Tag Archives: war

“arrogant” foreign policy

Leave a reply

I would tend to agree with Jeffrey Sachs’s description below of U.S. foreign policy as “arrogant”.

Here is not the place to revisit all of the foreign policy disasters that have resulted from US arrogance towards Russia, but it suffices here to mention a brief and partial chronology of key events.  In 1999, NATO bombed Belgrade for 78 days with the goal of breaking Serbia apart and giving rise to an independent Kosovo, now home to a major NATO base in the Balkans.  In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty over Russia’s strenuous objections.  In 2003, the US and NATO allies repudiated the UN Security Council by going to war in Iraq on false pretenses.  In 2004, the US continued with NATO enlargement, this time to the Baltic States and countries in the Black Sea region (Bulgaria and Romania) and the Balkans.  In 2008, over Russia’s urgent and strenuous objections, the US pledged to expand NATO to Georgia and Ukraine.

In 2011, the US tasked the CIA to overthrow Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Russia.  In 2011, NATO bombed Libya in order to overthrow Moammar Qaddafi.  In 2014, the US conspired with Ukrainian nationalist forces to overthrow Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych.  In 2015, the US began to place Aegis anti-ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe(Romania), a short distance from Russia. In 2016-2020, the US supported Ukraine in undermining the Minsk II agreement, despite its unanimous backing by the UN Security Council.  In 2021, the new Biden Administration refused to negotiate with Russia over the question of NATO enlargement to Ukraine.  In April 2022, the US called on Ukraine to withdraw from peace negotiations with Russia.  

Looking back on the events around 1991-93, and to the events that followed, it is clear that the US was determined to say no to Russia’s aspirations for peaceful and mutually respectful integration of Russia and the West.  The end of the Soviet period and the beginning of the Yeltsin Presidency occasioned the rise of the neoconservatives (neocons) to power in the United States. The neocons did not and do not want a mutually respectful relationship with Russia.  They sought and until today seek a unipolar world led by a hegemonic US, in which Russia and other nations will be subservient.  

U.S. foreign policy has been a playground bully. Nobody likes or trusts a bully, but they fear and respect the bully. This works okay for the bully as long as they are perceived as strong. But as soon as they are perceived as weak or at least weaker compared to competitors, they have a problem. They can’t keep others in line through fear or respect any more, and they don’t have friendship or trust to fall back on.

It’s hard to imagine repairing the relationship with Russia right now. Their action in invading a sovereign neighbor cannot be excused no matter what we have done. We can manage the relationship to try to make it less bad going forward, and we can try to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them with China and other (relatively, perceived to be) increasingly powerful countries. We can first put policies in place that can build trust over time. Nobody will trust as at first, but if our actions were to match our promises over a period of decades we could slowly rebuild our relationships. Here are a few ideas to bandy about: (1) a no-first-strike nuclear policy, (2) serious commitments to nuclear weapons reductions, and re-entering or re-establishing of treaties and agreements with other countries that have or potentially seek nuclear weapons, (3) nuclear power for countries that want it, in exchange for a commitment not to seek nuclear weapons and submission to a strict inspection regime, (4) a commitment not to invade sovereign UN member states ever again without a Security Council resolution, (5) a commitment not to interfere in other countries’ elections or seek “regime change” ever again through covert action, only through public diplomatic channels. There are plenty of things I leave off here (biological weapons and pandemic preparedness, food security, carbon emissions to rattle off just a few) but these are some basic war-and-peace ideas, and we need peace to have a shot at solving the other complex problems the world faces right now. Getting politicians to make these commitments or similar ones would be hard, and sticking with them for decades would be harder, but it needs to be done.

April 2024

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: Peter Turchin’s description of a “wealth pump” leading to stagnation and political instability seems to fit the United States pretty well at this moment. The IMF shows that global productivity has been slowing since the US-caused financial crisis in 2008. In Turchin’s model, our November election will be a struggle between elites and counter-elites who both represent the wealthy and powerful. That sounds about right, but I still say it is a struggle between competence and incompetence, and competence is a minimum thing we need to survive in a dangerous world. In early April I thought things were trending painfully slowly, but clearly, in Biden’s direction. As I write this in early May I am no longer convinced of that.

Most hopeful story: Some tweaks to U.S. trade policy might be able to significantly ease the “border crisis” and create a broad political coalition of bigots, big business, and people who buy things in stores.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: If the singularity is in fact near, our worries about a productivity slow down are almost over, and our new worries will be about boredom in our new lives of leisure. It doesn’t seem like a good idea to count on this happening in the very near future, and therefore stop trying to solve the problems we have at the moment. This would be one of those “nice to have” problems. If it does in fact materialize, the places to be will be the ones that manage to shut down Peter Turchin’s wealth pump and spread the newfound wealth, rather than the places where a chosen few live god-like existences while leaving the masses in squalor.

NATO’s 2011 adventure in Libya

Leave a reply

I wanted to refresh my memory on what happened in Libya in 2011. Well, to actually understand the factions and politics is well beyond my relatively limited grasp of geography and history. But as I was thinking about violations of sovereignty by UN Security Council members (of which the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Russian invasions of Ukraine are blatant examples), it occurred to me that 3 of the 5 permanent Security Council members (the U.S., France, and UK) were involved in this action. So if it was illegal, that would mean that 4 of 5 permanent Security Council members (all except China!) have been involved in illegal invasions of sovereign countries in the recent past.

But if we take Wikipedia as an authoritative source, there was a Security Council resolution that authorized a NATO “no-fly zone” (aka bombing campaign) in Libya, and what was done fell within the resolution. Russia and China abstained from that vote. So I am going to classify it as legal whether ill-advised or not. I think Russia can legitimately point to the U.S. Iraq invasion as a “whatabout” relevant to its invasion of Ukraine, but I don’t think it can point to Libya.

I guess my point here is that the relevance of the Security Council seems to have declined greatly, and maybe you can trace the beginning of its decline to the U.S. Iraq invasion. Whether it can be brought back to relevance, or whether the Ukraine invasion is the final nail in its coffin, remains to play out. But if the members want to save it, it would seem that some commitment and effort would be required, and I don’t see many signs of that happening.

a pacifist perspective on the Russia-Ukraine war

Leave a reply

Here is one perspective from “The North American Peace Movement” on the Ukraine war.

Initially, there was less clarity regarding the events in Ukraine of February 24, 2022. With research and reflection, most of the movement came to understand the conflict did not begin that day. The supposedly “unprovoked” Russian intervention in Ukraine was sparked by NATO moving closer and closer to the Russian border, the 2014 Maidan coup, the sabotage of the Minsk agreements, etc.

A consensus is maturing in the antiwar movement that Ukraine is a proxy war by the US and its NATO allies to weaken Russia. Even key corporate press and government officials now recognize the conflict as a “full proxy war” by the US designed to use the Ukrainian people to mortally disable Russia.

Dissident Voice

I can see a perspective that the Ukraine war really started with the Russian invasion of Crimea (aka Ukraine) in 2014 and the Russian-supported independence declarations of two other provinces in the east of the country. It was really a military conflict between sovereign countries at that point, and you can see the 2022 invasion as a new campaign within that war. The “Maidan coup” was the 2014 ouster of a pro-Russian government through a parliamentary process, and the election of an arguably anti-Russian government through an election with a lot of international observers that was generally deemed free and fair. I wouldn’t doubt for a second that the CIA interfered in that election at least through financial and propaganda support for its preferred side, and I wouldn’t doubt for a second that Russia and many other governments’ intelligence agencies did too. I can see the point of view that the Russian governing class has felt threatened by the U.S. and NATO going all the way back to the Balkan war in the 1990s and feels they are making a stand. And I don’t doubt that U.S. and NATO leaders encouraged Ukraine not to accept its initial loss of territory after 2014 (“the Minsk agreement”) in return for promises of military support.

Russia never respected Ukraine’s status as a sovereign nation state. This is the single greatest issue to me – Ukraine is a recognized sovereign nation with a seat at the UN, and all other UN nation states need to stand up for any nation state whose established territory is violated. This just has to be a bedrock principle that everyone (ESPECIALLY the U.S. following its adventure in Iraq) needs to recommit to.

America’s “ambiguous” Taiwan policy

Leave a reply

This article explains the U.S. policy of being intentionally vague about defending Taiwan. It is all about maximizing deterrence. Historically, the idea was both to deter China from any attack, but also to deter Taiwan from a declaration of independence that would be likely to provoke an attack. Going forward, this article suggests arming Taiwan to the teeth and encircling China by stationing U.S. forces in Japan, the Philippines and Australia.

I don’t know – not being a foreign policy expert but not wanting war or especially nuclear war, I might focus on convincing China that the U.S. is not a threat to them as long as they do not threaten Taiwan. And keep reducing our nuclear stockpile so they don’t feel like they have to keep growing theirs, and consider a no first strike policy.

Formalizing the U.S. alliance with other countries in the region sounds a bit NATO-like, and look how well that has been working for Europe.

Ralph Nader on Gaza

1 Reply

I haven’t made up my mind on the Gaza situation, and therefore I haven’t talked a lot about it. And I probably shouldn’t, but I want to get my own thoughts in order. You can stop reading here if you want.

The October 7 attacks were horrific and it is entirely understandable why Israel would choose an overwhelming and violent response. In case we forget the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. invaded not one but two sovereign countries after those attacks, and occupied them for 20 years. There were not so many video cameras in those countries as we have in Gaza now, so the civilian suffering was not in the western public eye to the extent it is now, but the suffering was undoubtedly horrible. This is more like the Vietnam war, which was very public and which people had a very visceral reaction to.

Second, there are people in positions of power on both sides who espouse hateful, racist ideologies. These people have intentionally monkey-wrenched the peace process at least since the hopeful moment of the Oslo accords in the 1990s. The participants in that peace accord were murdered by racist ideologues (one assassination 100% documented; the other somewhat obviously poisoned in my opinion, but maybe not established 100%.) Antisemitism has been a problem since Roman times, and is a problem throughout the Muslim world today. Hateful, fundamentalist ideology also drives the settler movement. I do have a position on the settlements – I agree with the international consensus that they are wrong and illegal, and they need to stop.

Now to war crimes. I am not an expert on the subject, but I know there is an international consensus against collective punishment and against ethnic cleansing. The Israeli government is quite clearly engaging in these two things under any logical textbook definition, and I don’t think this is justified as a response to the original attacks. As for genocide, I don’t believe they are intentionally exterminating civilians, which is what many people associate with genocide. Under the UN definition of genocide, the ethnic cleansing (forcible and permanent moving of populations) counts as genocide, and they are guilty of it. There is a question of whether the Israeli government intends the movement to be permanent, but I am convinced that there is at least an element within the Israeli government that would like to reduce the Palestinian population of Gaza permanently by forcing people across the Egyptian border. I have always found the UN definition problematic though because some of its sub-parts are so obviously more violent and evil than others. There are degrees of unimaginable depravity. For example, murdering 6 million people is a higher plane of depravity than taking children away from their parents for reeducation to destroy their traditional culture and language (the Chinese approach in Xinxiang, the U.S. treatment of Native Americans well into the 20th century – of course, the U.S. military shot and displaced plenty of Native Americans in support of settler colonialism in the 19th century, lest we forget).

So back to civilian suffering, which is horrible. Is it justified as unavoidable collateral damage in an otherwise proportionate response to the original attack? I can’t answer this, but it seems there is much more that can and should be done to alleviate the suffering. The extreme ideological elements on both sides seem mostly indifferent to this suffering.

I promised to get to Ralph Nader. He says the real death toll is closer to 300,000 than 30,000. The 30,000 counts only official deaths reported by hospitals, while he believes there are hundreds of thousands of bodies buried under rubble that have not been counted.

With virtually no healthcare left, no medications, and infectious diseases spreading especially among infants, children, the infirm, and the elderly, can anybody believe that the fatalities have just gone over 30,000? With 5,000 babies born every month into the rubble, their mothers wounded and without food, healthcare, medicine, and clean water for any of their children, severe skepticism about the Hamas Health Ministry’s official count is warranted.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas, which he helped over the years, have a common interest in lowballing the death and injury toll. But for different reasons. Hamas keeps the figures low to reduce being accused by its own people of not protecting them, and not building shelters. Hamas grossly underestimated the savage war crimes by the vengeful, occupying Israeli military superpower fully and unconditionally backed by the U.S. military superpower.

The Health Ministry is intentionally conservative, citing that its death toll came from reports only of named deceased by hospitals and morgues. But as the weeks turned into months, blasted, disabled hospitals and morgues cannot keep up with the bodies, or cannot count those slain laying on roadsides in allies and beneath building debris. Yet the Health Ministry remains conservative and the “official” rising civilian fatality and injury count continues to be uncritically reported by both friend and foe of this devastating Israeli state terrorism.

Ralph Nader

Strong words. If true, it is an impressive piece of propaganda for the Israeli government to question the Hamas estimate as being too high by a factor of 10, when it is actually too low by a factor of 10.

As for the aftermath of the operation, I picture something like the Chinese government’s approach in Tibet and Xinjiang, where the location and behavior of individual people is individually tracked and people are taken away for incarceration or reeducation. This also meets the UN definition of genocide, but at least it would be relatively bloodless compared to the intense suffering we are seeing now (and Chinese government’s genocide is relatively bloodless compared to the U.S. invasion and occupation of neighboring Afghanistan). For Palestine, I don’t see much hope for a return to the optimism of the 1990s any time soon.

what are U.S. special forces up to?

Leave a reply

Naked Capitalism has a long article which links to a lot of other long articles.

SOCOM carries out the United States’ most specialised and secret missions. These include assassinations, counterterrorist raids, long-range reconnaissance, intelligence analysis, foreign troop training, and weapons of mass destruction counter-proliferation operations[.]

One of [SOCOM’s] key components is the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, a clandestine sub-command whose primary mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. 

Naked Capitalism

Training other countries’ militaries at their invitation seems okay. The question is always who is running that country, what is their human rights record, etc. Tracking and killing terrorists is problematic because just designating someone a terrorist makes it okay to kill them. Like for example, any individual involved with an “Iran-backed group” in Syria, Yemen, or wherever. Which are countries our troops are most definitely not invited to be in. If you have troops on the ground in a sovereign country that you are not invited to be in, how is that not a war against that country? These are often “disputed territories” of one sort or another, but again if you can just label as place you want to invade a disputed territory and then invade it (as Russia has done repeatedly), that is clearly problematic.

Finally the really scary thing about special forces is they can kill politicians and take over countries, if they want to. Including ours. Let’s hope they don’t want to, but if someone ever wants to do that and has control over the special forces, this is the direction a straight-up military coup could come from. They would just come up with a narrative that it is necessary to “protect the constitution”, and the demands of the dead founding father-gods would then trump whatever living civilians are actually nominally in charge at that moment. Don’t worry about the other branches of government – the Cowardly Congress will go along with it, and the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case.

how many U.S. troops in Yemen?

1 Reply

Well, the answer to this one has to be zero, right??? According to the War Powers Report submitted to Congress by the White House in December, the answer is “a small number”. The summary letter I have linked to also lists other deployments the U.S. considers part of its “counterterrorism” efforts in the greater Middle East. So the “war on terror” is very much continuing. Most of this is about combating “ISIS” and “ISIL”, more or less at the invitation of the host government. These groups are not “Iran-backed” as far as I know, and in fact are even threatening to Iran.

The U.S. is also sometimes attacking Iran-backed groups and Iranian military advisers under the umbrella of counterterrorism. This particularly catches my eye:

As reported on November 22, 2023, I directed United States forces to conduct discrete strikes on the night of November 21, 2023, against facilities in Iraq used by the IRGC and IRGC-affiliated groups for command and control, logistics, and other purposes.  These strikes followed attacks against United States personnel and facilities in Iraq and Syria that threatened the lives of United States personnel and Coalition forces operating alongside United States forces, and that were perpetrated by the IRGC and militia groups affiliated with the IRGC.  A United States contractor suffered a fatal cardiac incident while moving to shelter during one of these attacks.  I directed these discrete military actions consistent with my responsibility to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and to conduct United States foreign relations.

whitehouse.gov

I’ll try: “Iran-backed” groups are fighting “US-backed” groups in various countries. Iran and the US both have military advisers in various countries. U.S. troops and contractors are occasionally getting hurt in attacks maybe aimed directly at them, and maybe aimed at more local parties. We’re there because they are fighting us, and they are fighting us because we’re there.