Month: April 2012

Once again exemplifying the ridiculous amount of sway the US wields over nominally independent countries, a new report on Georgia’s upcoming elections has Bidzina Ivanishvili, a billionaire and would-be prime minister of Georgia, spending large amounts of money on US PR firms and lobbying groups.

Ivanishvili, the richest man in Georgia, has a long-standing feud with his likely opponent, current President Mikhail Saakashvili, and is hoping to parlay that lobbying into some support in the US Congress.

Its working, to some extent. Already Rep. Jim McDermott (D – WA) has introduced a bill condemning Saakashvili and accusing him of “harassing” Ivanishvili.

It isn’t some dirty trick to Ivanishvili, but rather the way politics works in Georgia now. Saakshvili has been using his own position as president to fuel a lobbying campaign for years, and the reality is that winning a key position in the Georgian government obliges one to win US support to that end. For a position as important as prime minister, few methods are as expeditious in securing that support than cold hard cash.

The Pakistani Parliament just released their Guidelines for Revised Terms of Engagement with USA/NATO/ISAF. It states flatly that “Pakistan’s sovereignty shall not be compromised.” And that includes no more drones.

The US footprint in Pakistan must be reviewed. This means (i) an immediate cessation of drone attacks inside the territorial borders of Pakistan, (ii) the cessation of infiltration into Pakistani territory on any pretext, including hot pursuit; (iii) Pakistani territory including its air space shall not be used for transportation of arms and ammunition to Afghanistan.

This should not come as too much of a surprise. Pakistani authorities have been saying as much for months, especially after U.S. warplanes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at an outpost in the Mohmand Agency last November (this document says those responsible for the attack “should be brought to justice”). Military supply routes to NATO troops in Afghanistan have been closed to the U.S. since then and, even though the Obama administration restarted the drone program in January, Islamabad has consistently condemned them as “unlawful.” Back in December, Pakistan held a high-level conference with the explicit aim of rethinking the U.S.-Pakistani relationship.

The last decade of U.S. war in Af-Pak has not been good for Pakistan. The war – and especially Obama’s surge in 2009, which Islamabad opposed – has dramatically increased militant activity along the Durand Line and severely destabilized the state’s security situation, including unauthorized incursions of U.S. troops on Pakistani soil. Added to this is of course the Obama adminstration’s institutionalization of extra-judicial execution and mass murder of innocent men, women, and children in the drone war. The high-end estimate for total casualties in the U.S. drone war, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, is 3,097, including up to 811 reported civilians (at least 175 of them children). There are few bi-lateral relationships that would tolerate this.

Washington’s aims in Afghanistan and Pakistan have run counter to Islamabad’s interests since the very beginning. Even prior to the U.S. invasion, Pakistan has preferred Taliban authority in Afghanistan to help counter Indian influence and facilitate commerce between Central Asian states and Pakistani ports. While the decision-makers in Pakistan pretty much view the Af-Pak border as an illegitimate, arbitrary creation of the British after WWII, they seem willing to accept whatever corrupt, cockamamie government in Kabul Washington “leaves behind.” They probably prefer some kind of power-sharing deal with the Taliban, so that the ISI has at least half their work cut out for them trying to peddle Taliban influence from behind the scenes.

The Obama administration has been losing its grip in Afghanistan in parallel with Pakistan. They seem to have two points of leverage over Pakistan at this point: exorbitant inflow of military and economic aid and India. More than $8 billion dollars has been allocated to the Pakistani government since 2009, and another $2.3 billion is slated for 2013. This is obviously a huge sticking point for that supremely corrupt military regime. China appears trepidatious about filling that role as Pakistan’s lonely ally against its archenemy India. So, as strong as these Revised Terms of Engagement are, Pakistan probably isn’t willing to dispel America just yet. Indeed, the statement says that the “US-Indo civil nuclear agreement” is unfair unless Washington is prepared to do the same with Pakistan.

This analysis is revealing because it becomes clear very quickly that very little of this has anything to do with the U.S. and that a decade of turbulent, savage, murderous, misguided engagement in Afghanistan-Pakistan has been damaging and counterproductive. In the context of an ever-expanding global military empire, decade-long net losses shouldn’t deter the necessity of hegemonic state policy. But any sensible foreign policy should take heed of Pakistan’s new stay-out-of-our-affairs declaration. In fact, a similar approach of not trying to militarily dominate another state should be adopted for Afghanistan. And India, for that matter. China too.

In an interview with the Daily Caller, presumptive Libertarian Party nominee for president Gary Johnson tries heartily to describe his foreign policy…or at least a foreign policy. Plainly put, the man is confused.

He says he supports U.S. military intervention in Uganda to root out the Lords Resistance Army and kill its leader, Joseph Kony. He thinks the drone war in Pakistan and Yemen creates more enemies than it eliminates, but doesn’t want to take drone strikes off the proverbial “table.” He wants to “completely withdraw our military presence” from Afghanistan, but wants to keep our military bases there. In fact, U.S. military bases should be maintained throughout the Middle East, he says, even though America faces “no military threats.” He supports “humanitarian intervention.” He wants to cut military and defense budgets by 43 percent, but only reduce national security spending to 2003 levels, “and just wring out the excess.”

Johnson is putting forth an image of himself of a former New Mexico governor who is outside the political establishment and serious about cutting spending. But evidently, the man hasn’t a clue what he is talking about with regards to foreign policy. His musings about war and intervention are little more than guesswork, wading his way through what he supposes is the libertarian position, while making clear he is no non-interventionist.

There is a strange habit the public and the reporting politicos perform when it comes to presidential candidates. They seem to assume that, since candidate X is running for president, surely he has studied the issues carefully. They don’t question candidates on their knowledge, only their “positions” (assuming they have been formed more than a millisecond before the question was asked). This was evident with Herman Cain’s blank-slate talk of “trusting the generals” and his embarrassing reveries about how to pronounce Uzbekistan. Mitt Romney has similarly shown himself cutely untaught on foreign policy issues by claiming Russia is America’s greatest foe, apparently never before hearing of the MeK, and doing a bit of guesswork of his own on Iran. But it seems Johnson has spent too much time on his 43-percent-spending-reduction talking points and far too little gaining any knowledge or developing any principled position whatsoever on foreign policy.

Responding to the Daily Caller interview, Brian Doherty at Reason’s Hit & Run wrote “he seems to lack either the systematic thinking or moral fervor that makes me trust him to reliably come to truly libertarian conclusions on many issues.” Ah, “systematic thinking” …such a lost art.

Not that I’m a huge fan of public opinion (84% of Americans think Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons), but this is via the Washington Post:

Via NIAC:

Believe it or not, neoconservatives still justify attacking Iran by arguing that ordinary Iranians want a U.S. strike so that they can do away with this crummy old regime in Tehran (Jamie Fly of Foreign Policy Initiative and Helle Dale of the Hertiage Foundation both come to mind). When they’re not arguing that themselves, they’re peddling unhinged Iranian expats who argue the same (we all know what a good indicator that was in the case of Iraq!).