East, or what passes for policy. One principle of leadership says great leaders outstrip the power curve and anticipate, so as to mitigate the negatives presented by a scenario.

Looking ahead, the U.S. in June 2014 has two choices:

1) It can bomb, reinforce and support the al Maliki Shia government, or

2) It can abstain from action, letting the situation develop locally.

If we choose #1, we are admitting the failure of nation-building, Counterinsurgency theory (COIN) and the entire Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) Why, even COIN poster boy Gen. David Petraeus is saying, don't go back into that briar patch. “This cannot be the United States being the air force for Shia militias, or a Shia on Sunni Arab fight.” No, no.

Our policy is then revealed to be the sham it is in thought, spirit and action.

However, if we choose #2, we are admitting the intellectual deficiency from which the PWOT© emerged. This choice verifies that al Qaeda, et, al -- include the Taliban -- never were a major threat to the U.S. homeland as the nation had been led to believe; if it were, we would have chosen #1 instead.

It is futile to say the unspooling situation is the result of our elective invasions, erroneous assumptions and illogical command choices following the attacks of 9-11-01. Whatever choice the U.S. makes now is "bad" or "worse"; there are no good choices.

Do nothing, and the region is destabilized with ethnic combat the outcome. National entities will breakdown as the nations revert to being tribes with flags. The Iraq the U.S. built was not a nation-state, but merely a pale facsimile. The effort is like suturing a ruptured organ too tattered to hold, and reinforcing it will be another hoax committed upon the American taxpayer.

Iraq is neither a U.S. friend nor an ally, because there IS no Iraq -- just a bunch of radicalized tribes. If we bomb in support of al Maliki's Iraq, then we are killing the same people that we have been supporting in Syria. Despite this obvious fact, we are fed the lie that U.S. policy supports "moderate" fighters there.

Uh, "moderates" don't usually carry out armed activities. In fact, all the fighters in Syria are extremists in thought and action. There are no "good guys" here, and it is a pathetic charade to say otherwise. If neither the Syrian opposition nor the Iraqi's are our friends, why support either?

Another deception being perpetrated by the press is that al Qaeda now has an army in Iraq which poses an existential threat to Europe and the U.S. Strangely, some Americans believe the lie, but the Europeans do not fall for this canard.

The U.S. wants its cake and to eat it, too. It wants to call Saudi's "friends", as well as the Iraqi's which we have created. But it is impossible to befriend two countries that are irreconcilable foes. The U.S. maintains the same fiction with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  We pretend that these countries are our friends and allies, when in reality they do not share any of our strategic interests.

Ranger believes that the U.S. has been outplayed and out-classed by the Arab leaders like those of Saudi Arabia. We have been flanked, and they are rolling our lines. The man in the Arab street is not pro-American, nor will he be.

As we used to say, will the last man out please bring the flag home and turn out the lights. There is only one good we can see: the World's Largest Embassy, costing over a $ Billion and bigger than The Vatican, will make a great hotel for Iranian tourists visiting the sacred Shia sites in Iraq.

P Squared

We're in a battle for our lives
for things that really matter to us.
There's a shell game going on
like I've never seen before
--Sen. John Kerry

I'd say your were a carnival barker,
except that wouldn't be fair to carnival barkers.
A Carney will at least tell you up front
that he is running a shell game
--Peter Fitzgerald
_______________________

Why is General David Petraeus being sidelined to the Central Intelligence Agency when he is obviously poised to be a future Chief of Staff of the Army or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and why is Leon Panetta being moved from CIA to Secretary of Defense?

Petraeus's experience from Platoon to theatre Army commands plus his Centcom experience make him a natural as a NATO Deputy Chief of Staff and then on to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as Chief of Staff of the Army. He is NOT a logical choice for the CIA as he has no depth of intelligence experience. (Gen. Stanley McChrystal would be more of a natural for the top spook position as he has the sleazy background which would make him a hand/glove fit for the duties required.) Why short-circuit a natural progression?

Petraeus's depth of experience is essential to the institutional well-being of the Army. The CIA appointment is not a forward step, and this is the second time that Petraeus has been moved laterally. Entering the CIA is not a career progression for a professional combat unit soldier. Putting Petraeus in the CIA is an insult to his service.

The position of CIA director is now a backwater slot since the introduction of the Director of National Intelligence into the intel apparatus. Why is the CIA not promoting from within, as they did when Gates became the director?

Ditto the move of Leon Panetta from CIA to become Secretary of Defense: What cross-over exists between Defense and CIA? Should we want, or even encourage, the CIA to think like the Department of Defense, or vice versa? These agencies operate in two separate worlds, and it is not advisable that they cross-fertilize.

Why would Petraeus agree to such a move, and why did Obama conceive of this game plan? Petraeus is the iconic combat officer of his generation, so why would he abandon his loyalty to the Army?

Both Petraeus and Panetta are competent men in their respective fields. Ranger has even predicted that Petraeus would be a logical contender for the Republican presidential candidacy in 2012, coming as he would off of a long an unbroken term of service in the military field. The media and Congress are deferential to Petraeus and voters would view him favorably. With this move, he is being denied that unbroken train of integrity.

If terrorism is still the U.S.'s main concern, why dilute our institutional knowledge by shuffling around the top players? Though this shuffle is being portrayed as a positive reassignment, it reeks of political maneuvering. The Obama administration is willing to sideline key effective military leaders for unknown purposes.

Marine General James Cartwright, slated to to replace Admiral Mike Mullen, has never served in Afghanistan, nor has Petraeus's replacement, Lieutenant General Allen. Replacing Petraeus is a confusing move that weakens the entire Afghan war effort.

After 9+ years of war, one would think the USMC would have a depth of experience that would elevate those with Afghan experience to the highest levels of command. Putting newbies in the line of fire is not the smartest personnel move.

Rube Goldberg's COIN

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent
a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves
--Eric Hoffer

[Clear guidance] and unity
is not only logical but indeed indispensable
in a successful military organization,
but in a democracy debate is the breath of life
--President Eisenhower

"To the Taliban, winning is, in fact, not losing,"
he said.
"They feel that over time, they will ultimately outlast
the international community's attempt to
stabilize Afghanistan. It's really a game of will to them."
--Taliban Surprising U.S. Forces

__________________

The September/October Columbia Journalism Review's cover story -- "Too Close for Comfort?" -- questions the impartiality of reporter Tom Ricks' recent coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, suggesting Ricks has become a cheerleader for wars he once roundly criticized. And Ricks is not the only former critic-turned-supporter.

Ricks is the author of 2006's Fiasco, which savaged George Bush's war efforts as being ill-conceived and poorly executed with neither clearly stated plans nor goals. However, since 2007 Ricks has affiliated himself with the Washington D.C. think tank Center for a New American Security where he has an office, and he is now a champion of current U.S. counterinsurgency [COIN] efforts.

Ricks attributes what he is now lauding as the successes in Iraq and AFPAK to "dissidents" like General Petraeus, but a dissident never did wear 4 Stars on his uniform. A 4 Star is a playa.

Ranger wonders why he doesn't cash-in on COIN, cheerleading for phony wars and faulty COIN doctrine. The fetti must be good.

Tom Ricks is too good of a journalist not to know the basic flaws with COIN policy, some of which have been delineated by former COIN advocate Col. Gian P. Gentile, a man now on Rick's hit list. Some of the fallacies accepted as bedrock strengths are:

• ♥'s and Minds: It is erroneous to believe that either Afghan or Iraqi hearts and minds will be won by a foreign, Christian-based Western Army of Occupation. If any hearts and minds are won, they probably belong to the pimps and whores who are selling. What is the proof of hearts and minds won?

• Low Intensity Conflict [LIC] and Terrorism as existential threats to the welfare of the United States: While these are viewed as central to U.S. Defense Policy, there is no proof that we are, as the Review states, "[in] an age in which global terrorism and small-scale conflicts, rather than a cold-war enemy like the former Soviet Union, define the threats to the United States."
  

Defense policy should be based upon reality versus ambiguous, poorly understood and often overblown threats. Neither AFPAK nor Iraq will ever be key U.S. allies, nor do they contribute to the welfare of the U.S. -- they are money pits and albatrosses attached to our body politic. COIN sounds good, but how does the American taxpayer footing the bill benefit from LIC/CT in AFPAK and Iraq?

The security of the U.S. is a different creature than the security of these far-flung nations. Threats to Karzai and the Iraqi leaders are not threats to the U.S. These people are not allies -- they are U.S. inventions.

LIC and CT are not threats, though they are interpreted as such by a military and political class desperate to justify their existence and place at the public money trough. Terrorism is the threat.

• General Petraeus and followers emphasize "protecting the local population, rather than going after the insurgents," but what do you do when the insurgents are the population?

COIN has U.S. soldiers fighting and dying for foreign governments when there is no logical imperative for their sacrifice. COIN is an emotional construct, like "hope".

• In addition, no one explains how the insurgents in AFPAK and Iraq are a threat to the welfare of the U.S. An insurgent threat to these nations is not necessarily a threat to America. Insurgents are not always terrorists, and vice versa.

• Why does the U.S. have a right or obligation to impose its will upon failed or failing states.

U.S forces are placed in a position of fighting for foreign governments when there is no logical imperative for their sacrifice. We win neither hearts and minds nor allies, and only an idiot would believe these countries would come to the aid of the U.S. in a pinch. When our dollars die, so too will their love and devotion. Allies are not pimps, nor are pimps allies.

The weakness of COIN is that it is a top-down imposition, while the insurgents are building a bottom-up approach to opposing a foreign-controlled puppet regime. COIN cannot succeed in impoverished environments where concepts of democracy are not explainable to a tribal existence-level society.

Democracy demands an educated middle class, something which has fled Iraq and is in short supply in Afghanistan. Democracy cannot be intubated. Just because COIN makes for pretty words in a manual does not make it realistic or achievable.

Bottom line: It matters not who controls Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan -- the only thing that matters is that they not export terrorism, and COIN will not ensure that. The threat not CT, LIC or any other acronym -- the threat is terrorism.

The entire Phony War on Terror (PWOT©) is based upon a hyperbolic global threat. The real threat is failed nations and power vacuums thus created, and U.S. policy in isolation cannot solve the problem via fancy manuals and COIN policy.

The problem must be confronted via multi-national United Nations action. COIN is simply an extension of U.S. exceptionalism and unilateralism, and as such is DOA.

Hope Against Hope

--Patrick Corrigan (The Toronto Star)

Baby, even the losers get lucky sometimes
Even the losers keep a little bit of pride
Yeah, they get lucky sometimes
--Even the Losers, Tom Petty
_________________

Two Ranger predictions, for near and for far:

[1] Mr Madoff's accountant will receive less jail time than did the shoe-throwing protester in Baghdad.

[2] Obama will be a one-term wonder. He'll burn out out as he falls from the stratosphere.

He will be supplanted by Republican party candidate General David Petraeus. The campaign will hinge on the fact that Obama's policies did not allow the U.S. military to win the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©). Petraeus will be the closest thing America can front as a hero.

It will not matter that he lost the war, because Obama will not have let him win it.

Game, set, match, Republican-style. Even the losers are winners. It is the Christian way.

Roll CrimsonTide

I'm sittin' on the dock of the bay
Watching the tide roll away
Ooo, I'm just sittin' on the dock of the bay
Wastin' time
--Sitting on the Dock of the Bay, Otis Redding


When the tide of misfortune moves over you,
even jelly will break your teeth
--Persian proverb


Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned
--The Second Coming, William Butler Yeats

_________

That General Petraeus and U.S. Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker would like to see the surge strategy continue is little surprise ("US general, diplomat: Give Bush's Iraq strategy time.") "Petraeus. . .signaled he would like to see a substantial US combat force remain well into 2008 and perhaps beyond."

Just as a Coca Cola retailer would like to see his product prevail in a new market, Gen. Petraeus's business is soldiering.

Meanwhile, the day before the announcement, a devastating coordinated attack on a formerly safe zone:

"a simultaneous truck bombing and rocket attack ruined a Shi'ite market district in one of Baghdad's safest central neighborhoods, killing at least 28 people and wounding 95.

"Although suicide bombings are common in Iraq, it is rare for militants to stage a double attack with such effectiveness. The attackers struck about 6:40 p.m. as the Karradah district's market area was packed with shoppers on the eve of the Islamic day of rest.

"An explosives-laden garbage truck exploded near the market at about the same time as a Katyusha rocket slammed into a three-story residential building about 100 yards away. Police said the explosions destroyed 17 stores and 14 cars.

"An Iraqi military spokesman, Brigadier General Qassim al-Moussawi, blamed Sunni extremists for the rocket attack. He did not mention the car bombing reported by police.

"Overall, at least 78 people were killed or found dead across Iraq yesterday."

"The surge enables us to turn the tide just a bit in key places," [Petraeus] said.

This is American Generalship at its best. Turning the tide, a bit. This are words usually heard over afternoon tea--"a wee bit of sugar, please." But not a phrase typically heard in military speak .

Did Eisenhower invade the continent of Europe, "just a bit"?