Tag: Iraq

  • “How about starting an Afghan Peace Process Today?” Mickey Glantz. 14 September 2010

    “How about starting an Afghan Peace Process Today?” Mickey Glantz. 14 September 2010

    Mickey Glantz
    14 September 2010

    “The Middle East Peace Process is alive, if not well”

    In the introduction of his book Peace Process, William B. Quandt wrote, “Sometime in the mid-1970s the term peace process began to be widely used to describe the American-led efforts to bring about a negotiated peace between Israel and its neighbors. The phrase stuck, and ever since it has been synonymous with the gradual, step-by-step approach to resolving one of the world’s most difficult conflicts. In the years since 1967 the emphasis in Washington has shifted from the spelling out of the ingredients of ‘peace’ to the ‘process’ of getting there.” [from Wikipedia: Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and University of California Press].

    Once again since the mid-1960s, newspapers and TV channels are filled with facts and subjective commentaries about the Middle East Peace Process and the prospects for peace. We’ve heard about this process for decades with some successes but a lot more of “marking time or major setbacks.” Many blame a failure of the parties to communicate. The “failure to communicate,” though, is not the problem.

    The various factions involved in or concerned about bringing peace to the region know well what the other protagonists want. The problem is that no one really wants to give in to what the others want, because it would impinge on what they strategically want to achieve from the peace negotiation process. This process has been going on for decades and now there are institutions and their leaders who actually benefit not from peace success but from stalemating the peace process. Nevertheless, each US President tries to broker a peace agreement in the volatile Middle East and each time the process ends with assassinations, conflict and stalemate.

    In the meantime, a few thousand miles away, the US military is engaged one way or another in wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. US combat operations have allegedly come to a recent halt (though about 50,000 troops remain in the country and we do have an unusually huge embassy complex there). As for the war in Afghanistan, it is heating up and US troops are increasingly in harms way, as the weekly fatality count shows.

    This map speaks for itself

    So, my question is this: if successive US political administrations, both Democrat and Republican (liberal and conservative), agree on fostering peace negotiations in the Middle East and view negotiation among enemies as a good thing, why is a peace process not viewed as a useful path toward bringing peace to southwest Asia and especially to Afghanistan?

    If we feel so committed and confident that we can bring about peace is such a troubled region as the Middle East, why not show that very same level of commitment to our own peace process to get US troops out of Afghanistan? As the adage goes, “what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander,” no?

  • “Hooray for President Harding: President Bush has replaced you as America’s worst president.” Mickey Glantz. 10 January 2010

    President Warren G. Harding was America’s 23rd president. Harding won the presidency by the largest landslide of votes up to that election. His popularity throughout his first term was apparently relatively high. By the untimely end of his Presidency, he was viewed by most historians as one of the worst, if not the worst, president in American history; and that was what we were taught in high school civics class. Given the performances of several of the 40+ presidents of the United States we have had throughout the history of our country until recently, this was no small achievement.

    The truth is that Harding’s Administration became the standard for bad government, against which each succeeding presidency has been compared. And it is now most likely that the administration of Bush 2 (George W.) has surpassed the Harding Administration’s ranking as the worst and most corrupt administration in American history. In this category, George W. Bush is #1.

    Just to remind you, Harding and his inner circle of cronies were responsible for quite a list of failings in his 2+ years in office: sex scandals (aside from his affairs, Harding fathered a child while he was a married sitting president); drugs (several references to “white powder” as well as alcohol use in the midst of Prohibition days that banned the sale of alcohol to the public), violence, considerable corruption, cronyism and even murder. One newspaper wrote: “The country that held its breath over the death of the president was now holding its nose over the stench of corruption.”

    President Harding became the presidential nominee on an umpteenth ballot during the Republican National Convention in the summer of 1920. He was far from anyone’s first choice but the factions, developed during the nominating process supporting the leading candidates, became deadlocked uncompromisingly in the convention and, after many votes, the delegates turned to Harding as the “dark horse” candidate. He became the Republican Party nominee after being selected in a “smoke-filled” room of party moguls.

    hardingradiomsg1
    baberuthhardingropeningdayapril1923

    After a couple years in office, Harding died during a trip across the country, called “Voyage of Understanding” in August 1923. He made the trip to Alaska and the Inland Passage, where he allegedly had some bad food and was felled by food poisoning during a speech in Seattle on the way back to Washington, DC. Attending doctors disagreed on cause of death in a hotel room in San Francisco.
    hardingmemstamp

    Considerable controversy prevailed about the premature death of Harding in late summer 1923, a controversy that lasted ‘till the Stock Market crash in October 1929. Some at the time felt that the president’s wife had ‘done him in’, because of the Teapot Dome and other scandals that were about to emerge because of the activities of his political cronies.

    In her autobiography, Alice Roosevelt Longworth (the daughter of President Theodore Roosevelt) wrote of Harding in her autobiography, “He was not a bad man. He was just a slob.” Really, Harding was manipulated by a set of “handlers” who abused his trust in them. In fact, Harding’s father once suggested, “people could play Warren like a fiddle” (e.g., he had no backbone).
    noneworse-than-harding1

    Fast forward to 2010. Today, Harding can rest in peace, because a growing number of Americans no longer consider him to have been the country’s worst president. That title seems to have been captured by President George W. Bush.

    Harding had selected members of his administration who were at both extremes: honest as best as could be found and corrupt to the Nth degree. They included both the best of minds and the worst of character. For example, Herbert Hoover was an honest man while his Attorney General Dougherty — the guy who got Harding into the White House — was a major crook. His Secretary of the Interior was also bad news (Senator Albert Fall of New Mexico). There was an article written about “The Fall of Albert Fall” referring to him as “the member of Harding’s Cabinet whose life read like a dime-store novel.”

    In this regard, both Bush and Harding were alike: they appointed cronies to various positions in their administrations, whose myopic and egocentric views of the world the presidents apparently accepted.

    And then there are Supreme Court justice appointments to compare: Harding appointed such notable Supreme Court justices as Felix Frankfurter and Charles Evans Hughes. Bush has Chief Justice Roberts and Samuel Alito Jr. Bush had tried get his White House counsel and friend (!), Harriet Meirs, onto the Court. Her name was withdrawn under pressure from his own Republican Party as a poor choice for such a high position. Bush, like Harding, was loyal to his friends — usually to a fault.

    By early 1923 Harding realized that some of his appointees (several of whom were his poker-playing, whiskey-drinking buddies) were unsuited for their government positions, because they were involved in illegal and unethical activities (corruption, bribery, influence peddling, the selling off of government materials as war surplus). They had also set in motion the now infamous oil-related Teapot Dome scandal that enabled the government’s oil reserves in Wyoming (VP Cheney’s home state) to be stolen and sold for personal gain). In summer of 1923 Harding became distraught and decided to clean up his administration.

    The Teapot Dome scandal would have been Harding’s political downfall, had he not died before it was exposed to the public. Thus, for both Bush and Harding “oil” issues have tainted their administrations with many people thinking that the Bush-Cheney team invaded Iraq for reasons related to oil. One major difference, though, is that Harding appears to have been oblivious to the dealings of the people around him; that was the opposite case for Bush.

    Harding is the apparent author of the phrase “It’s not my enemies I have to worry about. It’s my friends”. He uttered this statement, once he learned about the corrupt practices of several of his crony appointees.

    Bush on the other hand was in sync with the views of those around him, knowing that there have been obvious exaggerations and distortions of information on which his policies were based (such as persistent belief to this day in their claims about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and about Saddam’s close ties to al-Qaida).

    Bush’s image began to deteriorate at an accelerated pace, in the first year of his second term. He has been exposed as a failure in office by the inappropriate appointment of his cronies, such as Michael Brown. He appointed his Yale school chum as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Brown, with the backing of Bush, managed to mismanage FEMA’s response to the devastating human impacts of Hurricane Katrina, America’s costliest “natural disaster.” This plus the near destruction of the American economy, the rampant greed on Wall Street and the bungling of various aspects of the war in Iraq and the lack of focus on Afghanistan among other poltical and military screw-ups has helped Bush to deserve the title of the worst president in US history.

    The following is a list comparing Bush to other presidents. The list was compiled by a political writer (http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html).
    “Bush as president has been unique in his failures.” The George W. Bush presidency is the worst…
    • In terms of economic damage, R. Reagan.
    • In terms of imperialism, T. Roosevelt.
    • In terms of dishonesty in government, R.M. Nixon.
    • In terms of affable incompetence, W.G. Harding.
    • In terms of corruption, U.S. Grant.
    • In terms of general lassitude and cluelessness, C. Coolidge.
    • In terms of personal dishonesty, W.J. Clinton.
    • In terms of religious arrogance, W. Wilson.
    Obviously, an objective evaluation of the Bush Administration, without the subjectivity many of us have today, will be recorded by historians. But, from my perspective Bush seems to have earned the dubious honor of being No. 1 in the list of worst American Presidents. Rest in Peace, Warren, you are now #2.mission-accomplished2

  • “End Run Wars” are not only for the weak, OR Know your enemies before you act!

    Mickey Glantz in Tokyo

    22 May 2009

    “End Run Wars” are not only for the weak, OR Know your enemies before you act!

    When I was in graduate school back in the second half of the 1960s, the heart of the Cold War rivalry between the USA and the USSR, I took several classes on conflict. The conflicts that captured my attention were hot conflicts, wars particularly, and especially revolutionary wars. Such wars at that time were being carried out by political, cultural or ideological groups wanting to gain independence from the control of a larger hegemon whom they felt did not care for the well being of the people they claimed to represent.

    At that time certain books were fairly prominent, but at least to a graduate student the writings of his or her professor took on an added value (such as higher grades for citing their works in an essay exam in addition to the value of the usable information within the books). One title that I recall that had a lasting influence on me apparently was a book by Dr. Robert Strausz-Hupe entitled “Protracted Conflict”. I recently perused the book in order to see if more than the title was still relevant to an enhanced understanding of today’s post Cold War conflicts. Many of the writings before 2000 seem to be lost among young researchers today as they were written “in the last century” and there is a feeling (I suffer from it too) that if the publication was not done after the turn of the millennium than there must be better, more current and more relevant stuff written today. Of course this is a dumb assumption, given that by now we are likely to be reading the latest book’s summaries of summaries of original works. In other words, as a result of this process we are highly likely to be losing information, as each summarizer is like a filter that sifts out what he or she feels is relevant for access by future readers.

    The truth is that I did not re-read “Protracted Conflict” closely but I felt it did not really have a lot of direct relevance to an improved understanding of today’s conflicts, like the ones in Iraq and in Afghanistan. So, I went to the Internet to search for a definition of a concept I heard somewhere in those Dark Ages of graduate school. The concept — an end run war — has been popping into my mind of late, and I am not sure why. So today, in a Tokyo Starbuck’s I could not find commentary on end run wars. So, now I have to wing it (lest I be forced, oh no!!! to go to a gasp, real library and do old-fashioned search).

    As I recall the concept of an end run war, it was a war started by a weaker power who perceived that the stronger power was involved in some sort of quagmire — political, financial, military — and that it would be a good time to attack in order to gain some long sought after gain. That is what I recall as being an end run war. While perhaps successful at the outset, over time the weaker power tends to show up as just that, weaker, and the early gains on the battlefield are reversed as the major power regains its focus and rallies to pushback, if not overrun, the weaker power that attacked it.

    Fast forward now to the present: Looking back at the origins of the Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the attempt to topple Saddam Hussein from power, one could argue that the US-Iraq war was an end run war precipitated by a strong power in the belief that the weaker power would collapse. All signs looked that way as US troops (or the troops of the so-called “coalition of the willing”) made their way so quickly to Baghdad with little military opposition. It appeared and was presented to the public that Hussein’s army had collapsed in short order. Of course, that led to the premature disastrous and embarrassing ‘photo-opportunity’ by President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” staged event on a US carrier. And then the real war began. The infusion of foreign fighters joining Al-Queda, local dissidents, abandoned army and police members, rivaling ethnic groups caused a military backlash against the allies that converted what seemed like a quick-victory end run war and into a 6-year nightmare for the US President, his administration, the Republican Party (and fellow-traveling Democrats) and the American and Iraqi people.

    Now we have a new president, He has inherited the falling out of the worst outcomes of what was to have been a successful end run war. While the war effort in Iraq winds down and the US government tries to put a happy face on it as it prepares to leave in the next couple years, that smiley face will begin to frown as the US troops are not sent home to American soil but into harm’s way in Afghanistan to fight the growing number of Taliban who in the last few months have spilled into neighboring parts of Pakistan. The region is in turmoil with Iran emerging as a regional superpower, Iraq unstable and a war in Afghanistan that is increasingly intractable.

    It seems that end run wars regardless of whether weak attack strong or strong attacks weak, victory is not so assured for the perpetrators. Wars as we now are reminded are often easier to start than to finish. The escalating engagement in Afghanistan will be no different.

  • “End Run Wars” are not only for the weak, OR Know your enemies before you act!

    Mickey Glantz in Tokyo

    22 May 2009

    “End Run Wars” are not only for the weak, OR Know your enemies before you act!

    When I was in graduate school back in the second half of the 1960s, the heart of the Cold War rivalry between the USA and the USSR, I took several classes on conflict. The conflicts that captured my attention were hot conflicts, wars particularly, and especially revolutionary wars. Such wars at that time were being carried out by political, cultural or ideological groups wanting to gain independence from the control of a larger hegemon whom they felt did not care for the well being of the people they claimed to represent.

    At that time certain books were fairly prominent, but at least to a graduate student the writings of his or her professor took on an added value (such as higher grades for citing their works in an essay exam in addition to the value of the usable information within the books). One title that I recall that had a lasting influence on me apparently was a book by Dr. Robert Strausz-Hupe entitled “Protracted Conflict”. I recently perused the book in order to see if more than the title was still relevant to an enhanced understanding of today’s post Cold War conflicts. Many of the writings before 2000 seem to be lost among young researchers today as they were written “in the last century” and there is a feeling (I suffer from it too) that if the publication was not done after the turn of the millennium than there must be better, more current and more relevant stuff written today. Of course this is a dumb assumption, given that by now we are likely to be reading the latest book’s summaries of summaries of original works. In other words, as a result of this process we are highly likely to be losing information, as each summarizer is like a filter that sifts out what he or she feels is relevant for access by future readers.

    The truth is that I did not re-read “Protracted Conflict” closely but I felt it did not really have a lot of direct relevance to an improved understanding of today’s conflicts, like the ones in Iraq and in Afghanistan. So, I went to the Internet to search for a definition of a concept I heard somewhere in those Dark Ages of graduate school. The concept — an end run war — has been popping into my mind of late, and I am not sure why. So today, in a Tokyo Starbuck’s I could not find commentary on end run wars. So, now I have to wing it (lest I be forced, oh no!!! to go to a gasp, real library and do old-fashioned search).

    As I recall the concept of an end run war, it was a war started by a weaker power who perceived that the stronger power was involved in some sort of quagmire — political, financial, military — and that it would be a good time to attack in order to gain some long sought after gain. That is what I recall as being an end run war. While perhaps successful at the outset, over time the weaker power tends to show up as just that, weaker, and the early gains on the battlefield are reversed as the major power regains its focus and rallies to pushback, if not overrun, the weaker power that attacked it.

    Fast forward now to the present: Looking back at the origins of the Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the attempt to topple Saddam Hussein from power, one could argue that the US-Iraq war was an end run war precipitated by a strong power in the belief that the weaker power would collapse. All signs looked that way as US troops (or the troops of the so-called “coalition of the willing”) made their way so quickly to Baghdad with little military opposition. It appeared and was presented to the public that Hussein’s army had collapsed in short order. Of course, that led to the premature disastrous and embarrassing ‘photo-opportunity’ by President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” staged event on a US carrier. And then the real war began. The infusion of foreign fighters joining Al-Queda, local dissidents, abandoned army and police members, rivaling ethnic groups caused a military backlash against the allies that converted what seemed like a quick-victory end run war and into a 6-year nightmare for the US President, his administration, the Republican Party (and fellow-traveling Democrats) and the American and Iraqi people.

    Now we have a new president, He has inherited the falling out of the worst outcomes of what was to have been a successful end run war. While the war effort in Iraq winds down and the US government tries to put a happy face on it as it prepares to leave in the next couple years, that smiley face will begin to frown as the US troops are not sent home to American soil but into harm’s way in Afghanistan to fight the growing number of Taliban who in the last few months have spilled into neighboring parts of Pakistan. The region is in turmoil with Iran emerging as a regional superpower, Iraq unstable and a war in Afghanistan that is increasingly intractable.

    It seems that end run wars regardless of whether weak attack strong or strong attacks weak, victory is not so assured for the perpetrators. Wars as we now are reminded are often easier to start than to finish. The escalating engagement in Afghanistan will be no different.