zenpundit.com

THE BALLOT AMIDST THE BULLETS: THE VOTE IN IRAQ

The intrepid Bruce Kesler has a stinging analysis of the Iraqi referendum in light of the predictions and the political axes ground by those making them. His piece is entitled, “ Not a Sunni Day For The Left” and is posted at AEI Online. Some excerpts:

“ Today, it?s the Americans who are unleashing revolutionary ideas, most recently in the Middle East. But the French, as is their wont, demure. And why not? Aside from the danger that democratically-elected governments would expose the role of Chirac’s advisors in profiteering from the UN oil-for-bribes program, a liberated Middle East would upset France?s cozy power and commercial relationships with other corrupt Arab states. Democracy is too potent a force to be fooled with by mere un-French mortals from Texas.

…Did the invasion of Iraq precipitate these changes? I think the hawks considerably overstate their case, but at the same time they do have a case. Even if Iraq is a mess, it might all be worthwhile if it eventually produces progress toward a more open, more liberal Middle East. At the very least, it’s an argument that needs to be engaged.

…Even the New York Times’s defeatist in Baghdad, Dexter Filkins, was forced to recognize the significance of last Saturday’s turnout in Iraq?s constitutional referendum, which was heavier than last January’s turnout and higher than most U.S. elections. It represents the first evidence that Iraqi?s Sunni Moslems, whose community forms the heart of the guerrilla insurgency, have decided to join the budding Iraqi political process. Another New York Times report tells us that, for the first time, Syria’s Opposition Unites Behind a Call for Democratic Changes “

Interestingly enough, Bruce’s thesis is being echoed, some irony here, in Le Figaro ( Hat tip Marc Schulman):

“It’s hard for the anti-Bushites to swallow: the Iraqis accept the democracy offered by the United States. Saturday, 61% of eligible Iraqis took part in the referendum on the Constitution. On January 30, they had mobilized in similar fashion, in spite of the threats, to elect their deputies. Whereas the popular wisdom sees in George W. Bush the expression of a “totalitarian spirit,” history is correcting this caricature. It is a change in perception that is not to France’s advantage. By confronting the intimidation of the Islamists who forbid these electoral consultations, Iraqi society expressed its refusal to be subject to their wishes. Will Iraqis build the Muslim democracy hoped for by American neoconservatives, and that the media chorus judges unattainable? “

My commentary today consists of two points:

First, that while the Bush administration’s lack of competent Arabic fluent USG personnel are hampering our efforts in Iraq, the critics in theMSM is not any more in touch with the average Iraqi. If they were, the turnout and result would have been less surprising. Perhaps part of the problem is that Westerners are talking primarily to the minority of Iraqis who are English fluent.

Secondly, while the referendum was very important that importance is longitudinal in terms of establishing democratic norms. Recall the civil war in El Salvador; the election in 1984 was a milestone for El Salvadorans, carried out in the face of Communist guerilla violence but the war itself stetched on into the first Bush administration. And that civil war was less complex and the FMLN rebels were more dependent on outside aid and more disciplined ( in terms of reporting to a command hierarchy) than Iraq’s insurgency and foreign terrorists. Elections do not suffice to quell wars but they make the battlespace more inhospitable for the side that is fighting against the concept of free elections.

The war in Iraq is going to grind on for years at various levels of violence. Iraq’s referendum did not stop the insurgency, it cannot by itself, but in habituating millions of Iraqis to democratic expectations of governance, it was an irreplaceable event. Iraqis now know the difference between a sham election run by Sadaam’s Baathist goons and a real democracy; and the concept of ” consent of the governed”, so intolerable to Zarqawi’s Islamists and Baathist die-hards alike, has been legitimized, once again, by precedent.

These are effects that can be suppressed for a time but never erased.

RUSSIA UNRAVELLING: TRANSCAUCASIA’S UNPOPULAR BUT ADVANCING ISLAMISM

If you are interested in Russian and Eurasian affairs you can do no better than to check out Peter Lavelle’s Untimely Thoughts and in particular, his weekly round-up of expert opinion. Along with Nathan’s Registan, Untimely Thoughts is your “must-read” blog.

This week, Peter’s experts discuss the disintegrating situation in Southern Russia and Transcaucasia. A worst-case scenario view from one of them, Gordon Hahn:

“Moreover, there are four general and rather profound implications of Russia’s emerging revolutionary jihadist network for U.S. national and international security that policy-makers ought to be considering:

(4) a rising tide of Islamist terrorism and the government’s failure to hold onto large areas of Russian territory likely would promote serious instability in Moscow. A regime that “appeased” or lost out to Islamist separatist revolts and terrorism would be more vulnerable to neo-Communist, hardline nationalist forces or be inclined to continue re-centralizing power and rolling back democracy to such an extent that it transforms itself into a dictatorship. Any of these outcomes is likely to produce a powerful government opposed to U.S. policies and interests, perhaps in alliance with a revived nationalist China or other rogue states. This would be catastrophic for security, given the burdens of an on-going war against terrorism (Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere), the danger of crisis and conflict with Iran and North Korea, and other national and international problems.”

Fears exist that Chechen rebels have acquired nuclear warheads and/or weapons grade material or are actively seeking to do so. Given their willingness to strike all the local headquarters of Russian security agencies in coordinated head-on attacks, this fear is justified. In the eyes of Shamil Basayev, how many of his men’s lives are ” worth ” a one megaton warhead ?

The odd aspect to this war, as some other experts rightly point out, is the utter alien nature of terrorist Islamism to the Chechens who historically practice a localized brand of loose Islamic faith with social mores dominated by the code of Adat, not the Sharia. Indeed there is considerable evidence that the ultra-violent Shamil Basayev, the ex-communist, ex-nationalist turned Islamist, may exhibit piety more for the financial support of wealthy Gulf extremists than anything else. There is also no evidence that the Chechens, while loathing Putin, evince any desire to give up their clan-based culture for some kind of artificially constructed neo-Taliban puritanism.

Were it not for the inept and brutal policies of the Russians themselves, Basayev’s men would probably meet up with a much more hostile climate in the mountain villages.

PERHAPS THE U.S. SHOULD LET THE BRITS DO ALL THE TALKING

“I believe that this is precisely because we have developed a highly successful model of integration which enables people of all backgrounds and faiths to prosper and live together within the safeguard of common values. Our society is itself an affront, and a reproach, to the ideologues who believe that only their way of living life is the right one.

However, there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Sharia law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech. These values are fundamental to our civilization and are simply not up for negotiation.”

– The Rt. Hon. Charles Clarke, M.P. Home Secretary of the United Kingdom

The power of moral and intellectual clarity combined with actual mastery of the English language, you can read the whole thing here.

Now many of our top officials are just as smart and sometimes better educated than their British counterparts, so why do our officials come off sounding more like the president of the Akron, Ohio All-City Bowling League ?

THE BIG NAVY AND SMALL WARS:BFA AND THE FDNF

Eddie at Live from The FDNF forsees big changes coming for the fleet, changes inspired by the the PNM theory of Dr. Thomas Barnett. An excerpt:

“As the USMC (United States Marine Corps) has largely become a separate entity (you’re more likely to see a Marine jet squadron onboard an aircraft carrier than you are a Marine standing the once traditional role of a sentry on the ship) from the US Navy, the Navy’s new CNO,Admiral Mullen, has decided to return the service to its “go-ashore” essence with a daring plan to establish a naval infantry. While details are not yet fully available, the “Expeditionary Combat Battalion” will likely consist of infantry elements that can project power ashore and support forces (like hospital corpsmen) that back them up. There are other interesting proposals floating around to go along with this; like a civil affairs augment to Seabee battalions, special warfare combat helicopter squadrons and extensive foreign language training for some if not most of the ECG forces.

…Admiral Mullen must have read “Pentagon’s New Map”, as he’s incorporating PNM related ideas into his new strategy for the Fleet with this Leviathan/Sys Admin force in the making. The “Leviathan” force, the ECG, can go ashore and launch raids (like punitive expeditions or counterterrorism operations) or incorporate the use of lethal force to stabilize the situation (like in a war-ravaged coastal city in a place like Liberia, Indonesia or Mexico) to prepare for the deployment of the larger Sys Admin force (corpsmen, Seabees, logistics types (SKs-storekeepers), master at arms (the military police of the Navy) to begin humanitarian aid or short-term peacekeeping. The scope of the Navy’s operations overseas in the future will increasingly call for a Navy that is able to conduct brown-water ops (requiring vessels capable of traversing coastal waterways with relative ease as well as on occasion certain in-land waterways) as well as ashore operations. “

An excellent and timely post.

The U.S. Navy has a mixed record, historically speaking, entering into such operations which occurred often in the 19th century as commanders on the scene improvised with ad hoc expeditionary uses of sailors in Latin America, Africa and Asia. The caveat of course was that these were spontaneous reactions to circumstances and that the sailors were being used for a kind of warfare for which they had not been trained.

The WWII Seabees, of course, were often almost as formidible at combat as they were at engineering ( or doing both simultaneously). They were never crack combat units but ” tough” is not inaccurate as a descriptor.

This will be interesting to see if these Navy proposals shape up to run with or against the ” Jointness” philosophy.

RECOMMENDED READING

Distracted by a project in the works today that ultimately I think will please Zenpundit readers a great deal but it is still in the formative stage. Therefore, let the recommendations begin:

Dan of tdaxp, on his second grad degree, is being inundated by all kinds of academic, au courant, rad-crit theorizing. Never fear for Dan being unmasked by the Big Cheese however, as he knows how to walk without rhythm.

Homer Simpson as a Sheikh ?

Lord Curzon at Coming Anarchy discusses Ninjas in the Congo.

Horizontal thinkers may be biologically more efficient

That’s it !