Rethinking Security

REVIEW: THE RETURN OF HISTORY AND THE END OF DREAMS

Realism--the doctrine holds that power is the most important factor in foreign policy--is making a comeback. The commercial optimism of liberalism and the militarized idealism of neoconservatism , epitomized by the writings of Thomas Friedman and William Kristol, have largely fallen out of favor in the last few years. Liberalism's strong belief in the moderating power of international institutions and economic globalization has been challenged by the resurgence of blood-and-soil nationalism, authoritarian capitalism, and vicious interstate conflict. Neoconservatism's abiding belief that America can remake the world through raw force sank in the sands of Iraq. It is a sign of the times that leading neoconservative Robert Kagan has put out an essentially realist tract, The Return of History and the End of Dreams.

REPORT: MUGABE TRIUMPHANT

Mugabe isn't going anywhere. Why? He still has the control of the armed forces, his opposition is weak, and regional actors are going to let him be.

This is why we have to be extremely skeptical of claims that the Responsibility to Protect is advancing. If globalization is creating new rule-sets, a very old one is still prevalent in much of the developing world--sovereignty as a shield for murderers and tyrants.

REPORT: PSYOP ON IRAN

Laura Rozen makes the argument that the recent "Israel is going do do it" and Hersh SOF leaks are part of a coordinated psychological operations campaign directed at Iran's leaders. She argues that if Israel and the United States were serious about bombing Iran, they would not telegraph that action to the extent that the Pentagon has so far. I have mixed feelings.

It's plausible that the leaks are part of an intimidation campaign. However, it doesn't seem to be working on the Iranian leadership so far. The problem with a PSYOP campaign based on intimidation is the issue of American and Israeli credibility should the Iranians stick their middle fingers in the air and ignore our threats. Without some kind of follow-through, we look weak. It entraps us in the same Cold War dynamic of doing things simply to demonstrate credibility that led us into so many strategic mistakes.

On the other hand, we do have a history of telegraphing our punches. Our actions in the first two Gulf Wars were announced long before the first shot was fired, as were our air strikes in Bosnia and Kosovo. One of the reasons that Rumsfeld pushed so hard for lighter, more expeditionary forces was the problem of how it took months to build up in Saudi Arabia to challenge Hussein. We would have been in trouble had he decided to turn his armor southward towards the Saudis before we had massed our armies.

ANALYSIS: IRAN STRIKE?

Since 2005, we have seen an endless stream of exposes proclaiming that either the US or Israel will strike Iran. Nothing has happened. The problem with such analysis is the difficulty in separating tactical maneuvers designed to intimidate for short-term gain from strategic planning for assault. What Seymour Hersh might take as a leadup to a bombing sortie could just be an ephemeral show of force.

That's why we should take stories like Israel's recent fleet maneuvers and the alleged SOF operations inside Iran with a grain of salt. Hersh in particular has been reporting on infiltration and preparation of the battlefield for a long time. We are, to some extent, backing Iranian opposition groups and making contact with disaffected ethnic minorities. But that does not provide a foolproof indicator of an imminent assault.

One thing is for sure: if an attack happens--and there is still a very good chance that it will---we and our allies will suffer. I'm not going to rehash the litany of worst-case scenarios, as I'm sure most of the readers of this blog have already seen them. The depressing thing is that there is how unprepared we are for the blowback--whether we're talking about high oil prices or counterstrikes from Iranian surrogates like Hezbollah.

ANALYSIS: R2P AND OPEN-SOURCE HUMANITARIANISM

Thomas P.M. Barnett argues here that R2P---"The Responsibility to Protect" will eventually become a reality. Despite the lack of action to combat starvation and genocide in places like Burma and Darfur today,world economic connectivity will eventually ensure great power intervention in broken states
I frankly disagree. 

ANALYSIS: THE SHADOW OF WAR

I've been following Kosovo's furtive efforts to achieve independence and battles with internal ethnic division. The spectacle of NATO jets fighting a wily ethnic militias and the later struggle of international stabilization forces to pacify a country stratified along ethnic/religious lines was a harbinger of later struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the public memory, Kosovo is largely seen as a bloodless success. But the reality is far more complex. And we can learn valuable lessons from Kosovo's eventual outcome about the ultimate feasibility of nation-building. If UN and the European Union cannot reconstruct a state within the Core, we may have to rethink the feasibility of the whole enterprise.

A UN/EU protectorate, Kosovo is struggling to build administration, infrastructure, and a viable economy. Most important, the Serbian minority has never accepted the legitimacy of Kosovo's government nor does it feel comfortable as small minority within a largely Muslim ethnic Albanian society. Kosovo's Serbs see themselves as closer to Serbia's Slavic Orthodox Christians, and have resisted government authority.

Today, the AFP reports that Kosovo's Serbs have formed their own parliament. This assembly claims the right to pass laws for the "Republic of Serbia." On its face, this is not surprising--the Serbs have been constructing parallel institutions for some time. Most ominous is the refusal of Serbian policemen and other internal security personnel to take orders from the government.

Anyone who has read William S. Lind, Martin Van Creveld, or Samuel Huntingon has a good idea of where things could go from here. Thankfully, European internal security forces are deploying to the region. But the problem is rooted in the Kosovo Serbs' own primary loyalties, the Kosovar government's legitimacy problems and Serbia proper's desire to regain control of the region. It also should be noted that Russia will use this as an opportunity to roll back NATO influence. These are long-standing problems that must be addressed in order for some form of Balkan stability to emerge.

REPORT: RATIONALITY

Amitai Etzioni, author of Security First, argues here that Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is more akin to a "mental patient" than a rational ruler. This may be true, but is largely irrelevant. Ultimate authority in Iran rests with unelected clerics, most prominent being the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khameini. Commentary on Iran's intentions usually precedes from the false assumption that Ahmadinejad is the one with the finger on the big red button--when for all intents and purposes he is a figurehead. 

This interview in The Forward is a wonderful look into the internal dynamics of the Iranian state. As one defector explains, the Revolutionary Guard--the sword of revolution--has devolved into a kind of siloviki mafia. The clerics and government structure, while pushing for regional hegemony are wedded above all else to their power. The surest way to lose it would be to launch a nuclear strike on Israel or the United States. 

REPORT: TERROR AND RESPONSE

Matt Yglesias:

One impediment to undertaking a reasonable response to 9/11 is that, psychologically speaking, it feels as if the response should somehow be proportionate to the devastating emotional impact of the attacks. And when you contemplate the possibility of something even more horrible, like a nuclear attack on a city, then it seems like the preventive measures taken should, again, be incredibly dramatic. And yet the nitty-gritty of serious non-proliferation policy is deadly dull.

This is indeed a serious problem. One purpose of terrorism as a whole (not just WMD terror) is to compel an overreaction. The burden of this reaction will fall on those the terrorists or insurgents hope to recruit. But while it is one thing for a policymaker to understand this on an intellectual basis, it's another to actively market proportional policy solutions to the an understandably aggrieved public with a need to see some form of security theater.

LOCAL VIEW: OLYPMICS PROTEST

There have been many posts on the Tibetan protests exploiting the run-up to the Olympics, many advancing the argument that the transnational Tibetan/NGO movement are employing open-source insurgency methods. I myself have posted on the challenges NGOs face in exerting pressure on the Chinese government.

Last weekend, however, I caught a small fragment of the larger NGO crusade against China.

In New York City for the weekend, I saw a huge pro-Tibet protest in Union Square. A local cab driver (no, I'm not going all Tom Friedman on you) told me that there had been various protests going on for at least a month.   

Union Square was jam-packed with protesters, many of them toting large Tibetan banners. While other reported Olympics-related protests focused on a broader spectrum of Chinese human rights issues, this one was exclusively focused on Tibet. Tibetan monks and the usual array of Western hippie/counterculture hangers-on were out in force and dominated the protest. A snap judgment? I agree with John Robb's assertion that the Tibetan/human rights push against China will burn itself out.

ANALYSIS: DARFUR, CHINA, AND CITIZEN ADVOCACY

Steven Spielberg has quit his role as consultant to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Beyond giving China some bad PR, his decision will not substantially alter the country's policies towards Darfur. Still, the transnational coalition of music and film celebrities and professional NGO activists continue to press Beijing. Lost in the hubbub is the radical nature of this campaign--the first to try to pressure an authoritarian government to change its policies. Yes, Hollywood has protested over China's occupation of Tibet, but the campaign was directed primarily at Western audiences and aimed to convince decisionmakers to pressure China. This time, Spielberg, Mia Farrow, and their fellow activists are trying to convince the Chinese government itself to shift its foreign policy.