zenpundit.com

THE MAZARR THESIS OF PSYCHOPOLITIK: THE PREFACE

At the behest of the esteemed Colonel Austin Bay ( a request seconded by Matt at Mountainrunner) I have read and endorse for your perusal “ Extremism, Terror, and the Future of Conflict ” by Professor Michael J. Mazarr, which has been published in Policy Review and posted online at RealClearPolitics.

Mazarr tackles Network-Centric Warfare, Martin van Creveld and 4GW and then offers up the concept of Psychopolitik. Dig into it and feel free to offer up your own analysis; mine will be following on Wednesday.

RECOMMENDED READING

Usually I do these on Sunday but I ran out of steam after three posts yesterday. On the bright side, my sloth has been rewarded by other bloggers posting better things for me to pick and choose.

Curzon at Coming Anarchy – “ Mapping the Gap, Prelude“

Kingdaddy at Arms and Influence – ” Counterinsurgency is easier, part II.”

Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye – “From Way Up Here“

Arnaud de Borchgrave at The Washington Times – “Turmoil tripwires and byproducts“

Orrin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy – ” Rumsfeld v. FAIR” ( Today’s SCOTUS decision)

The next one is a real kicker that demonstrates the schizophrenic nature of the USG in the war on terror. One of the former leaders – yes, that’s right, leaders – of the Taliban(!) is now a student at Yale University. WTF ???? This is like inviting former Nazi gauleiters to come over and visit in 1948. Why is this guy not matriculating in Gitmo ? Who at State and Homeland Security imagined that giving this Islamist totalitarian thug a visa was a good idea?

John Fund at WSJ – ” Taliban Man at Yale“

That’s it.

JIHAD DOCUMENTS AND ANALYSIS

A set of analytical pieces and the captured al Qaida documents on which they are based that have appeared recently in the blogosphere in such places as DNI, American Future and The Small Wars Council.

A lot to dive in here, all of it worth reading and it also gives me the unmistakable feeling that the intelligentsia of jihad are avid readers of American military theory on the web including 4GW, COIN doctrine, asymmetric warfare and so on.

Hmm, given the possibility of a feedback loop being in operation, perhaps we need more blog posts convincing al Qaida that it needs to have a gold-plated weapons acquisition and appropriation process. When Osama bin Laden is reported to have ordered a QDR then we may be on the cusp of victory.

Dr. Michael Scheuer – ” al Qaida Insurgency Doctrine: Aiming For A Long War” at The Jamestown Foundation

William Lind – “Army Wins One“

The Combating Terrorism Center :

“Harmony and Disharmony: Exploiting al-Qa’ida’s Organizational Vulnerabilities“

“Stealing al- Qa’ida’s Playbook“

Harmony Documents in English and Arabic PDF files

DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS AND THE USE OF FORCE [ UPDATED]

Marc Schulman at American Future posted on a real eye-opener of a survey from MIT on the partisan attitudes toward the use of force by the United States. Here are the results ( hat tip to Marc for the following table):

“Democrats (percent expressing approval)

1. To protect American allies under attack by foreign nations: 75.7%
2. To help the UN uphold international law: 70.5%
3. To destroy a terrorist camp: 57.3%
4. To intervene in a region where there is genocide or a civil war: 55.6%
5. To insure the supply of oil: 10.2%
6. To assist the spread of democracy: 6.5%

Average: 46.0%

Republicans (percent expressing approval)
1. To destroy a terrorist camp: 94.8%
2. To protect American allies under attack by foreign nations: 91.9%
3. To intervene in a region where there is genocide or a civil war: 61.4%
4. To assist the spread of democracy: 53.2%
5. To insure the supply of oil: 40.9%
6. To help the UN uphold international law: 35.5%

Average: 63.0% “

A sharp divergence to say the least and a decided discomfort on the Democratic side for using military force to pursue American national interests as opposed to more abstract and altruistic goals. Though even in the latter case the morally persuasive objective of halting genocide lags behind the more ethereal ” help UN uphold international law”.

In my humble opinion, the sophisticated bipartisan foreign policy elite hews closer to the positions expressed by the Democratic respondents, though with far greater realism for such things as supporting allies or securing oil. It was Jimmy Carter, after all, who was the first president to formally define the Persian Gulf as a vital American interest.

The Bush administration is probably to the right of even the Republican respondents in the survey, though currently their options for the use of force are much tempered by the magnitude of our existing commitments. Hence the greater emphasis on diplomacy in the second term.

UPDATE:

Dr. Von weighs in in the first of several posts.

UNPALATABLE OPTIONS [ UPDATED]

Colonel Pat Lang of Sic Semper Tyrannis and counterterrorism expert Larry Johnson have penned an article for In The National Interest on American options in Iran. Interestingly, as fairly severe critics of the Bush administration and the failures of the IC in Iraq they see Iran’s nuclear program as a real and dire issue for which exists a paucity of good options.

What if grand diplomacy fails ( And diplomacy will only succeed if all the great powers, the UN and Iran’s neighbors are solidly arrayed against a completely isolated Teheran – and we offer the Iranians a ” good deal” – and even then this will only serve to delay the progress of the nuke program) ?:

Our real problem is the nature of the Iranian regime – particularly the faction that backs President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which represents the “permanent revolution” wing of Iranian Islamist hardliners. My view is if the consequences of striking Iran are as significant as projected and the nuclear facilities targets are as hardened, dispersed and concealed as described, that we might as well make a grand decapitation attack instead against Iran’s hardline faction and organs of security, control and communication, depriving the survivors of effective levers of power over the Iranian people. Sort of an Operation Desert Fox on steroids and methamphetamines. Perhaps we can incite and arm the Baluchi tribesmen of Eastern Iran as well, though Pakistan would probably be rather jumpy about that kind of a covert-op. After we max out the decapitation option we can turn our attention to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and degrade it methodically.

Pull the arrows out of the Mullah’s quiver before breaking their bow.

UPDATE:

“How we duped the West, by Iran’s nuclear negotiator” in the UK Telegraph

(Hat Tip: Memeorandum)