GWOT: Other Fronts than the Central One

...that being Washington, D.C.

I have heard GWOT referred to as World War III, or as World War IV (if you count the Cold War as III). I think we should avoid the Roman numeral, and globalizing our wars. We should remember the example of the NFL and the Super Bowl: I and II went according to form, but III upset everything.

Afghanistan

After too many hours of the Iraq debate from the House, C-Span2 happened to show something far more interesting and critical: a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Afghanistan.

The key witness in the hearing was Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, now Asst. Director of NATO's Afghanistan Commission, previously Commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan. It was striking how good this guy was, and he was remarkably confident--if he got the $4.8 billion and additional 5,000 forces that he was before the Senate to ensure--that this year NATO, rather than the Taliban, would have the offensive.

Many other aspects of the Afghanistan campaign were disclosed, which add up to a remarkable contrast with the Iraq one in so many ways:
1) the sense that the truth is being told to us;
2) the fact of cooperation from other nations (though it is insufficient from Europe);
3) ability to fulfill a complex mission (for example, there is a U.S. force that fights under NATO, and there is one that fights under the U.S. flag);
4) the seeming lack of internal dispute or controversy within U.S. government representatives.
5) the lack of economic opportunity in Afghanistan, under the best of circumstances. Eikenberry felt the situation though was relatively good for the Afghanis, though, compared to the continuing disaster of the previous 25 years.

One thing that was like in Iraq, as Eikenberry and Co. told it, was the rising reliability of the army and the poor reliability of the police.

The most interesting questioning regarded the border with Pakistan and cooperation with Pakistani forces--very wisely, Senators were feeling out the idea of crossing the border into the al-Qaeda havens in North Waziristan, where Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has backed off and agreed to a truce.

Eikenberry does not criticize Musharraf but simply points out that the truce has not worked. He complimented the Pakistani border people for their tactical cooperation. In classified session, he will confirm that it is the secret service of Pakistan where we must obtain better results, as they subtly provide support to the Taliban in Pakistan (and among whom should be found key leaders of al-Qaeda) outside the Afghan borders in these areas beyond Pakistani national control.

This is quite intricate and complex stuff. I would not be surprised to see a paratrooper assault on certain areas within Pakistan's borders before Bush departs. In this case one could only hope for a swift victory and withdrawal, followed by heavy indebtedness to Musharraf--whether we like it or not, and going beyond the near-certain revolt that would follow. It could well be another Shah of Iran type situation; we are that unpopular.

Iran
Hoo boy, all the elements are there: the fleet, air force, cruise missiles, a grand quantity of targets relating to nuclear labs "and their support facilities", a need to distract, unfinished business, and if those were not enough, the probable next prime minister of Israel (after Olmert gets out of the way, already) Benyamin Netanyahu egging us on. The "subject matter experts" tell us that they are advising the Deciders to go with "just an all-out aircraft and missile strike"; no land war this time. Thanks for the small favors, teste merdose.

It's got to be tough for the Bushites not to pull the trigger, dare Congress to do anything about it, and send things spiraling down even further. I'm thinking, though, that they will not. Instead, they will go down the sanctions road--with frequent bullying--in the hope that the pressure will force Ahmadinejad out. It won't, but I think the mullahs will opt for someone else next time around, if that's any consolation to the Bushites.

It should be; I don't think Iran will get around to testing a bomb during the remaining year's of Ahmadinejad's term, and he won't get another.

Unlike the North Koreans, who have absolutely no scruples and little else besides the bomb, the Iranians have lots of assets and no bomb. There won't be any deals anytime soon, either.

The "assisting the terrorists" bit about Iran and the Shiites is so much Bushism; it won't work. The simple fact that 92% of casualties to US forces is attributed to Sunni forces kind of puts that smelly sea creature in the box labeled "red herring".

This is a war we can dodge, and one that we must postpone past January, 2009 at all costs. If we can do that, there is no reason why we should have war.

North Korea - I give the US team some credit here. This is our most imminent threat, and our guys bit the bullet and made a deal. Kudos to Russia, and especially to China, for signing on. I think it was the Chinese role to send a discreet signal to these bozos, at the right time, that this was the most they were going to get. As for South Korea, they are studying the history of Germany in the 1990's very closely: they have a historic opportunity coming, and they'd like to get it right. Japan's position in the new government is incoherent: they hate the deal and don't want to contribute to it, but they agreed to it.

As a strategy, the deal is poor, and that gives our right-wing extremists (like John Bolton) a chance to denounce it. Good riddance to bad advice, and thank you Sen. Voinovich for vetoing Bolton's butt out of there in the lame-duck session. As an interim vacancy appointment, Bolton, you were an intolerant bore. As a permanent appointee, you would have been a disaster.

As I say, though, it's bad strategy: the international community is letting all these tinhorn dictatorships know that our nonproliferation efforts can be funneled down into a willingness to pay ransom.

I expect that the North Koreans will comply with the terms of this agreement, at least until 2009, then will try to figure out some new way to offend international sensibilities and threaten the peace. This will continue until the regime change, which I would guess is about 10 years away. Bless their hearts!

SCIA--I was absolutely shocked by the report I read in Vanity Fair this month about this shadowy, unknown organization (even though it went public last year), which is making the most hay of any of the Beltway Bandits off GWOT--so much hay, I think there's a real ethanol opportunity if we just mulch and boil down the whole place. I will save further comment for my review of the issue in next month's Mid-Monthly!

Palestine/Israel: The Saudis put in the shoe leather, getting the Damascus head of Hamas and al-Fatah's head Mahmoud Abbas, and literally locking them in the room together in Mecca (check?) and throwing away the key. They produced something, and the incompetent combo of Condi and Sharon-wannabe Ehud Olmert have combined to squander it. Another opportunity to begin to transform GWOT into something winnable lost.

Iraq--anything happening there? If it is, I don't think it's the US' "scourge", no "surge"; really, the correct word for the Baghdad operation is "purge". The idea is to cleanse a few of Sadr's rogue elements while he lies low and lets the "crazy Americans" do their thing.

It would seem that this "thing" is the actual invasion; they're getting some zones that were missed in the process of going after Saddam and the Baathist irredentists. Like much of the first invasion, this one will not be strongly opposed, but there will be some legitimate fighting, and there will be some success. These will be temporary, but it should give cover for some "diminution" in six months or so.

There's still a legitimate fight against a ferocious enemy force in Anbar province, and beyond that, Syria is a potential target for a variety of reasons. Syria's regime is a lot like Saddam's old one, though more crafty, and it seems like the logical place for Iraq's chaos to spill over, especially as the Shiites consolidate their control in Iraq. Even if the Bushites (or their successors) don't start trouble, and the Israelis don't start trouble, Syria is a likely candidate for strife.