Arms and influence

Christmas in California

Unless you spend your holiday in a mountain retreat like Lake Tahoe or Idyllwild, Christmas in California does not resemble the familiar yuletide imagery.  The Christmas landscape in the mythic, frozen moment of suburban American Godtime is smothered by snow, sheeted in ice. In the suburban reality of most of California, Christmas is a season of water. Rain makes its infrequent and therefore welcome visits to Southern California, delivering the gifts of added moisture to the irrigated desert and chaparral. Rain stays much longer in Northern California, as dreary by spring as the neighbor who leaves his Christmas lights hanging through Easter.

Of course, Christmas is the time when we embrace the world as we wish it would be, instead of the way it is, so Californians resolutely surround themselves with the iconography of Christmas for the 19th century British yeoman, or the 18th century New England townsperson. While focused on these snowy images, Californians try to ignore the rain. On the freeway, drivers either continue with the same speed and ferocity they use on sunnier days, or they slow down far more than practically necessary, but enough to silence their fears of what might happen to them during these unusual deluges.

Californians are not the only breed of Americans who either ignore the reality of December altogether, or become overwhelmed by it. Without the snow, we're just a bit more obvious in our habits. Elsewhere, Americans work hard at making the Christmas moment exactly right--whether that moment occurs when the children awaken on Christmas morning, or when the visiting relatives arrive from the airport, or when  loved ones have just the reaction for which you had hoped when you bought them the presents they're just unwrapping. Americans have a determined vision of how their Christmases should be.

Some people are good at making these moments happen. They're the people who have empathy with and  insight into the other people involved in these rituals. You have to know that Christmas morning is for the children. You learn to accept the accidental breaking of a $50 toy, or the year when your child is too old for Santa. You understand why relatives might want to visit, other than a flinty sense of obligation. You give gifts freely, without imposing another kind of obligation, the insistence that the recipients tell you exactly why they love their presents, whether or not they actually do.

The people who are bad at the Christmas moments are the ones who try to force everyone into the correct posture, words, and feelings. While the Godtime version of Christmas may provide important lessons about generosity, love, mirth, and renewal, these are exactly the things that cannot be compelled. Gifts become reciprocal duties, for the giver to give, and the receiver to receive, each in the proper way. In staged photos of families, friends, or co-workers, a rictus grin belies the real emotion of the moment. The fallacy of the statement, "It's Christmas, why can't you enjoy yourself?" is lost on the speaker.

Still, there are people who try, year after year, to enforce Christmas correctness. A dominating parent or an overbearing boss may have the skill to coax, bribe, whine, or intimidate people around them into assuming their place and pose in the Christmas tableau, as fixed and unlovely as the plastic Nativity figures that used to decorate the lawns of many Americans.

What does all this have to do with the usual topic of this blog? Everything.

In December 2007, many Americans are baffled that other countries don't want to take their places in our political tableau. We insist that we are loving, and we only want the best for them. Why then all this strife?

Perhaps if, during the rest of the year, we can't understand the reasons for resentment of the US occupation of Iraq, or the outrage over secret prisons, or the willingness to work with authoritarian leaders like Pakistan's Musharraf, or Uzbekistan's Karimov, Christmas lift the collective veil from our eyes. The American political vision is both moral and beautiful--much like the American imagery of the holiday season. It may not, however, ever completely resemble what exists in other countries. Even if the Framers had devised the perfect political system, it's not something that we can dictate to other societies. Allowing them to embrace it, or some version of it, is far better than insisting on it.

In other words, we have to be deft, not merely willful. Willfulness alone inspires resentment, not respect. Iraqis are neither children nor savages; therefore, it's unfair to them to suggest that democracy and the rule of law were doomed from the beginning. However, a constitution handed to the Iraqis by an occupying power was, unsurprisingly, not welcomed; looking for an alternate political identity, many Iraqis retreated into the factionalism that was both familiar and, as the violence increased, practical.

I don't mean to trivialize the war in Iraq by comparing it to a strained family gathering at Christmas. Far from it: I hope that, by recognizing the discomfort or pain some feel during the holidays, they can understand what a small fraction of unhappiness that is, compared to the plight of the average Iraqi or Afghan. In both cases, the insistence on a vision, even the most lovely or humane one, can have unlovely and inhumane results.

Enjoy the holidays, but don't be forced to enjoy them. Use the opportunity to make your friends and family, plus the people you hardly know, feel loved for who they are.

Root and executive branch

Armchair Generalist draws our attention to the minor melee over the chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board. The Board was created to be a semi-official advisory panel of national security sages who advise the Secretary of Defense. In theory, it gives the sort of detached, balanced perspective that decision-makers need, in much the same capacity that Lyndon Johnson's "Wise Men" about Vietnam and other matters.

During George W. Bush's first term, the Defense Policy Board, under the chairmanship of Richard Perle, was one of the pulpits from which the neoconservatives made their policy pitches. While supposedly beyond politics, the Board, and other bodies like it, are often just as subject to political forces as any other part of the federal government. In fact, one might make the argument that, the more an organization like the Defense Policy Board proclaims its independence from party politics, the easier it is for interest groups to manipulate its members. How dare you suggest that Henry Kissinger and Newt Gingrich have axes to grind!

In truth, you can be too cynical about these sorts of institutions. After all, for decades, people from Republican and Democratic circles have compared notes, across party lines, about their experiences in national security posts. Top Cabinet officials do need neutral advice, and it would be better to try fixing the DPB than just discarding it altogether.

That's why arguments over whether the new chairman, John Hamre, is conservative enough for the post, are worse than pointless: they're poisonous. The whole country needs to discard the Red versus Blue, hawks versus doves, stay-the-coursers versus cut-and-runners nonsense, faux divisions that serve party over nation.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world...

While headlines from Iraq, such as the latest clash in Ramadi, continue to dominate the headlines in American news outlets, here are some events of note in the rest of the world:

• Pakistan's military struck at Islamist figherrs in Waziristan, killing three.
• Russian strategic bombers have resumed patrolling beyond Russia's borders, an obvious, intentional reminder of the old Soviet nuclear threat.
• A suicide bomber in Afghanistan killed 15.
• In an interview, the head of the British army acknowledged that UK forces in Afghanistan are holding their ground, but are substantially overstretched.
• Internecine violence among Palestinian spread to a refugee camp in Lebanon.

Suppose the Iraq war never happened. Which of these events would appear more prominently in the news? Or, in other words, which of them deserve more attention now?

Experts, shut up!

This post from Atrios hit a nerve with several bloggers. For example, here are Armchair Generalist's comments about it.

In post-WWII history, we've never seen hostility in the White House to the "expertariat" like the Bush Administration's. Presidents have been willing to ignore the national security community's advice, or cut  the experts out of the decision-making process altogether. However, even Nixon had one foreign policy expert, Henry Kissinger, in which he trusted, even as he started building new relationships with the USSR and PRC, in secret from most of the executive branch (and of course, the American public).

However, I disagree with the argument that the anti-war opposition has been anti-expert, too. In fact, it's even hard to find pacifists among the critics of the Iraq war and the Global War On Something. Most people I've read or met seem fairly pragmatic, willing to accept the necessity of violence to achieve national security, but deeply disturbed about the ways in which the Administration has been using force. They're willing to admit that, as average citizens, they haven't studied the uses and misuses of force to the level that some scholars and practitioners have.

Experts are hardly the enemy for these critics; instead, they want to give the experts more respect and clout. One of the iconic moments, for critics of the war, was the dismissal of General Shinseki, punished, not rewarded, for his expert opinion of what occupying Iraq would require.

As I've argued before, the Administration's hostility to national security experts arises, in part, from a hostility to expertise. That animus, in turn, has deeper roots in an anti-scientific strain among many members and supporters of this presidency. There's no comparable anti-science faction within the ranks of the war's critics.

The public service crisis

The "starve the beast" wing of the Republican Party may be the only group happy with the following news:

• The State Department is facing a staffing crisis. At a time when the country needs a substantial number of foreign service professionals, it can neither retain nor hire enough of them.
• The US Army is losing far too many of its captains. While the quarterback analogy is clumsy, it's important to recognize the role that captains play, particularly in the small-unit operations that are the hallmark of counterinsurgency warfare.

Once the American public is focused less on the daily news from Iraq, it may notice that the national security bureaucracy has suffered grievous bodily harm over the last few years. A couple of years from now, if not sooner, expect to see a lot of news articles about the urgency of re-building the national security apparatus.

Official soundtrack: TV On The Radio

The "life intrudes" thing that has kept me from blogging for several days just kept on intruding. Before I return to the sound of my own words, I wanted to share someone else's. TV On The Radio, a group that only recently has caught my attention, released a song in 2005, "Dry Drunk Emperor," that deserves to join Warren Zevon and Bruce Springsteen as part of the official Arms and Influence soundtrack.

Here's a link to the song and lyrics. (Will someone explain why the iTunes store doesn't carry this song?) Thanks to General J.C. Christian for the pointer to this song.

The snarl begins in Colombia

Since I'm usually in a hurry to put away the Christmas decorations, I rarely do a good job of storing the lights. When I pull on the end of a cord, I'm usually dismayed to be holding a huge, messy tangle of lights, far bigger and more complicated than I had expected. Of course, I only have myself to blame--the snarl is purely the result of my own neglect.

While people in the US national security community have been spending all their time dealing with the Iraq problem, other issues keep getting haphazardly tossed into the closet. Eventually, when we start tugging on one of these problems, a lot of others emerge.

Case in point: Chiquita's admission that it was paying right-wing paramilitary groups to continue operations in Colombia. The story, as we learned today, won't stop there. A Colombian prosecutor is investigating other multinational corporations that may have made similar arrangements with irregular forces. It would be amazing if Chiquita were the only company who paid protection money, and it would be equally amazing if the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia were the only recipients. The FARC, certainly, have been in the extortion business for a long time.

Let's keep pulling this thread. Have corporations cut similar deals in other countries? Yes, undoubtedly. There are plenty of places in Latin America, Africa, and Asia where roving groups with guns can make all kinds of trouble. During the 1990s, when energy companies were trying to build Central Asian gas and oil pipelines as an alternative to Persian Gulf exports, companies like Unocal regularly paid bribes to Afghan warlords. In Nigeria, a small guerrilla group attacked oil platforms and kidnapped oil company workers. And, of course, in Iraq, various insurgent groups--ranging from genuine revolutionaries to criminal gangs with revolutionary names--have been extorting money from foreign corporations. (Which, of course, is where some of the reconstruction money disappeared.)

Keep pulling, and out pops another unwelcome detail: who is protecting these corporations? If you're going to mine diamonds in Western Africa, you won't count on the rebels or governments to stay bribed--particularly if the leaders of these factions have an uncertain grip on their own forces. The same "security firms" that are doing a brisk business with the US government today are making even more money from private corporations. Therefore, the lines between the public and private part of US national security is even more blurred, both in the means (these mercenary companies) and the ends (the employers demanding their services).

Yank harder, and out pop other questions. How does the revolving door between national militaries and the security companies work? Who is receiving campaign contributions from Blackwater, Dyncorp, and similar companies? How much does the United States have invested in Plan Colombia, and how well is it paying off? In other countries riven by inernal war, such as Colombia, are we investing too much, too little, or the wrong resources to handle the threat at hand?

These are all important issues. They're also the issues that Americans are largely ignoring, while Iraq consumes all available time, resources, and attention. Worst of all, we haven't even mentioned international terrorism yet.

Theme of the week

Mosts of my posts this week will follow the same line of argument:

• Iraq is not the only national security priority.
• In fact, it's not as important as the cumulative weight of other priorities.
• Iraq is blotting out these other priorities.
• Even if the US prevails in Iraq, the cost of ignoring nearly everything else is far greater than anything that can be gained in Iraq.

Why 2003 still matters

I'm in the middle of watching the Bill Moyers special, "Buying the War." Why do we keep returning to the events of 2002 and 2003?

• Because no one has paid. That's important because...
• Until someone pays, there's no reason to think something equally bad won't happen again.

It seems a bit silly to have to repeat the basic tenets of accountability in government, but that's where we are. Americans can be forgiving people. If a public servant thought a calculated risk was worthwhile, debated all the pros and cons, and made a straightforward case to the American public and our allies, the outcome may still be terrible. That's the nature of politics, and of foreign policy: every decision is a gamble made in the face of incomplete information and uncertain results.

Of course, that's not exactly the story of Iraq.  It was the story of the Iran-Contra scandal, which ended the government careers of scoundrels such as Eliott Abrams and John Poindexter...Temporarily. Of course, these two characters came back to work for an Administration where the word "accountability" is a foreign, incomprehensible word. The outrageous return of Abrams and Poindexter is evidence that, left to its own devices, the Administration will continue to reward, not punish, people responsible for foreign policy fiascoes.

Meanwhile, the same "patriotism police" work energetically to discredit people who scrutinize the invasion of Iraq. If for no other reason, the resistance to further investigation is a compelling reason to investigate further.

High Noon In The Shrubs

[This post was inspired by the accidental conjunction of (1) reading this analysis of the President's taste in cowboy art, and (2) watching High Noon, one of my all-time favorite movies, for the umpteenth time.]

INT. THE TOWN CHURCH - DAYTIME
The church is filled with townspeople. Reverend Hezekiah is leading them in a hymn, while the organist plays earnestly, if somewhat clumsily.

Suddenly, the MARSHAL bursts into the church. The organist immediately stops. The townspeople's hymn sputters out in surprise.

REVEREND
What can I do for you, Marshal?

MARSHAL
I need all the able-bodied men to follow me to Scorpion Gulch. We're going to deal
with these Mexican bandits once and for all!

A worried muttering begins among the parishioners.

BILL (the town doctor)
Uh, forgive me for being confused, Marshal, but what does that have to do
with the Apaches who attacked the Henderson farm and killed the whole family?
We were just praying for their souls.

MARSHAL
Bill, you fool! Don't you know that the Apaches and the banditos are in cahoots!

The muttering grows even louder.

REVEREND
Quiet, quiet! We don't want a panic here, do we?

A pregnant pause ensues, in which the REVEREND and the MARSHAL exchange a long stare. Suddenly, the REVEREND looks away.

REVEREND
Well, I guess, if the Marshal says that there's cause for concern...

MARSHAL
That's right! The Henderson massacre was just the beginning! Those Mexicans can't wait
to get the jump on one of you. Like you, Pete! {Points at PETE.] Or maybe Miss Purdy! The
schoolhouse is pretty darn vulnerable on the edge of town.

Miss Purdy clutches her hands to her chest and swoons.

JOE (the town dry goods merchant)
Something here doesn't make sense, Marshal. The Apaches and the bandits hate each
other. Plus, those Mexicans might have held up a couple of stages, but
they've never killed anyone.

MARSHAL
But they're our sworn enemies, Joe! You know that! And I have proof that the Indians
and the bandits have been meeting, figuring out ways to attack this town and kill all of us!

DAN (the editor of the town paper)
All right, Marshal, where's your proof.

MARSHAL (patting his coat pocket)
Right here.

DAN
Can I see it?

MARSHAL
No. If I showed it to you, you'd figure out how I got it, secret-like, and then we'd
never have any more information about the Apaches or the bandits.

DAN (shrugs)
OK, that makes sense. [Sits down.]

MARSHAL
Besides, if we don't get rid of the bandits, we'll never take care of those Apaches!

BOB (the town barber)
Now I'm lost. Why do we need to take care of the bandits first, if the
Apaches are the real threat.

The Marshal charges over to Bob's pew, grabs him by the lapels, and slaps him across the face.

MARSHAL
I've never seen such cowardice in all my life! Bob, why don't you go down to
the graveyard and spit on the Henderson family's newly-dug plots! I'm sure
they'll be happy to listen to your nonsense.

The townspeople around BOB shake their fists angrily at him, yelling curses. BOB slumps into his pew, defeated.

MARSHAL
Now, men, let's ride!

Every man between the ages of 17 and 70 rises from their seats and begins moving toward the door.

MARSHAL
Wait, wait, wait! Deputy Don tells me that we only need four men. [Points in quick
succession at four young men.] You, you, you, and you, come with me!

FADE OUT