US Africom: pros and cons

America is trying to increase its presence in Africa, expanding plans recently for an African command (no African nation has yet offered to serve as the base country for this command). In one sense, this is a further extension of American economic interests; in another, it builds on some of the good work the US is doing in Africa, apart from supplying aid. The bad side is a sort of neo-imperialism and self-interested policing, the good side of this Africom has its strengths too.

The Pentagon says Africom will allow the US to have a more integrated and effective approach to the continent.

This is a significant re-ordering of the US military, and an increased interest that can be explained in three words - oil, terrorism and instability.

As the article also states, the United States gets around one-tenth of its oil from the African continent. We have seen China increasingly make friends in the region, utilizing soft power and economic ties in a diplomatic feat that will surely prove worth the energy investment.

Where stability cannot be kept with existing forces, the already-overextended American military will step in to protect its own interests? I can see how that might not ring well with African leaders.

In Djibouti, Kenya, and other nations, the US military is working on programs to help the civilians there, which kills two birds with one stone (Africa Command), if all goes well. Programs like that help the American image and fend of support for terror as well as helping people in a humanitarian sense. There is plenty of controversy over American military bases in African nations, and perhaps it verges on imperial hegemony. But even though it can hurt the US's image and make it seem more like a militaristic, imperial power the operations seem to quell some terrorism while aiding the local population, thus lowering the chance of public support for groups like Al Qaeda. As long as the local government agrees and the US helps the people there, the pros seem to outweigh the cons.

The effort to, say, build schools and irrigation systems in East Africa (and elsewhere) is one positive military effort that deserves much more coverage in the press. Not as propaganda or pro-American patriotic support pieces, but as an expose of how the United States really is working in some places to make the world a better and more secure place. That darn civil war in Iraq is such a news hog. Humanitarian work, gaining the hearts and minds of civilians, should be a higher priority in the fight against terrorism than brute, imperial-like military force.

Somalia has been a disaster. Supporting terrorists to fight other terrorists isn't a good idea; nor is funding a government that is exacting genocide (although America has now severed ties with Sudan); or breaking international restrictions to fund a failed fight against terrorists and Islamic radicals. But building schools for the poor and uneducated, especially those who may fall susceptible to Islamic extremists? Win for the humanitarians, win for national security and wider stability. But will Africom meet the same fate due to lack of public support as other American operations? Good PR is of the essence, as are positive actions.

Happy first of October.

Bush's appeasement plan for limited withdrawal

As expected, President Bush announced Thursday night that 5,700 US troops will be pulled out of Iraq by Christmas time, following the advice of his military commanders.

President Bush appealed to the nation in a prime time address on Iraq Thursday night -- his latest effort to buy time for his Iraq War strategy and shore up support among Republicans who have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of political progress and stability in Iraq.

The president framed the Iraq conflict as he has in the past, as a key component of a broader war against al Qaeda and Islamic extremists.

So basically Bush's eighth address to the nation on the Iraq war was nearly 17 minutes of recycled rhetoric...

These are superficial changes to appease the increasingly discontent public of America and Iraq. Bush wants to show that he's in charge and he is listening to military advisors as well as popular opinion. This partial-withdrawal plan is, however, deceptive.

Bush's plan is to withdraw five brigades by mid-July -- approximately 23,000 troops, leaving about 137,000 U.S. troops in place by next summer.

While Bush portrayed the redeployment as a troop withdrawal, there will actually be 7,000 more troops in Iraq next summer than there were before Bush deployed additional forces to Iraq in January as part of a troop surge plan to quell sectarian violence.

With spin mode activated, Bush said that as more 'progress' is made, more troops can leave Iraq. This is a way for him to stick to his existing, if questionable, line that progress is being made and also looking like he is bowing to the wishes to experts and the general public alike. He is trying to court the more — for lack of a better word — moderate (naive), on-the-fence anti-war forces in the US with a move like this. Perhaps he can even get the moderate forces that aren't totally against the war to be angry at the stronger anti-war forces' demands for more withdrawal. Some appeasers will argue that Bush has pledged some measure of troop pullout, and we should take what we get. It depends, in part, on how his own Republican Party reacts to this news: will they paint it as a real step forward, or not a step at all?


We will have to see if this "return on success" plan is actually successful, at home and in Iraq. If all goes wrong, we do know who the administration will blame for future failure in Iraq: the 'defeatists' at home, the al-Qaeda terrorists (which actually comprise a very small amount of the extremists in Iraq), and Iran, the king of diabolical meddlers.

See also...

See here for more on this week's Petraeus-Crocker report on 'surge';

See here for some Iraq security statistics.

The Abu Ghraib scandal continues

The continued scapegoating in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse case.

The acquittal of a US army colonel on charges relating to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib means no officers have been found criminally guilty.

The episode stained the reputation of the US military and may well have acted as a recruiting agent for insurgents.

Virtually all senior members of the US military have gotten off scot-free. From what I know of the case, Maj-Gen Miller should be punished for his major role in the human rights abuses (i.e. torture) at various United States military-led prisons, including in Guantanamo and the now-closed Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The "gay bomb": a myth no more

I always thought the story of a weapon that modifies the sexuality of the enemy America's armed forces was/is interested in was the stuff of conspiracy theorists. I guess I was wrong.

It turns out that the conspiracy theories are indeed true: as recently as 1994 the United States military proposed or looked into a weapon that turned the enemy gay.

Make love not war may be the enduring slogan of anti-war campaigners but in 1994 the US air force produced its own variation on the philosophy.

What if it could release a chemical that would make an opposing army's soldiers think more about the physical attributes of their comrades in arms than the threat posed by the enemy? And thus the "gay bomb" was born. Far from being the product of conspiracy theorists, documents released to a biological weapons watchdog in Austin, Texas confirm that the US military did investigate the idea. It was included in a CD-Rom produced by the US military in 2000 and submitted to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002. The documents show that $7.5m was requested to develop the weapon.
...
Aaron Belkin, director of the University of California's Michael Palm Centre, which studies the issue of gays in the military, said: "The idea that you could submit someone to some aerosol spray and change their sexual behaviour is ludicrous."

The very notion of a "gay bomb" — and the idea that by messing with soldiers sex hormones one could cause them to constantly focus on each other, or have sex or whatever the military thought might happen, instead of fighting the enemy any less than heterosexual soldiers could (more on the issue of homosexuals in the military) — is absolutely mad. This sounds like the work of one of those eccentric Cold War projects — but no, the "gay bomb" popped into one numb-sculled researcher's head one year after Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy came into place (h/t FP Passport). The findings by the Berkely watchdog have been confirmed, then subsequently denied, by the Pentagon.

The politics of budgeting a pseudo-war

The "Global War on Terror" might now be financed directly by the US government. It has already cost well over $600 billion to the United States. The financing falls under so-called deficit spending. America's deficit is already gaping, in part due to the Keynesian economic policies of the current military industrial system, as this Harper's article talked about:

KEY JUDGMENTS
The United States remains, for the moment, the most powerful nation in history, but it faces a violent contradiction between its long republican tradition and its more recent imperial ambitions.

The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.

Several factors, however, indicate that this course will be a brief one, which most likely will end in economic and political collapse.

Military Keynesianism: The imperial project is expensive. The flow of the nation's wealth—from taxpayers and (increasingly) foreign lenders through the government to military contractors and (decreasingly) back to the taxpayers—has created a form of “military Keynesianism,” in which the domestic economy requires sustained military ambition in order to avoid recession or collapse.

The Unitary Presidency: Sustained military ambition is inherently anti-republican, in that it tends to concentrate power in the executive branch. In the United States, President George W. Bush subscribes to an esoteric interpretation of the Constitution called the theory of the unitary executive, which holds, in effect, that the president has the authority to ignore the separation of powers written into the Constitution, creating a feedback loop in which permanent war and the unitary presidency are mutually reinforcing.

Failed Checks on Executive Ambition: The U.S. legislature and judiciary appear to be incapable of restraining the president and therefore restraining imperial ambition. Direct opposition from the people, in the form of democratic action or violent uprising, is unlikely because the television and print media have by and large found it unprofitable to inform the public about the actions of the country's leaders. Nor is it likely that the military will attempt to take over the executive branch by way of a coup.

Bankruptcy and Collapse: Confronted by the limits of its own vast but nonetheless finite financial resources and lacking the political check on spending provided by a functioning democracy, the United States will within a very short time face financial or even political collapse at home and a significantly diminished ability to project force abroad.

The deficit continues to grow wider, from trade and massive government spending. While more taxes isn't necessarily a bad thing (a small cost to many equals a large amount of money for government expenditures, which many fail to comprehend a small tax hike would barely affect them) it is how the money is spend that ultimately matters. A more transparent, streamlined spending framework should be put in place, similar to that of the Nordic welfare system.

Instead of having so many bureaucratic hoops and loopholes, more checks are needed. At the same time money should be able to go directly to where it is needed. This is a daunting task for a government so large and powerful as the American government, but it is feasible in the long run. Like with any reform, however, it needs a starting point in order to get the ball rolling. Basing the economy on a military-industrial complex system is dangerous in more ways than one. It increases a nation's militarism, thus crumbling aspects of its democracy, and restricts the economic base of said nation. Open government and good economics often go hand in hand.

Setting bad examples

Evidence of torture in Israeli prisons. More faults in Israeli PR; or, how to annoy your already peeved neighbors.

Also, American troops condone torture, blamed in part on the long serving periods for US soldiers in Iraq. Vice President Cheney, touring the Middle East — which won't really help anything diplomatically — spoke in defense of these extended deployments.

Neither case of abuse by the militaries of two countries so despised in the Mid-East are all that new news, but both will inflame, and continue to inflame, those effected or who feel violated in the Middle East, thus perception plays more into extremism. Extremists will no doubt use the despicable actions by Israel and the US's armed forces to try to gain public support and recruit against two forces seen as evil.

Just for show? Bush invites Dems for Iraq talks

Gridlock was a key word ringing around after the Democrats took both chambers of US Congress last November. Many issues have seen gridlock between Congress and the White House — though the president yields veto power, the Dems have a weak majority and often a lack of will. Iraq is arguably, along with executive power, one of the big issues the Democrats have challenged the president on. It is also a big reason they got elected. The occupation of Iraq recently turned four and American public opinion continues to frown upon the loss of American lives in Iraq — even though the casualties have been relatively few.

American President George Bush offered a meeting on Iraq to members of both parties in Congress. If the Democrats wouldn’t have declined (see below), such a meeting would take place at the White House and would include discussion on the deadlock between Congress and the Bush administration over Iraq policy, specifically US troop pull-out and funding. If this is anything like offers of previous dialog, the discussion would be one-sided. The Bush White House hates any calls contrary to its policy, and doesn’t do well listening to other opinions, even those of experts. They often disregard fact too.

The problem, for the Dems at least, lies in the politics of perception. The White House will accuse the Democrats of being closed and not open to resolving the war between the executive and legislature over Iraq. The Democrats are already facing enough problems: they are split on troop pullout, and their limit on funding in order to instigate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq could greatly backfire and make them look like they are not 'supporting the troops' — which is ridiculous, but is being used well by their political opponents. The anti-Iraq war side accuses the Dems of being soft. That group should not expect results anyways: the president will certainly veto the Congressional bills calling for pullout.

Bush wants control of the debate, and although the Dems are resisting a debate on his terms, it may come back to bite them.

President Bush invited congressional leaders of both parties to the White House next week to talk about legislation to pay for the war in Iraq, but Democrats promptly dismissed his offer because it carried a condition that Congress drop a timetable for withdrawing American forces from Iraq.

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field," Bush told an American Legion post in this suburb about 20 miles west of the White House. Without quick action by Congress, he said, the military would within months be forced to redirect funds from training and repair work to pay for the war.

The president also complained that the separate war-spending bills passed by the House and Senate included considerable pork-barrel domestic spending as well as about $100 billion for the war. He invited congressional leaders to a White House meeting next week to work on what officials said would be a "clean" measure providing money just for the war.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada complained that Bush was setting conditions for the White House talks with congressional leaders.

"He wants a clean bill," Reid said after consulting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). "That's not negotiating." He said Bush was used to a "rubber-stamp" Congress that approved everything he sought, but that things have changed since Democrats took over control in last November's elections.

Bush said that if Congress does not provide the funds he seeks for the war--without deadlines for ending the troops' deployment--some forces already in Iraq would see their missions extended because there would be insufficient money to train replacements, and other units already trained would see their time at home shortened before being sent back there.
…
The Senate and House have each approved measures that would give the administration about $103 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each sets timelines for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Bush has repeatedly said he would veto legislation that cut off money to pursue the wars, and although Democrats hold majorities in both houses, their margin is too slim to provide sufficient votes to override a veto.

The Senate bill sets a nonbinding target of all combat troops withdrawn by March 31, 2008, while the House bill sets a deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, for complete withdrawal. Democratic leaders in both chambers are negotiating a compromise version to send back to each chamber for final passage.
…
A White House official, writing an e-mail message on the condition of anonymity, said the session should not be seen as a negotiating meeting.

Bush is playing the Dems` Iraq policy for what its worth, and will end up slapping down a veto nonetheless.

Now, the Democrats will look bad for not accepting an invitation for talks with the White House on such an important, and politically viotile, issue. This will not sit well with many people, I am sure. Although it is interesting how so many can be opposed with Pelosi, a Democrat, talking to Syria, yet not to Republicans talking to Syria, and, at the same time, opposed with Congress not accepting the White House’s probably one-sided invite for talks. Moreover, the conditions are unfair, just like when the White House sets conditions for diplomatic talks. The conditions are unilateral and one-sided, not to mention the administration is often either aggressive or blindsiding in talks.

Of course the Dems have set possibly-unfair conditions of their own for debate on Iraq policy in Congress…

technorati tags: democrats, iraq, reid, pelosi, bush, iraq+troops, united+states, usa, white+house, congress, politics

Thoughts on homosexuality, part 1

You learn something new every day, you know.

Well, one of the new things I learned today is that homosexuality is akin to adult bed wetting and fear of flight — put bluntly: gays are still mental cases. Well that is what the Pentagon thinks.

Pentagon guidelines that classified homosexuality as a mental disorder now put it among a list of conditions or "circumstances" that range from bed-wetting to fear of flying.

The new rules are related to the military's retirement practices. The change does not affect the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits officials from inquiring about the sex lives of service members and requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

While it is not my view whatsoever, I believe that people — especially in the ethnically (etc.) shifting melting pot of America — seem to always [think they] need someone to discriminate against, attack, and use as a scapegoat, and portray as a symbol of evil. Throughout American history it has been Native Americans, blacks, hispanics — many of which are still discriminated against today. Also, the British, Jews, Germans, Irish, and more have also been discriminated against, but for cultural and national, not biological or color (noticeable), reasons.

Racism, sexism, just content for those different from the supposed norm. Gays, however, stand out. Today they receive arguably the most bad rap in the US than any other group. Just as being black is biological, so, as it has been proven, is homosexuality. One of the problems is you cannot [usually] tell if someone is gay or lesbian from just looking at them. While at least the Pentagon has moved homosexuality from a mental disorder like schizophrenia to a "condition" like bed wetting, it is probably political correctness and superficial beurocracy, not a policy change, that is causing this to happen.

As an example: recently there was a soldier... who was gay. What really made this man, Bleu Copas, important was the fact he could translate Arabic, a skill that is much needed in the US government and military (especially in these times). He was kicked out, pretty much unexplained, from the military. The official story was that he was a danger to his peers and had homosexual lovers. The US military and much of American society in general still holds the notion that gays are lower than them, that they distract easily, are weak, are girly, have stronger sexual attraction to other men than men to to women, etc. By the way, this soldier was outed by a series of anonymous emails.

technorati tags: gay, homosexual, lesbian, opinion, blue+copas, military, united+states, usa, society, news, in+perspective, clearthought, pentagon