OBAMA DOCTRINE VINDICATED (again) IN LIBYA

On the surface this is what most Americans see ...

After massive demonstrations, Tunisia's Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was forced to flee his country as protesters forced him into exhile ... Facing similar conditions, Eypt's corrupt Hosni Mubarrak was forced to resign in February of 2011 ... Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi is hunted down and killed by Libyans, after 41 years of ruling his nation through fear and intimidation.

But there is much more to the overthrow of three corrupt and kleptocratic regimes in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. In fact, in many ways, it all started with a vegetable seller in Tunisia.

After Tunisian police confiscated Mohamed Bouazizi's only means of earning a living in December of 2010 he set fire to himself. He was fed up with a corrupt regime that would take his only means of earning a living. Street protests were initiated. They became uprisings. Subsequent events in Tunisia, and then throughout the Arab world, are now known as the Arab Spring.

The Arab Spring, in turn, has both drawn from and given life to the Obama Doctrine (which he first articulated in Oslo in 2009). In simple terms the Obama Doctrine is about Peace through cooperation, Order through strength.

In the real world it means, when possible, encouraging our allies to go through international institutions, like the United Nations and NATO, to assist repressed people looking to overthrow corrupt regimes. But the Obama Doctrine also means relentlessly pursuing those who threaten America's security.

Killing Osama bin Laden in a stunning raid led by U.S. Special Forces in May proved this. This, in turn, was followed up by another spectacular military operation in September that killed the most potent post-Bin Laden al Qaeda threat to the United States, Anwar al-Awlaki.

It would be easy for me to say that cooperation and successful military raids are sufficient to understand the Obama Doctrine. But, as President Obama's comments on Israel demonstrate, this doesn't do justice to the complex thinking that the Obama Doctrine involves.

It is the difference between a checkers player and a chess player. Consider how it worked in Libya.

About a month after the protests in Libya started President Obama imposed powerful sanctions, froze Colonel Qaddafi’s assets, secured a UN Security Council resolution, organized an international coalition, executed another stunning military campaign through NATO, pushed Gaddafi’s forces back with air strikes, which effectively neutered Gaddafi's military and left them (and Gaddafi) to flee towards safe havens.

Allies. International institutions. Strategic restraint.

And the best part? It was all done without having to put American troops on the ground. This meant no American military casualties and only a handful of Libyan civilian casualties. All of this allowed the British and French to lead the United Nations and NATO - at the request of the Arab League - to continue pursuing a crippled regime on behalf of a beleaguered civilian population.

Ultimately the Obama Doctrine doesn't provide the media with the "shock and awe" fireworks of a U.S. military invasion, or the pomp and pageantry of a Mission Accomplished photo op. But it's working.

While all of this may all be too much for those who want to turn every conflict country into parking lot, today's developments - understood in the proper context - help us see the Obama Doctrine for what it really is. An approach to global politics that's starting to win the United States new fans. That it's happening in an historically antagonistic region bodes well for America, on many levels.

- Mark

Addendum: This is probably the best interactive on the Arab Spring I've seen. Check it out.

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE IN REAL TIME

Nine years ago I wrote an op-ed on Middle East tensions for our local paper, the Bakersfield Californian. Most of the article covered basic historical information. At the end of that article I wrote that for Israel to avoid another century "drenched in blood" - as King Saud predicted would happen - that accepting pre-1967 borders, "or adjusting those borders," so that the Palestinians can have a state that they call their own, was the key to building a foundation for peace in the region.

If this were to happen, I wrote, there would be a reason for the Arab world to begin cooperating on the issue of Israeli security. This is why I was so impressed with President Obama's Middle East speech last week.

Specifically, President Obama said:

"We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

And just like that President Obama initiated a discussion that those of us who follow the region understand needs to take place if we are to secure a modicum of peace in the region.

Perhaps more importantly, with Osama Bin Laden dead, we are currently witnessing the consolidation of the Obama Doctrine - Peace through cooperation, Order through strength - in real time. By pushing the Israelis to see how their future security is tied to building bridges with the Arab world - no matter how reluctant they may seem at the moment - President Obama is demonstrating that he isn't interested in pushing empty and unrealistic "Road Map to Peace" agendas.

And by taking Bin Laden out earlier this month, President Obama has made it clear that he's ready to take risks, which includes his willingness to put the future of his presidency behind his agenda for the region.

This is serious stuff, and the major players involved know it.

Better yet, what President Obama is doing is slowly leaving his domestic enemies (mostly in the GOP) and regional critics with little more than petty sound bytes.

With Prime Minister Netanyahu supporting President Obama's proposal for mutually agreed land swaps, the professional naysayers and the GOP may soon find themselves left with little more than empty rhetoric and petty grandstanding media ops to hang their hats on - as this Lawrence O'Donnell clip makes clear ...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We are currently watching history being made in real time. And the fact that the GOP doesn't see or understand what's happening is just one more reason why President Obama will be reelected in 2012.

- Mark

UPDATE (11-21-12): If you want to read an excellent book on the Obama Doctrine take a look at David E. Sanger's Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power (Random House, 2012). It provides a detailed look at the Obama Doctrine by outlining the president's use of coalitions when broader U.S. global interests are evident (like the intervention in Libya) and aggressive unilateralism when specific U.S. security interests are involved (the drone attacks and the killing of Osama Bin Laden). For a quick but still nuanced review of the Obama Doctrine check out Joseph S. Nye's article, "The Obama Doctrine's First Term." And, of course, there's my earlier blogpost on the Obama Doctrine as it was being defined in 2009.

LIBYA AND THE OBAMA DOCTRINE

I've been far too busy to comment on President Obama's Libya speech. But make no mistake. He is following a path that he laid out long ago. Rather than recount the Libya speech, and how it fits into the Obama Doctrine - Peace through cooperation, Order through strength - take a look at President Obama's Oslo speech. The long term approach for Libya is in there. My comments on what the Obama Doctrine means can be found here and here.

Interestingly, many conservatives - including former Speaker Newt Gingrich - praised President Obama's Oslo speech.

I have to run off to class so I'll leave my comments on the rants of Sarah Palin, and other clueless wonders, for another day. I'll try and make specific comments about the Libya speech at a later date too.

- Mark

SET FIRE TO A HOUSE ... GET CALLED A HERO? THE ABSURD LOGIC BEHIND THANKING BUSH

If I set fire to a house and then call the fire department - who then put out the fire - am I a hero? No? What if I ran into the house to save a few family members before the fire department arrived. Am I a hero now? This is precisely what Fox News and their conservative drones on the right want us to believe about George W. Bush because of "The Surge" strategy in Iraq.

Let's make this clear. We never should have been in Iraq. It was a war of choice. The Surge was made possible only because George W. Bush and his administration decided, as it were, to set Iraq on fire.

But as long as we're talking about The Surge, let me make this clear too: The Surge was not the primary factor behind the decline of violence in Iraq. Here's why.

As I posted in March 2008 the decline in violence in Iraq was a product of four developments, none of which had anything to to do with The Surge.

1. Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's August 2007 cease-fire.

2. The Anbar Awakening, which began in Sept. 2006 (in essence the Sunni's began saying no to Al Qaeda).

3. The physical separation (which included barrier walls) of Shi'a and Sunnis right before The Surge.

4. The Low-Hanging Fruit of Death were gone. Shi'a & Sunnis, tired of surprise murders, had moved out of previously "integrated" neighborhoods by August 2007.

To be sure, The Surge helped solidify and reemphasize the gains that came from these developments. But this makes The Surge a "supporting" rather than determining factor for Iraq's decline in violence.

More importantly, “the surge worked” crowd (conveniently) ignores that The Surge was designed to provide stability for national reconciliation so that specific political benchmarks could be met. The key here is that while a degree of security and stability has been achieved, violence still plagues Iraq, sectarian divisions continue, while the larger goals of national reconciliation and certain political benchmarks have only been partially met.

Still, to think that The Surge makes George W. Bush a hero, who should be thanked for his military genius, is akin to saying arsonists should be thanked for calling 911 on themselves. Would you give them a parade?
 
Finally, the "We should thank George W. Bush" crowd miss a fundamental point about our nation's war of choice. We spent over $700 billion (interest not tacked on), saw our national prestige decline, had 31,926 U.S. soldiers returned who were injured or maimed (20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries), and lost over 4,400 U.S. soldiers to the war in Iraq ...
 

 
Should we thank George W. Bush for this too?

- Mark

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-Clueless)

Here's South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R-Clueless) over the weekend discussing Iran's nuclear program:

"We're walking down the road to Armageddon."

Here's Graham (R-Clueless) commenting on what would happen if President Obama doesn't commit another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan:

"We're going to lose. We'll be driven out. The Taliban will come back stronger than they were before, [and] the moderates in Afghanistan will go back in hiding or get killed. NATO will be seen as a failure, and America will go it alone in the future."[Here's my question: Why didn't Graham think this way when President Bush decided to pull troops out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq, pretty much alone?]

Here's Senator Graham (R-Clueless) in 2007 explaining why he supported the war in Iraq on Meet the Press:

"... I was wrong about certain things. The weapons of mass destruction issue ... I think Saddam believed he had the weapons, but apparently he didn't."

Here's Lindsey Graham (R-Clueless) on Meet the Press, explaining what we can all learn from his history of failed analysis in the region:

"Here’s what I can promise you ... no one wants to talk about this."

Drawing from Graham's last two comments, and as a point of reference, can you imagine if I had the following conversation with my bank:

"I was wrong about certain things. The money in the bank issue ... I think my creditors believed I had money in the bank, but apparently I didn't. Here's what I can promise you, and no one wants to talk about this ... so lend me more money."

OK, here my question. At what point does Lindsey Graham admit he's a clueless partisan hack who has no idea what the hell he's talking about when it comes to the Middle East?

- Mark

PRESIDENT OBAMA: THE GRANDMASTER?

_____________________________

Almost two years ago, when I started this blog, I posted two items tied to international relations that questioned President Bush's competence as a world leader. In a few words I argued that stable global relations require someone who understands movements over time and place, and can play like a chess player. This is especially the case when you're the President of the United States. George Bush, unfortunately, played like a checkers player, and left a legacy abroad that proved it. His actions made the U.S. - and the world - less safe.

Because of the issues surrounding Iran's nuclear program, and President Obama's remarks yesterday, I've re-posted my 2007 comments below.
______________________________

On Thursday the United States, the British and France put forward evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran has secretly been building a non-civilian nuclear facility in northern Iran. Standing with President Obama when he presented the news to the world were the leaders of Britain and France. France's President Sarkozy - who is not known for such threatening statements - even went so far as to tell Iran that they need to change their program within two months, or face sanctions. As well, Britain called Iran's program part of a “serial deception of many years” that led to a rare Russian rebuke of Iran, and a milder warning from China.


These developments can not be understated.

After President Bush single-handedly undermined America's credibility abroad with aggressive unilateralism, lies, torture, and his blundering wars project, it was tough for him to get other nations to support the U.S. on important issues, like Iran's evolving nuclear program.

Now, let's keep in mind that few doubted Iran's capabilities and intentions to secure a nuclear weapons program. We even suspected - if not knew - what they were doing. The problem was that no one wanted to follow the U.S. lead on the issue. At least as long as George W. Bush was in the picture.

It appears that this is beginning to change under President Obama.

There are several reasons for this. As MSNBC's Rachel Maddow so cogently points out here, President Obama's decision to change the direction of our missile defense program in Poland - which was directed against Russia - helped convince Russia's President Medvedev to go along with the U.S. position on Iran. This was absolutely necessary, in my view, because of the missteps of the Bush administration when it came to Russia. I wrote about them here over a year ago. They're not pretty.

More importantly, President Obama's actions and decisions abroad helped convince the United Nations Security Council (the U.S., Britain, France, China, and Russia) to follow the U.S. lead in condemning Iran's program. We want to keep in mind here that Russia and France balked at supporting U.S. initiatives after eight years of being strung along, lied to, and lectured by President Bush.

Having the UN Security Council with us on this is big news. I like Rachel Maddow's observation: "If diplomacy got reported like war does, I think what we'd be reporting right now is 'Shock and Awe'." If you read my December 2007 posts below, or take a look at George W. Bush's "Russia" policies, you'll get a better understanding of why Rachel Maddow said this (and why Andrea Mitchell concurred).

- Mark

**********************************************

Dissecting Bush"s Strategic Failures, Part I

By way of Kevin Drum we have Niall Ferguson explaining why the United States is not the Roman Empire, or even the British Empire ...

Less than a century ago, before World War I, the population of Britain was 46 million, barely 2.5% of humanity. And yet the British were able to govern a vast empire that encompassed an additional 375 million people, more than a fifth of the world's population. Why can't 300 million Americans control fewer than 30 million Iraqis? Three years ago, as the United States swept into Iraq, I wrote a book titled "Colossus," which offered a somber prediction, summed up in its subtitle, "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire." My argument was that the United States was unlikely to be as successful or as enduring an imperial power as its British predecessor for three reasons: its financial deficit, its attention deficit and, perhaps most urprisingly, its manpower deficit. Rather cruelly, I compared the American empire to a "strategic couch-potato ... consuming on credit, reluctant to go to the front line [and] inclined to lose interest in protracted undertakings."

Not content, Kevin Drum introduced another variable: The “Rise of the Colonials” …

[Niall Ferguson’s argument] leaves out by far the most important reason for American failure: today's colonials fight back. Britain occupied India with a tiny force because the Indians mostly let them, and on the rare occasions when they rebelled the British (like all the other European colonial powers) felt free to crush them in the most brutal manner imaginable.None of that is true today. The people of Iraq are flatly unwilling to be ruled by outsiders, they have the weaponry to fight back effectively, and the West is no longer willing to spill rivers of blood simply to show them who's boss. If those things had been true a century ago, Britain never would have had an empire in the first place, let alone been able to keep it.

I have another variable to add. Let’s call it the "Grandmaster" variable.

I've used chess as a metaphor for international relations since reading Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. While it’s almost 10 years old, the book is still a good read and offers an understanding of strategic thinking that George Bush's foreign policy team obviously lacks. What we learn is that you can’t have rank amateurs, who think and act like they're playing checkers (with a club) when global challenges demand we think like chess players. With the power, influence, and global position of the United States the American Grand Chessboard really demands a Grandmaster. Or at least a tournament level player.

We have George W. Bush.

- Mark

***************************************************************

Dissecting Bush"s Strategic Failures, Part II

The chess player metaphor is even more appropriate when we include the discussion Joseph Nye, Jr. offered on U.S. power and the challenges that confront our world.

In The Paradox of American Power Nye argues that global power is distributed in a pattern that resembles a three-dimensional chess game. On the top board level we have military power, where the United States remains supreme. On the mid-level board we have economic power, where the United States is one of several states that can significantly influence global economic developments. On the bottom level we have “transnational” issues where no one country can dominate, or hope to solve problems on its own. Here we see issues like drugs, global warming, aids, criminal activities, environmental pollution, terrorism, etc.

According to Nye the world needs to work together because “the paradox of American power at the end of this millennium is that it is too great to be challenged by any other state, yet not great enough to solve problems such as global terrorism and nuclear proliferation.”

With record budget deficits and OPEC threatening to the dump the dollar as its reserve currency (the 2nd tier), and Bush’s failed policies around the world (the bottom tier), it's hard to disagree with Nye that you can't focus simply on the military, or first tier, level and expect to win. And now, with the U.S. military under strain, we can't be sure about the power and influence the threat of U.S. force used to bring.

Simply put, the idea that the United States can act like past empires – whether it was the British Empire or the Roman Empire – reflects a serious problem of analysis on the part of Team Bush. And it began almost immediately after 9/11, when an unnamed Bush official told reporter Ron Suskind:

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

This arrogant, insipid, child-like attitude toward the ideas of others tells us that George Bush and his neo-conservative team never believed in understanding issues. Rather, their goal has always been to wield power to shape the world in a way that reflected their stunted vision of reality.

As we have seen in Iraq, that vision was never well thought out. As we are left to “study what [they] do” you can be sure that “history’s actors” will be judged by the “realities” they created. Our problem is that we have to live through their strategic incompetence and the havoc their realities bring us today.

Again, I don't need a Grandmaster to play America's Grand Chessboard. I'd settle for a beginning level tournament player. With Bush, we're not even close.

Iran anyone?

- Mark

THE "OBAMA EFFECT" IN LEBANON

While it's far too early to make any long term projections, it appears that President Obama's approach to the Middle East and his Cairo speech may be paying dividends.


In Lebanon voters handed an American-backed coalition a victory in Lebanese parliamentary elections on Sunday. Regional political experts cite domestic issues for the results but are also giving a nod to President Obama’s outreach efforts to the Arab and Muslim world. According to the NY Times ...

Most analysts had predicted that the Hezbollah-led coalition, already a crucial power broker in the Lebanese government because of its support from Shiites who make up a large part of Lebanon’s population, would win handily. In the end, though, the American-aligned coalition won 71 seats, while the Syria-Iranian aligned opposition, which includes Hezbollah, took only 57.

Talk of the "Obama Effect" in the Middle East will get a significant boost on Friday if Iran's hard-line anti-American President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad loses against his main moderate challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi.

Stay tuned.

- Mark

OBAMA IN CAIRO

President Obama's Cairo speech strikes a new tone and puts America on a broadened path with the Middle East.



If you want to read the entire speech, with interactive (streaming) video, click here.

President Obama pointed to several areas that demonstrated religious tolerance in the U.S. and how Islam has always been a part of our history. Among those included his reference to Morroco being the first nation to recognize the United States and how an elected member of Congress used the same Koran that Thomas Jefferson had in his library at his swearing in ceremony.


On the surface, it appears that President Obama's trump card is that he is not President Bush (who derailed the 2003 "Road Map to Peace" proposal). Put another way, the messenger matters.

I'll touch on this and other issues facing the U.S. in the Middle East on Saturday.

- Mark

PRESIDENT OBAMA IN IRAQ

Dailykos has spectacular photo coverage of Barack Obama in Iraq ...


- Mark

EXPLAINING OBAMA'S NEW IRAQ TIME TABLE

President Obama has extended his own time table for taking combat troops out of Iraq. He also plans on leaving between 30,000 and 50,000 of our military personel for training and other purposes. Some have expressed disappointment that we're not pulling out entirely. The disappointment is misplaced. Here's why.

President Obama is not President Bush. Unlike President Bush, who reacted like Homer Simpson pursuing a couple of hornets through the woods, President Obama isn't going to simply take a whack at the hornet's nest that is the Middle East. He's thought this trough. He's no Homer Simpson.


This is what President Obama sees, and understands ...

* The al Qaeda nutjobs in Iraq - who were NOT there before the war - are predominantly Sunnis.

* Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, has helped out Shiite extremists in Iraq (which John McCain didn't know).

* Many of the Sunnis are coming from states that are supposed to be our allies, like Saudi Arabia (which is predominantly Sunni).

* Sunnis think Shiites are apostates.

What all of this means is that if we leave Iraq, and take out all of our military personnel, the Iranians would step in to help the Shiites. The Saudis have told us that they would then have to help the Sunnis in Iraq (in part because the Saudis know that by keeping the Sunni nut jobs in Iraq they aren't going after their corrupt and kleptocratic regime). We might then see a full scale regional conflagration, which the Saudis have suggested would happen.

And I haven't even mentioned the Kurds in northern Iraq who have been perhaps our best allies in Iraq, but have few friends in Turkey (and Iraq).

Now do you understand now why I made the George-Bush-Homer-Simpson-hornet's-nest reference? What a mess.

Look, at the end of the day there are no good options in Iraq. We can't afford to stay there with present troop levels for 100 years, like John McCain suggested on the campaign. President Obama's best option lies simply with keeping a lid on things until we're on the path towards energy independence ...

- Mark

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS

From MilitaryTimes.com ...

First the good news. With recent security advances in Iraq, it looks like the U.S. military is finding more and more weapons caches in public places. Better tips combined with cash rewards are leading to so many successful raids that the U.S. military is on track to find and clear more caches by the end of August than in all of 2007 (no word on whether weapon and ammo counts will be higher too).

Now the bad news. According to John Pike, a military and security analyst, “It seems to me that the amount that has been confiscated is small relative to the amount that might be out there.”

Bad News, II. After reading the story I get the sense that the U.S. Military is little more than Iraq's billion dollar police department.

And now for the real Good News. You, me, and our kids (and grandkids) get to pay for it all.

- Mark

YUP, THEY STILL HATE US ...

From Bahrain's Gulf Daily News ...

It looks like Iraqi cleric Moqtada Al Sadr is going to break with the U.S. permamanently once the UN mandate expires at the end of the year. The hardliner is gearing up for a prolonged U.S. presence in Iraq by setting up a new force to battle US troops, commenting: "We will not stop resisting the occupation until liberation or martyrdom." His Mahdi Militia Army counts in with 60,000+ troops.

Now, I'm not an expert in Middle East politics. But if Al Sadr's Mahdi Army is gearing up to go after U.S. troops after the UN mandate expires doesn't this suggest that the mess in Iraq is not simply driven by Al Qaeda, or other extremist elements? (something those of us in the reality based world already know). And if someone as popular as Moqtada Al Sadr is gearing up to confront U.S. troops in Iraq, what does this tell us about Sen. McCain's plan for keeping us in Iraq indefinitely?

But it appears that things may only get worse.

While the fight against US troops will be waged by Al Sadr's new group, Al Sadr also understands that he needs to address other issues in Iraq if he is going to maintain his position (part of that "hearts & minds" stuff Bush ignores). In a statement that was read at mosques in the holy Shi'ite town of Kufa Al Sadr stated that other members of his organization will "take on a social and religious role."


Fighting foreign occupiers and providing social relief ... It looks like Al Sadr is gearing up to become Iraq's Supreme Political Warlord of the 21st Century. And our presence gives him all the tools he needs.

- Mark

ON STRIKING IRAN ...

Last year America’s preeminent intelligence agency – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence – issued its National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (“Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities”) which determined that “Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” in the fall of 2003. Still the Bush administration is bent on making it clear that a military strike against Iran is still possible before the end of President Bush’s second term.

This is important because it means that the reported use of nuclear weapons against Iran’s underground nuclear facilities also remains possible. While there are several very good, and technical reasons, to fear this scenario this interactive clip from the Union of Concerned Scientists explains several of the potential pitfalls of using nuclear weapons (i.e. nuclear bunker busters) to attack Iran. The clip is really worth watching.

- Mark

BUSH FAILS IN OIL ... AGAIN

Everyone in America knows that George W. Bush was a failure as a businessman in the oil industry. Well, in spite of touting his oil credentials as a potential plus with OPEC members when he ran for the White House, it turns out that he's an abject failure at Oil Diplomacy too.

Here's a quick overview of President Bush's most recent efforts at "jawbone" diplomacy, which he claimed he would bring to the White House.

For the second time in two months, President Bush's efforts to "jawbone" his Saudi friends over the cost of oil fell on deaf ears. On Friday, oil surged to a record $127 after Bush's meeting with King Abdullah failed to secure a production increase beyond the meager 300,000 barrels the Saudis previously committed to on May 10th. In all, it was just the latest dismal failure for the jawbone of the Texas oilman who campaigned on his powers of persuasion when it came to OPEC ...

... For its part, OPEC brushed off Bush's feeble entreaties and rejected calls for an emergency meeting ahead of the cartel's next scheduled gathering in September. On Saturday, the Qatari oil minister put it simply, "The oil market is balanced...There is no threat to or crisis in supply."

There's no secret to what's happening here. OPEC members do not respect, nor trust, the capabilities of George W. Bush. And they're particularly not happy with the Bush administration's dollar policy (there is none). As Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Company in New York, put it: "It's really not surprising that they have ignored [Bush]" when you consider the collapsing value of the dollar.


Indeed, while Saudi King Abdullah has "shut down grandstanding talk from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" (which focused on moving OPEC away from the "worthless piece of paper" this past February) OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah al-Badri is still suggesting that the oil cartel might switch to euro-based pricing.

My guess is that this will become a real issue some time during the next administration. When this happens it will be yet another tattered feather in President Bush's lifelong headban of failure.

- Mark

THE ROOTS OF MARKET & WEALTH

I finally sent the first manuscript for my book, The Roots of Markets & Wealth, to the publisher. I'm expecting at least 6 weeks (if not longer) before I get the first request for revisions. The photo here is Bush the Elder with Prince "Bandar Bush" - the tutor, diplomat extraordinaire, and Saudi family friend that President Bush thanked for for keeping the price of oil low before the 2004 elections. Below is an excerpt from my book on the U.S.-Saudi relationship ...

Saudi Prince Bandar al Sultan, aka "Bandar Bush" and President George H.W. Bush

____________________________________________________

... In Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, former CIA operative Robert Baer tells the story of returning from Langley, Virginia. Coming from the direction of the Potomoc River was a convoy led by a Chevy Suburban with flashing lights. He suspected it was the President because “he’s the only official in Washington who gets that kind of protection.” When the convoy turned into an estate, he recognized the enormous iron gates.

The next day he learned the convoy was escorting Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States – who “alone of all ambassadors got official State Department protection.” And why not? Granted the title of “Bandar Bush,” for his long and cozy relationship with the Bush family, Prince Bandar is dean of the Washington diplomatic corps – its brightest star, with a constellation of resources and political contacts that give him both access and power. But perhaps his greatest trump card is how he uses money and oil to move U.S.-Saudi relations.

After the oil price hikes of 1973 the U.S. convinced the Saudis to use their “petrodollars” to help underwrite U.S. budget deficits. Later, a combination of geo-politics and personal greed helped turn a simple funder-borrower relationship into a hydro-headed monster that thrives on national security imbalances and narrow self-interest.

Indeed, Baer writes things have gotten so cozy between Riyadh and former high level Washington officials that granting Prince Bandar the same protection afforded the President is only a small part of a larger story. For those fortunate enough to brush shoulders with Prince Bandar and his circle of friends, Saudi Arabia has become “Washington’s 401(k) Plan.”

Former cabinet secretaries, taking advantage of the Saudi Cash Cow, now work with the “good” bin Ladens, while the U.S. government works to keep Saudi regime safe, and its oil flowing. The financial cooperation the U.S. received from the Saudis after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait border is illustrative. Success in the first Gulf War, in Washington’s eyes, guaranteed that a grateful and friendly “House of Sa’ud would remain the world’s banker of oil.”


Perhaps more importantly, by keeping the Saudis in business, the global status quo was maintained, which meant (and perhaps more importantly) the sources that help fund the American Kingdom would continue. Interestingly, there appear to be historical parallels to this relationship.

In many ways the U.S. - Saudi relationship follows a pattern similar to the protection racket that existed between prosperous merchants in medieval Europe and their royal protectors. And just like their aristocratic predecessors, when they’re not busy tending to their economic interests, or bestowing politically powerful “titles” on their friends, American elites have become consumed with war.

But there is another, more ominous parallel. Much like the medieval period when Europe’s monarchs tried to keep rogue states and marauding nobles at bay, America’s aristocrats have been slow to recognize that the American Kingdom increasingly depends on the Good Will of others and no longer controls its own fate – a point the well protected “Bandar Bush” seems to understand quite well ...

- Mark

ON TOXIC WASTE & TOXIC RELATIONS

Our national debt is $9.2 trillion. A little over $8.2 trillion of that has been accumulated over the past 28 years. Ronald Reagan began the deficit-spending binge. George W. Bush, interestingly enough (given his background), turned it into an addiction. Now, we’re faced with an economy that appears to be staggering in Bush’s final year, but the Federal Reserve refuses to issue “Last Call” – choosing, instead, to hand out more free drinks to those who irresponsibly bellied up to the Subprime Bar that sold instant highs in concoctions insiders called “toxic waste.”

So, as George Bush prepares to leave office – in the process, sticking us with the tab for his rotgut-filled, deficit spending binge – I’ve been reading a couple of books that help shed light on why things may get worse before they get better.

Want to know about the “toxic waste” produced by the market? Read The Trillion Dollar Meltdown: Easy Money, High Rollers, and the Great Credit Crash, by Charles R. Morris. It's perhaps the most accessible reading on what's been happening in markets that I've read.



If you want to understand why we won’t be escaping the political and military entanglements of the Middle East any time soon, read the appropriately titled Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, by former CIA operative, Robert Baer.

Both of these books are highly readable, and non-technical (although the book by Charles R. Morris has to get into some jargon). At the end of the day, what we find is that the Saudis aren’t our worst nightmare … it’s the people in Washington who can’t seem to say no to Wall Street, and are captured by self-serving political and financial interests that keep us tangled up with a very corrupt and morally bankrupt Saudi regime.

- Mark

WHY “THE SURGE” IS NOT WORKING …

Here’s “the surge is working” logic in a nutshell: Declining U.S. military deaths in Iraq since August, 2007 means the “the surge” is working.

What the “surge is working” crowd seems to (conveniently) ignore is that the surge was designed to provide stability for national reconciliation so that specific political benchmarks could be met. Let me reiterate. the goals are national political reconciliation and meeting political benchmarks.

National reconciliation is not on the horizon. The benchmarks have not been met. Ergo, the surge has failed. And to the extent that we have seen U.S. casualties decline, we need to understand why …

1. The Moqtada al-Sadr ceasefire. The al-Sadr ceasefire began August, 2007. Let's keep in mind that al-Sadr’s father was roughed up pretty good by Saddam’s henchmen. Al-Sadr has much to seek revenge about. Don’t count on a permanent ceasefire.

2. The “Low-Hanging-Fruit-of-Death” Peak: Simply put, early and vicious ethnic cleansing in Baghdad caused Shi'a and Sunni to separate and move out of old neighborhoods by August 2007. The early low hanging fruit of death – as it were – were no longer hanging out in the old neighborhoods waiting to be shot. As a result, American soldiers no longer have to be in the middle of this mess.

3. The Wall(s) of Love: The physical separation of the Sunni-Shia combatants in Baghdad with 12 ft. high walls. Completed just in time for the surge.

4. The Anbar Awakening: In September 2006 – long before President Bush’s “surge” was implemented – a federation of Sunni tribes came together as the Anbar Salvation Council. They opposed the fundamentalist militants of Al Qaeda. The Sunni dominated council needed-wanted money and security. In return the council volunteered hundreds of tribesmen to serve as police officers and have permitted the construction of police and military outposts.

Let’s be clear here. None of the above - with the possible exception of the Wall of Love - have anything to do with the surge (which, again, has not met its goals).

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION ...
But here’s another problem with “the surge is working” fairytale. While reduced GI killings in Baghdad has happened, and regular violence against Iraqis has remained relatively flat (but it’s still higher today than in ’03, ’04, and ’05), our surge has not reduced overall violence in Iraq.

One of the reasons we don’t know this is because of the way we have counted sectarian violence and civilian deaths. Check this out. It seems that if you are an Iraqi shot in the front of the head you are simply a victim of violent crime. This is a victory for the surge. To be counted as part of the sectarian violence, and to get Gen. Petraeus’ sectarian-death-stamp-of-approval, you need to be shot in the back of the head. This is not good for the surge.

So, essentially, declining sectarian violence in Iraq is a product of bullet hole location. Nice.

- Mark

ARIZONA VILLAGE ... MISSING AN IDIOT?

We've been in Iraq for five years now (happy anniversary) and John McCain comes out with this stupidity.

... [it] has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate.

What's "unfortunate" is that John McCain doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Look, Iran is helping out Shiite extremists. The al Qaeda nutjobs in Iraq - who weren't there before the war - are predominantly Sunnis, with most of them coming from states that are supposed to be our allies (like Saudi Arabia). Sunnis think Shiites are apostates.

If we left, the Iranians would help the Shiites and the Saudis would help the Sunnis in Iraq. We might even see a full scale regional conflagration, which the Saudis tell us would happen (Keep in mind the Saudis have their own motives for wanting to keep us in Iraq. Without us, the radical nutjobs would be going after their corrupt and kleptocratic regime. That's right. Our military is seen as cannon fodder by the Saudi kleptocrats. This is why they tell us the place would fall apart if we leave).

But, to be fair, why should McCain know any of this? I mean, he's only had five years to study the issues. Who could possibly bone up on the facts in such a short time span? Especially when he's so busy running for president.

In case you're wondering, it wasn't a gaffe. He made the reference more than once. And this is not the first time he's done this. He really doesn't know what's going on in Iraq, or the Middle East. This helps to explain why he thinks walking around Baghdad with a flak jacket, a contingent of U.S. forces, and Blackhawk helicopters hovering around him constitutes a secure city.

No wonder he says it's OK to stay in Iraq 100 years. He's going to need that long to figure out what's going on.

- Mark

P.S. This guy says McCain's gaffe isn't really a mistake. He's doing it on purpose. Either way, it shows McCain's not fit to lead.

BAGHDAD: A CITY OF WALLS

Hey, if it worked in Berlin ...

In the first of Ghaith Abdul-Ahad's extraordinary series of films to mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, he investigates the claims that the US military surge is bringing stability to Iraq. By travelling through the heart of Baghdad he exposes how, by enclosing the Sunni and Shia populations behind 12ft walls, the surge has left the city more divided and desperate than ever ...

What's next? An official policy of segregation?

- Mark

TURKEY PULLING OUT OF IRAQ

Turkey is now leaving northern Iraq ...

If we accept the reasoning offered by officials in Washington, or Ankara, either the PKK has decided to be nice after getting beat up, or Turkey's military has one heck of a terrorist fighting machine. How do we come to this conclusion? Because Turkey's government made it clear that "[a]ny influence, either foreign on domestic, on this decision ... is out of question" because "the start and end dates of the operation were decided by us solely based on military reasoning." Put another way, the U.S. had nothing to do with getting Turkey out of northern Iraq. End of story.

And if you believe this I have a bridge to sell you, in Iraq (send cash).

Look, the Kurds in northern Iraq have been a better ally in Iraq than Turkey. Heck, the Turkish government wouldn't even let us launch the war in Iraq from their soil (for several reasons).

Kurdish counterinsurgency forces, however, have a storied history and have proven to be invaluable to U.S. efforts in Iraq. Can you imagine what would have happened if President Bush didn't cave in to the Iraqi Kurd's demands to get Turkey out? The question now is, "What did we offer/threaten Turkey with to get them to leave?"

With President Bush's desire to keep his military house of cards in Iraq somewhat stable, you can bet the farm we're going to pay through the nose on this one.

- Mark