Marin Forum

As the Tea Party begins to flex its muscle one can not help but notice the glaring inconsistencies in the movement. The independent and fractious nature of the movement is a major factor in the inconsistencies. On one side you have Republicans attempting to use the movement for their own gain. These include many of the Republican members of Congress. They tow the Republican party line but feed off the populist anger directed toward President Obama and the federal government. On the opposite side lies the radical militia groups that hate all aspects of the federal government (Democrats and Republicans alike). All of them want a smaller federal government. Most of them want to do whatever it takes to win the “War on Terror” and strengthen our borders.

And here is one of the greatest inconsistencies in the Tea Party “platform.” They want strong national security with a small federal government. These two goals are are incompatible. While the federal government expanded significantly during the New Deal, its growth should also be attributed to the rise of the national security state. Federal expenditures per capita barely grew during the 19th century. World War I began to change the operation of Washington. However, it wasn’t until WWII that that Washington saw its largest growth. The Cold War necessitated the continued mobilization of the armed forces along with the establishment of permanent national security apparatuses such as the CIA and the NSA. Wars always require a buildup of the central government. The Cold War was essentially a “permanent partially mobilized war effort.” As a result wartime agencies either remained open or were incorporated into other agencies. Even after the Cold War ended the national security apparatus was not dismantled because by the 1990s the United States was the undisputed monolithic power in a unipolar world. Its interests were global and often in unstable parts of the world. 9/11 brought back the “real” threat to US national security. A new department (DHS) was created along with numerous smaller bureaus within the established agencies. President George Bush significantly expanded the powers of the Executive. And now we find ourselves in a new “permanent partially mobilized war.”

The Tea Party movement strongly believes that Obama is an absolute failure in national security. First, they want a much stronger approach to the fight against terrorism. Marco Rubio summed up their stance at CPAC:

We will do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism,” Rubio said. “We will punish their allies like Iran. We will stand with our allies like Israel. We will target and we will destroy terrorist cells and the leaders of those cells. The ones that survive, we will capture them. We will get useful information from them. And then we will bring them to justice in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo — not a civilian courtroom in Manhattan.

This position is essentially an extension of the Bush era policies during the height of the Neocon era (2001-2006). This means: no withdrawal from Afghanistan, torture when necessary, unilateral action, and more aggressive stances (potential of war) toward Iran and North Korea. An expansion of the current theater (Iran and Hamas) will require an expansion of the federal government and larger deficits.

Furthermore, Republicans and the Right were outraged over the attempted Christmas Day bombing. The only way to completely prevent attacks on US interests is to increase the reach of the national security apparatus. More wiretapping, warrantless searches, comprehensive security checkpoints, and disregard for the Bill of Rights (and even then there will be holes). This would be a far greater loss of privacy and obtrusive role of government than universal healthcare or cap-and-trade.

Illegal immigration is the second issue that particularly bothers the Tea Party. Their solution: close the border and deport all undocumented workers currently in the US. First, a wall stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico would significantly raise the deficit (besides questions on its practicality). Forced deportations would require a very active federal government. The current federal laws are not even enforced due to lack of resources and will. Workplace enforcement would require a government agency to ensure compliance.  Attempts to find undocumented workers would require intrusion of the federal government into daily lives.

Despite calls for smaller government, the Tea Party’s platform for national security would require a sizable increase in the reach of the federal government. Furthermore, immigration enforcement and the fight against terrorism cannot be managed by individual states.  While state and local authorities do handle deportations occasionally (and they can handle internal counter-terrorism efforts), individual states simply don’t have the resources to effectively counter illegal immigration or terrorism.

In the Tea Party’s ideal world they would maintain national security funding while decreasing funds for entitlement programs. But the healthcare debates have made the Right champions of medicare. President Bush showed that Social Security reform is a dead end. President Reagan and Thatcher in the United Kingdom attempted to scale down government but they were unable to touch the bulk of government activities. Programs, especially social services, are extremely hard to cut. The government would play less of a regulatory role but in many cases the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has a responsibility and obligation to regulate certain sectors.

The federal government is not going away. As long as the Tea Party remains wedded to maintaining national security and “American exceptionalism” it will never reduce the deficit or get the federal government out of peoples’ hair. A national security police state is not smaller government. It is a farce to talk about a powerless federal government and in the same sentence to demand national security.

Two years ago as the United States was entering the economic crisis talk among experts and the political campaigns focused on the green economy as a source of American renewal. The United States would retool its economy and use clean technology to replace the loss of manufacturing jobs in the rust belt, and then it would export its new industry to the developing world. We would develop clean coal technology so we could sell it to China as they further invested in coal fired power plants. We would put people to work and bolster our economic situation vis-a-vis the Chinese.

Two years later and most likely we will soon be importing clean technologies. According to the New York Times, China has now become the leading producer in wind turbines and solar technology. By 2020 China is expected to build 50 new nuclear reactors while the rest of the world might build 15. Meanwhile, clean energy technology has expanded in the United States thanks to the federal stimulus bill, but the United States is still “sleeping” in the words of many Eurocrats. President Obama’s State of the Union address emphasized that if the United States did not embrace the green economy then it would continue to lose jobs overseas and cede its role as world economic powerhouse. Obama made it quite clear: America’s future lies in the green economy.

But efforts in the United States have stalled in the Senate. Germany and Spain have long been on the forefront of green technology and have invested accordingly. China has the advantage that its government still retains significant control over the economy and can mobilize resources for key projects. Does it truly care about environmental protection? The government has placed more emphasis on reducing pollution. For example two years ago it commissioned a study to gather information on pollution throughout the country. However, China’s main concern is its economy. Sustained economic growth is not possible while being completely dependent on foreign sources of energy. As China goes increasing urbanization, its energy demands will increase. Clean energy technology is a matter of national security.

Now is the time to get realistic in the United States. Two issues resonate well with the majority of voters: jobs and energy security (the stability of supply). Climate change is not the ticket to victory. Yes it is bad when the polar bears drown because the arctic ice sheets disappear, but Americans simply don’t care. Climategate has only made things worse. A recent poll shows that more Americans today do not believe in anthropogenic global warming (although more Americans view global warming as a serious threat to their family). Take two bills. Bill A invests X amount of money to create Y jobs in the green sector. Bill B invests X amount of money to reduce emissions by Y. Bill A will have wide bipartisan support while Bill B will will break apart on partisan lines. Both bills could have similar mechanics; in fact they could be part of the same bill: X amount of money is invested in green technology to create Y jobs which reduces emissions by Z.

The problem with cap-and-trade is that it has been labeled a job-killer. Will cap-and-trade kill some jobs? Yes, but in any market mechanism there are winners and losers. Will it destroy the economy? Not at all. Cap-and-trade is not a foreign concept. There already is a cap-and-trade mechanism in place for sulfur dioxide emissions in the Northeast (the acid rain program). The utilities adapted, and the program is widely praised. The Emissions Trading Scheme (the European cap-and-trade program) has had its ups and downs, but it is working.

But maybe we could develop a green economy without cap-and-trade or a carbon tax? Not likely. Tax credits or federal handouts may stimulate green technology sector growth but without the institutional development once the federal support dissipates the growth will stop. It works in China because China is able to mobilize resources on a level that are unimaginable in the United States. Green technology needs a market mechanism to sustain it. A price on carbon is absolutely necessary.

Senator Lindsey Graham is backing comprehensive energy and climate reform (and a price on carbon) because he recognizes that any meaningful energy policy that builds energy security requires a price to be placed on carbon. Under the current circumstances coal and oil are more competitive than renewables. The only way to develop domestic sources of energy is by making fossil fuels more expensive. A cap-and-trade system, cap-and-dividend, a carbon tax, or any other form of carbon pricing is the only way to develop the green economy thus creating jobs and reducing emissions. Even if global warming turns out to be a farce we will still have a net benefit of domestic job growth and increased energy independence. But the latter two are only possible with a price on carbon which means climate legislation.

Eventually renewables will reach grid parity with fossil fuels but we can’t wait. By then we will have been left behind by China and Europe. We are already behind in solar and wind technologies. Instead we need to make the political and monetary investments now. This is why the President is now focusing on carbon capture and storage technologies. The race isn’t close to be over, and there is still room in the solar and wind markets. However, without legislation that puts a price on carbon, the domestic green industry market will remain dormant. Without the green industry the United States will continue to lose jobs to the developing world and remain dependent on foreign sources of fuel.

It’s time to get real. Polar bears don’t win elections but jobs do. We need comprehensive energy and climate legislation since without it America will be a second-rate economy and we would only have ourselves to blame. All options need to be on the table: nuclear, natural gas, clean coal, and biofuels. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. It is a win-win scenario. We will create the jobs to fuel America’s recovery and in the process we will combat global warming.

But in the meantime we are losing as China takes advantage of the green revolution. Its time to wake up.

Earlier this week Russian President Medvedev gave a speech that many interpreted as a rebuke of the Putin the years. Medvedev stressed the need for economic reform, a pragmatic foreign policy, and the importance of tackling corruption. He specifically stated that the effectiveness of Russian foreign policy “should be judged by a single criterion: Does it contribute to improving living standards in our country?” This is in sharp contrast to Putin’s post-2004 foreign policy that has sought to reassert Russian authority through various blusters. But was this actually an attack on the man who is essentially President Medvedev’s patron?

It is no secret that Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Putin do not get along. In fact they are rarely seen together in public. The Financial Times likes to point out every assertive statement made by Medevdev while the US press has been far more reserved in suggesting that Medvedev is able to act independently of Mr. Putin.

It just seems improbable that Medvedev would so openly challenge is “patron.” Putin brought Medvedev into government from the private sector. Then in 2005 Putin appointed Medvedev to the post of First Deputy Prime Minister. From there he was chosen to succeed Putin for the presidency. Putin would not have named a successor that couldn’t count on to be a “yes man.” Medvedev may be the face of the Russian state, but Putin is the one with all the power. Furthermore, challenging Putin’s power would seem to be ludicrous since Putin has firmly established the loyalty of the Russian political and economic elite (often by “appointing” former KGB buddies to the major industrial corporations).

Under this this reasoning Medvedev and Putin are playing a good cop-bad cop act. When the Russian state needs to take a softer and more conciliatory stance Mr. Medvedev is on the forefront, and when a tough approach is necessary Mr. Putin is not far away. A much more mild US example would be the Eisenhower-Nixon administration.

But could a split be genuine? Medvedev seemed to have taken a much too independent stance on WTO accession before Putin pulled Russia’s membership bid (humiliating Medvedev in the process). A few months ago Medvedev announced that he would consider running for the presidency again in 2012 stressing that he had his own popularity. Then on Thursday he gave a 140 minute “state of the nation” speech that seeks a new trajectory for Russia. And so the United States and Europe are perplexed.

Yet it was only slightly over twenty years ago that another Russian politician sought a bold trajectory. At first Western leaders were unsure what to make of the loyal Communist Gorbachev. Quickly, Gorbachev made good on his word. Could the loyal Putinist (perhaps formerly) be heading in the same direction?

Actions need to speak for these words before any pronouncement can be made, but US policy towards Russia needs to recognize this possibility. The US would much rather see Mr. Medvedev in office come 2012 than Mr. Putin. For starters the Obama administration needs to make efforts to engage with Medvedev. President Reagan helped end the Cold War when he reached out to Gorbachev. In response, Gorbachev found legitimacy in the international community. Western enthusiasm and support proved critical to Gorbachev. Likewise, Medvedev may not have the support of parts of the Russian oligarchy, international support may provide the necessary legitimacy to keep him afloat.

How does Obama reach out to Medvedev? On this issue Obama should take a lesson from Reagan. In fact Obama is already in the process of doing so through nuclear non-proliferation. Reagan’s strong commitment to preventing nuclear war by reducing nuclear armaments greatly impressed Gorbachev. Through arms limitation talks the two leaders were able to develop a rapport that was extremely influential in bringing about the end of the Cold War. Like Reagan, Obama is committed to a nuclear free world. The centerpiece of restarting relations with Russia has been a new nuclear weapons treaty. The administration certainly hopes that Obama and Medvedev can establish a rapport through nuclear disamament talks.  Furthermore, if Medvedev is truly a moderate liberal pragmatic then there should be elements of Obama’s world vision based on international law and cooperation that appeal to him. If the two trained lawyers can develop a relationship then Mr. Medvedev may find the international legitimacy to sustain a more independent course of action.

There is still reason to engage with Mr. Medvedev even if he does turn out to be completely loyal to Putin. Medvedev and Putin represent two faces of Russian foreign policy. If concrete results can be achieved through the Medvedev approach (cooperation) then Putin and the Russian state will turn towards that path. The hardline approach in Russian policy in part has been a reaction to the unilateral policies of the Bush years. Cooperation and openness with the Russian state in turn encourages the Russian state to cooperate with the international community.

Regardless if there is a split between the two Russian leaders or not, US policy toward Russia needs to focus on engagement and cooperation. The key is trust. Mr. Putin embodies the sense of distrust many Russians feel toward the United States and Western Europe. Likewise, Mr. Medvedev needs to know that he can trust the international community. The international community in turn needs to give him the opportunities and space to operate independently. This means no interference in Russian internal affairs or overt support for any candidate. Medvedev is not going to act independently if the international community just throws him under bus.

It has long been the position of this blog to support the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (although we may have strongly criticized the strategies). We recognized from the beginning that the Surge in Iraq was the right strategy to set the conditions for an exit strategy and a “stable” Iraq. Likewise, we saw President’s Obama’s promise to step up our efforts in Afghanistan as the right decision. Afghanistan was where all the problems began. However, recent events have shown that Afghanistan is quickly becoming a lost cause.

However, the war effort is not a lost cause for the reasons commonly asserted by the Left. Afghanistan has a history of destroying empires. The historical argument is compelling. After all, efforts by the superpowers to unite the country all ended in humiliation. But, historical determinism theory is usually discredited by historians. It ignores the influence of individuals and events. The Soviet Union was not popular in Afghanistan but their ultimate defeat in the region was due to foreign influence. In 2002 the United States had popular support and things may well have been different with proper leadership. The Afghan people do not want nor do they believe in democracy. This argument is essentially an extension of the bigoted thesis proposed in Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. Islam and democracy are not incompatible. The Afghan people have little experience with democracy and it is limited to the current democracy under Karzai’s government. Hence, to the Afghan people democracy (as envisioned by the United States) is just more ineffective government. The people aren’t opposed to democracy, they are opposed to corrupt and ineffective government.

The Taliban has become more bold in their attacks as security continues to deteriorate in the country. Our international partners have been hesitant to commit troops and resources and it’s likely that many will begin to pull out their troops in the next year. But more importantly, after eight years the Afghan government still has no legitimacy. The recent elections were clearly fraudulent. Today, President Karzai’s main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, has decided to withdraw from runoff election citing persistent problems of fraud. Thus, the results of any runoff will be seen as illegitimate.

The success to any state building effort must have support from 1) an engaged “lead” state along with the international community and 2) strong and legitimate local rulers. The United States is unquestionably engaged in Afghanistan and is committed to its stability. The problem is that the second criteria does not exist. Karzai may have had enough legitimacy in the beginning of the conflict but he subsequently lost it all. Afghan leaders who have legitimacy remain outside the government because they do not want to be associated with the inept and corrupt Karzai government.

The United States has three options:

1. Afghanization. This strategy consists of accepting the current political situation while making efforts to strengthen the Afghan institutions. Militarily, this strategy involves a gradual troop buildup (20,000-40,000 troops). The problem is that 40,000 more troops makes little difference. Perhaps if the Afghan government had legitimacy a limited troop increase would be helpful. Otherwise, a modest increase in troops will only provide limited security benefits while endorsing the current political situation.
2. Militarization. To provide security to the entire country would probably require a buildup of 100,000+ troops. This would be the exact opposite of Afghanization. Since the NATO allies are unlikely to contribute much the bulk of the buildup would have to come from the United States. This option would put operation of the country more in the hands of the United States; thus, potentially allowing the United States to reshape and strengthen Afghanistan’s political institutions. Such an option is completely impractical. Back in the United States the public couldn’t stomach such a large buildup. The United States doesn’t have the military resources for a sustained, large military buildup. Nor would the United States be seen to be any more legitimate than the current Afghan government.
3. Withdraw. An exit strategy was supposed to look like this: troop increases would allow the Afghan government to strengthen its position. Elections would then yield to the United States handing authority over to the Afghans. Security didn’t improve and the elections were a complete failure. Under ideal circumstances the US would be able to withdraw while leaving a small contingent of troops to provide military training and counterinsurgency operations. But without strong US backing the Afghan government will fall like a house of cards. It has no legitimacy, it is facing a well organized insurgency, and its military is a paper army. Downplaying our role in Afghanistan is complete withdrawal.

Afghanization is the status quo which is unacceptable. Militarization is impractical. Withdrawal is the only option short of reshuffling the Afghan government (is that practical?). But is there someone more effective than Karzai? Politically we are failing in Afghanistan and it is becoming ever harder to reverse eight years of ineffective governance.

Withdrawal will not be pretty. Essentially its a confirmation that the last eight years have been a failure and a waste of resources and lives. It will probably parallel the US evacuation of Vietnam in 1975. It will be demoralizing. Also it will have long term repercussions. NATO may very well lose its relevance. If it can’t handle “out of area” operations then what distinguishes it from the budding defense arrangements under the EU’s Common Security and Foreign Policy? More importantly, Afghanistan will be a failed state which will require the international community’s constant attention. Somalia is a headache for the international community; yet, had it been committed to Somalia’s stability in the early 1990s piracy may very well not be the problem that it is today.  Lastly there is the problem of Pakistan. An unstable Afghanistan may very well bring down the Pakistani government. The US withdraw from Afghanistan and the subsequent collapse of the Afghan state will haunt the US and the international community for years to come.

Yet, these are the effects that the US will have to stomach. Getting out of Afghanistan will free up resources and political capital for Obama’s domestic agenda and his other international efforts. It will change the US-Europe relationship for the better. Instead of focusing efforts on bolstering NATO efforts in a losing effort, Obama and European leaders can turn their efforts toward climate change and nuclear nonproliferation. It is important that the US does not ignore the region like it did in the 1990s. This is where Obama’s diplomatic effort will be critical. The US will need the support of Pakistan, Russia, China, and even Iran to “contain” Afghanistan.

It’s time to get out of Afghanistan. Our efforts in Afghanistan cannot succeed without a legitimate Afghan government. Afghanistan is limiting our foreign policy and is diverting resources and capital from our domestic policy.

In the last few days two stories came to attention: the cancellation of the F-22 program and the statistic that July has been the bloodiest month for coalition forces in Afghanistan since the war began. On the surface these appear to be completely unrelated events. The F-22 has not been assigned to Afghanistan and the recent “surge” in Helmand Province is predominately a ground operation. Where is the connection? It is operations like Operation Khanjar or the surge in Iraq that show why the F-22 is a wasted asset.

In the last two decades military strategy has increasingly shifted toward the use of airpower. One of the stories of the Cold War was the rise of the Air Force as the pre-eminent military branch. World War II showed the significance and importance of airpower. The Allies recognized the destructiveness of airpower and its ability to demoralize the enemy. Thus, in the early years of the Cold War, Air Force generals like Curtis LeMay became prominant in the Pentagon. Until the development of ICBMs the nuclear startegy of the United States relied on bombers as the delivery vehicle (in fact throughout the Cold War, the United States was far more reliant on a nuclear bomber fleet than the Soviet Union). In the Cuban Missile Crisis, LeMay was a strong advocate of bombing military installations in Cuba. The Vietnam War was effectively the culmination of the past twenty years of airpower thinking especially the final bombing operations of the war such as Operation Lineback II.

The 1990s saw a further progression of airpower strategy as it became the centerpiece of US operations. The military apparatus was impressed by the Air Force’s performace in the first Gulf War. Not only did US warplanes dominate Iraqi airspace but the war saw the first use of percision weapons and stealth planes (the F-117 Nighthawk). Bosnia gave the Air Force even more confidence. The common interpretation is that US airpower and use of cruise missiles forced Slobodan Milošević to the peace table. Likewise, in the 1999 Kosovo War many argue that airpower alone defeated Milošević.

Why has the airforce become dominate?

1. It has had some very prominant successes. The Air Force has shown that it can be extremely effective at what it does. The quick ends to the Gulf War, Kosovo, and Bosnia (once NATO began bombing) lend support to this claim. Futhermore, the US Air Force is one of the best equiped air forces in the world. Even the US’s fleet of 30 year old front line fighters are equal or better than any opposing force (although the new Chinese J-10 is most likely superior). Results earn respect; the US Air Force has earned its respect.
2. The air force has become extremely good at procuring new weapons systems. Many of the top research projects in the US military are being developed by the air force. Furthermore, the air force and its contractors have learned to spread their operations around the US. A new airbase not only provided a strategic value but it also provided an economc boost to local communities. The same is true for the military contractors such as Lockheed Martin. The F-22 had considerable support in Congress because various parts of the plane were produced in many members’ districts and were a source of emloyment. The air force knows how to play politics.
3. Finally, Americans do not have the guts for war. Clinton was especially fearful of military casualities. The US quickly pulled out of Somolia after 19 soldiers died over a period of five months. In Kosovo, Clinton refused to send US soldiers because he feared the domestic political backlash. Similar sentiments are held by Europeans which has hampered operations in Afghanistan. As a result political and military leaders have sought “low cost” operations that keep US personnel out of harms way.

This “low cost” strategy essentially relies on the ability for the military to conduct quick and devestateing airstrikes. Technology wise the emphasis is placed on aircraft with long range, high speed, and stealth capabilities. Excluding the revamped versions of the F-16 and F/A-18, all combat aircraft that entered production in the last twenty years have met these criteria (F-117, B-2, F-22, and soon the F-35). These aircraft are perfect for penetrating enemy airspace and bombing, lets say a nuclear reactor, without being detected. Meanwhile, the F-22 can engage with any fighter deployed Russia or China. The problem arises when there are no high priority targets or aerial conflicts with China/Russia.

Thus, we get to the connection with Operation Khanjar. In 2001 the US Air Force ran into a problem in Afghanistan. There were no high priority targets to bomb. It was said “how can we bomb a country into the stone age when it is already in the stone age.” Strategy developed during the 1990s called for the Air Force to target key infrastructure  (including civilian) and military assets. By crippling infrastructure and communications the enemy would fold. The Air Force was tired of targeting tanks and other field equipment as was common in the Gulf War and the Bosnian War. However, Afghanistan did not have the infrastructure, and the Taliban was able to operate without it. In 2003 Saddam’s army was easily routed but the high tech airforce was completely incapable of eliminating the resulting insurgency. Then in 2006 the Isreali air bombardments during the 2006 Lebanon War failed to achieve any of Isreal’s objectives.

Even the so called “successes” of airpower, Bosnia and Kosovo, were less successful then they are portaryed to be. In both Bosnia and Kosovo airpower was believed to be the decisive factor. Upon closer examination this claim falls apart. In Bosnia, Milošević capitulated because the Croatian army was making rapid gains. Yes, Milošević was rather shocked by NATO firepower and that certainly played a role but the deciding factors were the conditions on the ground. In Kosovo other factors explain why Milošević surrendered. It finally appeared that President Clinton was committed to sending ground troops and NATO promised to deploy 50,000 troops. Perhaps more importantly, Moscow refused to give crucial support to Belgrade. Milošević was out of oppotions and saw surrender as the only way to maintain his regime. However, another lesson can be learned from Kosovo. The NATO bombings of Belgrade created significant negative opinion toward the West among Serbs. Timothy Garton Ash argues that the NATO bombings completely undermined the student demonstrations against  Milošević that were present before the war. Futhermore, the intial NATO bombings encouraged Serbs to commit more “ethnic cleansing” (although proponents of the air war argue that had NATO been more aggressive initially the reciprocated killings could have been prevented). Air power alone does not seem to be the end all solution.

The 2006 “Surge” in Iraq showed a new approach to military strategy. Greater emphasis would be placed on ground forces securing the area and embedding with the local population. Likewise, now in Afghanistan we are seeing a new “surge.” The occupation of a country greatly dimenishes the necessity for stealth, and the low tech nature of the Taliban makes the advanced electronics of the new generation of aircraft useless. The 50 year old B-52 is just as effective and more reliable than the stealthy  B-2. Meanwhile, the F-16s and F/A-18s are perfectly capable of performing the strike capabilities that were supposed to be carried out by the F-22 and F-35. Thus, we find ourselves with a weapon that has no practical battlefield use.

The F-22 was designed to counter any fighter produced by Russia or China. Since a conflict with Russia or China are effectively out of the question, the only potential threat is from high tech Russian or Chinese weaponry that are purchased on the market by a developing nation. Venezuela and Iran have purchased Su-30s, and there are reports that Terhan attempted to buy some Chinese J-10s. These fighters may be a threat but they are in such small quantities that the current fleet of F-22s (capped at 187) would be more than enough to effectively deal with it. Otherwise most developing world airforces predominately consist of Vietnam-era Russian and Chinese fighters. The Taliban’s ”air forice” was a joke. The F-15 could easily achieve air-superiority.

As Bosnia, Kosovo, and the 2006 Iraq Surge show the ground war is the vital factor. Thus, the air force should be built around a supportive role for our ground forces instead of a first-strike orientation. Stealth planes will not be important and will be underutilized in the future foreseable conflicts. This is not to say that first-strike capable aircraft are useless. These aircraft can be vital for eliminating key ground defense positions and anti-aircraft batteries. However, to convert the entire fleet to extremely expensive high-tech aircraft is a mistake. Once boots hit the ground the element of surprise is lost. Instead the military should focus on upgrading the current fleet of F-15s/F-16s/F-18s and potentially consider the  development of a fighter with the performance of the F-22 minues some of the advanced electronics and stealth capabilities. That being said, the fifth generation F-35 is coming in at around $83 million per unit and hopefully will be the answer.

The battlefield of the near future is going to be very similar to what our Marines currently face in Helmand Province. The Air Force and their F-22 are geared for the wrong fight. The air strategy developed during the 1990s works well against decently developed countries with conventional militaries. But over the next two decades or so the most pressing security threats that could turn into “hot conflicts” will come from developing countries with low tech/unconventional forces (although North Korea may be very vulnerable to the air warfare doctrine). Effort needs to be placed on cost-effective and easily deployable weapons systems that directly benefits our ground troops and enable them to successfully carry out their missions.

It has been over a month since Iranians took to the streets in protest over election results. It seemed that the violent crack down on the part of the government was going to contain public displays of defiance. The opposition never went away, and there were constant reports of small pockets of street protests and other forms of defiance. However, today the opposition mounted its largest display of defiance since the days immediately following the election.
Rafsanjani gave the Friday sermon this week and thousands of opposition supporters attended and took to the streets. The opposition is not going away and it can still mount a considerable street presence.
At this point the government of Iran should be extremely afraid for the future of its power and influence. As long as they ignore the demands of the opposition, there will always be a challenge to the legitimacy of the government. Force has not been enough to crush the opposition. Meanwhile, the spontaneous and decentralized nature of the opposition makes it extremely hard to thwart. However, if the government gives into the demands of the opposition it may potentially undermine its position. As we have seen in past government-opposition interactions when the government begins to reform following a strong arm period the government elite tends to lose control and finds itself either out of power or extremely marginalized and limited. In the case of Iran, the government put itself in a position where it can’t implement reforms or accept opposition demands without reversing earlier decisions and statements. These reversals disrupt continuity and bring instability.

The last few weeks have turned into a “wait and see” approach by both the government and opposition. The government hopes to outlast the opposition and it certainly has the tools to do so (support of the security apparatus, considerable mass support, and a fair amount of international recognition).  But the opposition has its own strengths that are keeping it alive. Today was a victory for the opposition because it showed its staying power. Rafsanjani effectively publicly endorsed the opposition, and the opposition made a strong showing on the streets. Furthermore, the opposition has strong allies in the Iranian elite and clerical establishment.

Both sides have staying power and are entrenched into their positions. Neither side seems ready to give into the other’s demands. A month later and the opposition is still going strong which suggests that this conflict will not be going away any time soon.

Two weeks after Iran’s tumultuous elections it’s now clear that whatever political conflict has emerged in Iran will not be resolved any time soon. Rather, the nature and direction of change in the Islamic Republic will remain obscure, and whatever resolution this conflict may have will only be found in a protracted process. Whether civil unrest will continue to foment and mature like it did in Iran’s 1979 Revolution or whether a political solution by the establishment can be had remains to be seen. Iran’s social unrest has certainly derailed Obama’s diplomatic efforts to engage Iran on the nuclear issue, but the likely paths Iran’s social unrest could take may also provide new diplomatic opportunities for the US moderate Iranian politics. Because directly meddling in Iran’s domestic politics is out of the question, just how much pressure the US can assert over Iran will largely hinge on what approach Iran’s political establishments will now take.

There is little the US can do if Iran’s government continues to crack down on political dissenters and maintain a conservative hardline. However, that possibility threatens the internal legitimacy and political stability of Iran and would more likely lead to an overthrow of the political system like in 1979. On the other hand if crackdowns do little to quail the civil unrest the Iranian establishment may become more moderate on its own in self preservation. Changing the political structure or removing from power hardline conservatives that have become the target of the protests could end political dissent and preserve Iran’s political institutions. This solution largely depends on whether the opposition can organize and find support within the political establishment and Iran’s military to overrule Supreme Leader Khamenei. However, such a process has no guarantee of working, and could stymie or become subject to crackdowns and purges.

The Iranian establishment could also attempt to quiet protestors and consolidate its political legitimacy by looking outside instead of inside its own country. It is this solution which could give the US some sway over Iran. This approach could come in two forms. The more direct and simpler form would be if the Iranian government tries to push for international recognition as a source of legitimacy. Although such a push may provide few diplomatic openings for the US at first, if Iran’s internal unrest worsens it could elevate the value of such a gesture to the Iranian government. Even so, the influence and effectiveness of such a gesture remains a long shot at best. More substantively, Iran’s government could seek to consolidate its political legitimacy by reintegrating itself to the world economy. Such an attempt would seek to co opt the opposition by appeasing their positions on Iranian policy held during the election. However, this solution would also require Iran’s government to make concessions to western powers that it may be unwilling to carry out—including concessions over its nuclear program—which also makes this possibility a long shot.

Any potential for US diplomatic engagement with Iran will rely on how desperate the Iranian government is to maintain its power in a potential political overthrow by opposition forces (should they persist). The key to any chance for the US to draw out concessions from Iran’s current government in the future will depend on the state of Iran’s internal stability and its willingness to seek political survival over its desire to preserve a political hardline. So long as Iran’s political establishment exhibits the desire to survive at any cost, the US will have the opportunity diplomatically squeeze Iran in an uncomfortable double bind that forces it to choose between a gamble with an increasingly discontent society and a compromise of its hardline policy. Of course, successful silencing of dissent is just as likely an outcome and would lead to a more extreme Iran which would prove even more difficult to engage with. In any case, Iran’s political circumstances have fundamentally changed, forcing the Obama to reassess his Iran policy. Nonetheless, just as it has ruined old opportunities, such a change may provide new ones.

This will be my last real-time blogging entry. I was happy to notice that over the last two weeks my entries became the primary source of information on Iran for many of you. Has the opposition lost? Definitely not. The street demonstrations may be over, but the people are still angry, The form of protest has shifted from an outward to an inner expression. Thust, there just isn’t as much information flowing out of Iran. Iran has changed even if the same people are in power. So thank you for taking such an interest in what could be one of the most important events of the the twenty-first century’s first decade.

2:32pm Today Senator McCain has proposed legislation that would provide assistance to evade Iranian government censors. McCain has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Right now the Iranian government is attempted to show that Mousavi received foreign aid in order to crush the opposition and effectively marginalize the moderates. In this climate does McCain actually want to send aid to the opposition? Sending aid would completely undermine the opposition. The opposition hasn’t even asked for western assistance.

McCain seems to think that all democratic movements are inherently pro-Western since democracy is a Western idea. He cites examples from Eastern Europe during the Cold War to support his case. While there are important lessons to draw from these cases, they also must be looked at through the lens of the Cold War. The Poles wanted to enjoy the benefits of the West and were completely disatisfied with their society (not just their leaders). Programs such as Voice of America may have been important, but consumerism was just as important. People turned to the West not to listen to VOA but learn the latest fashions and appliances. A Pole in 1989 is not an Iranian in 2009. McCain continues to fail to grasp this fact.

It is understandable why McCain thinks this way. Just like millions of people he got swept away by the media coverage. He saw in Iran a opportunity to leave his mark on history. Here was a moment of historical preportions and he wanted to take advantage of it. Of course the problem is that events in Iran are out of US control.

I have repeatedly pointed out McCain’s lack of understanding on issues relating to international relations. During his presidential campaign half the time he didn’t know what he was talking about. To put it bluntly, international relations are above McCain’s head. In the foreign policy debate McCain was asked the question of how we would intervene in cases of human rights violations. He replied that he would carefully look at the situation before committing US resources. Where is that thinking today? Good intentions but with disasterous consequences.

1:41pm The Iranian government continues to make the case that the protests were instigated by foreign forces. There are reports that the government is attempting to extract to extract confessions from Mousavi supporters through torture. If the government can “prove” that Mousavi was backed by foreign forces then the government can have “just cause” to eliminate Mousavi. In its attempt to find a bogeyman, Iran is turning itself into a joke in the international community. Furthermore, is it really a good thing to suggest that foreign forces can so easily infiltrate into Iran, remain undectected, and garner significant support? That is an insult to the Iranian people.

1:35pm Today people across Tehran released green balloons in a sign of protest. The calls of “allahu akbar” continue into the night.

1:30pm Early today an Iranian cleric issued a strong statement against organizers of the opposition.

I ask the judiciary to behave harshly and cruelly with the leaders of the protests, as they are fed by the U.S. and Israel, so that it will teach a lesson to others

I will be updated this entry to the best of my ability with the latest aggregated news coming out of Iran. The Lede from the New York Times has been an incredible source of aggregated news and I will draw heavily on that. Twitter, however, has become the best source for information. I am currently monitoring the Twitter feeds (#iranelection). It’s hard to get completely reliable information as rumors are common and the Iranian government is spreading false information. Also the foreign press has been banned from covering the street protests. I will update this entry continuously so just refresh the page to get updates and all times are Pacific.

12:44pm There are rumors from multiple sources that Rafsanjani and the moderates may have reached a comprise with Khamenei to end the bloodshed. The compromise would be to hold a runoff election between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. However, if there was extreme vote fraud in the first election, what is going to prevent that vote fruad occuring in a runoff?

12:33pm The Telegraph is reporting that large amounts of capital are flowing out of Iran. Furthermore, many companies are refusing to put more capital into Iran unless there is political stability. You can read the article here.

12:14pm There are still several different accounts of events yesterday. The Lede has mentioned another account that suggests that the brutality was limited to beatings. The witness suggests that other more bloody accounts have been altered as they have ciriculated among the people. At least one of the reliable twitter sources reported bloodshed and several other accounts of extreme brutality. It’s one thing if there were different accounts of minor details but what we are confronted with now is two completely different accounts of the level of violence. The only potential explanation is that the accounts are from different times. Otherwise one set of accounts are completely wrong. Here’s a video from yesterday. Apparently this shows one of the main streets that leads to the square where the supposed “massacre” occurred. The quality is very bad.

12:03pm There has been practically no word coming out of Iran today. Ahmadinejad lashed out at Obama and demanded an apology, but there has been no word on any opposition activity. There were some rumors of street clashes, but not attempted rallies. A planned rally was called off today by Karroubi. It seems the political leaders (Mousavi and Karroubi) are backing off and may even be distancing themselves from the more radical demonstrations.

I will be updated this entry to the best of my ability with the latest aggregated news coming out of Iran. The Lede from the New York Times has been an incredible source of aggregated news and I will draw heavily on that. Twitter, however, has become the best source for information. I am currently monitoring the Twitter feeds (#iranelection). It’s hard to get completely reliable information as rumors are common and the Iranian government is spreading false information. Also the foreign press has been banned from covering the street protests. I will update this entry continuously so just refresh the page to get updates and all times are Pacific.

4:00pm I point you to this blog entry because it raises an interesting and sad point. For the past week and a half the twitter account, persiankiwi, has been the best and most reliable source of information coming out of Iran. Today his/her/their account went silent sometime in the late evening Tehran time. The last posts suggest a desperate situation.

rumour they are tracking high use of phone lines to find internet users – must move from here now -

phone line was cut and we lost internet  – getting more difficult to log into net -

we must go – dont know when we can get internet – they take 1 of us, they will torture and get names – now we must move fast

The entries from this account from today paint a horrifying picture of what the situation is currently like in Tehran. Yet, this one twitter account when looked at over the past week and a half tells the story of what happened in Iran. The first entries are ones of distrust and betrayal. Quickly they turn into excitment as the opposition takes tothe steet in the million plus rallies. There are detailed bits of information from around the country. They are also filled with mourning as protesters are killed. Meanwhile, the quick responses always suggest a sense of urgency and a need to constantly be on the run. Everything changes on Saturday. Horror sets in and there’s a feeling of desperation. Some of the messages are almost messianic claiming that Rafsanjani will soon step in and everything will be fine. But never is there any thought of giving up. Then today the messages are beyond horror. The reports become gruesome.

in Baharestan we saw militia with axe choping ppl like meat – blood everywhere – like butcher – Allah Akbar

The accounts of abomination turn into dread especially with the message that the phone line and internet had been cut. There’s a sense that he/she/they are being tracked and are running out of places to hide. The finally two messages are almost a farewell and an acceptance of what is about to come:

thank you ppls 4 supporting Sea of Green – pls remember always our martyrs – Allah Akbar – Allah Akbar – Allah Akbar

Allah – you are the creator of all and all must return to you – Allah Akbar – Sea of Green

And then there is silence. We can’t say what happened; perhaps he/she/they are in hiding but the impression is that the security forces finally caught up. Horror, terror, dread. To the outside world the twitter account of persiankiwi is the heart, soul, and narrative of the opposition.

3:54pm The Lede points to some eyewitness reports from today that completely contradict other reports.

I was there from 5:15 to 7:30. It was very tense. Being out in Baharstan was an act of defiance. No one said anything, there were only a few chants coming from outside the square. Although the police were a lot nicer, the Basij continued to be brutal. No one was allowed to stand in one place, we had to keep on moving. The moment we stood in one place, they would break us up. I saw many people get blindfolded and arrested, however it wasn’t a massacre. I heard that someone was killed, however I didn’t see it.

It seems odd that there would be discrepencies on the level of violence. The above account paints a picture similar to several of the attempted protests yesterday. The other accounts suggest that a massacre took place. Most accounts say they saw people die or be very severely beaten to the point of death. How can this account say he didn’t witness a single death? Furthermore, he makes no mention of any gunshots. All the other accounts mention gunshots and “firing into the crowd.” Since we can’t get any confirmation or images it’s extremely difficult to tell what exactly happened. Perhaps it wasn’t a “masscre,” but to say people were only beaten and arrested seems a little fishy.

12:33pm There are still no pictures or videos from Baharestan Square where the protest was supposed to occur. Considering the scale of the violence and the difficulty to transmit information now it seems unlikely that any  video will emerge soon. However, all the eyewitness accounts point to extreme violence. The security forces seemed to have changed their strategy today. Up until yesterday they mainly attempted to contain any protesters and prevent any protest from gaining critical mass. Today they seemed to be clearly hunting down any protesters. The helicopters were used to track protesters so that they could be hunted down by militia on foot. The demonstrations may be smaller now but they are not going away. It seems now the only person who can stop the violence is Rafsanjani but he has essentially been invisible for the past week. When will he intervene? How much longer can the moderate clerics stand on the sideline?

12:31pm This was posted on the Lede about how Neda’s family had been evicted from their home and now there there is strong militia presence in the neighborhood.

Neighbours said that her family no longer lives in the four-floor apartment building on Meshkini Street, in eastern Tehran, having been forced to move since she was killed. The police did not hand the body back to her family, her funeral was cancelled, she was buried without letting her family know and the government banned mourning ceremonies at mosques, the neighbours said.

“We just know that they [the family] were forced to leave their flat,” a neighbour said. The Guardian was unable to contact the family directly to confirm if they had been forced to leave. [...]

Amid scenes of grief in the Soltan household with her father and mother screaming, neighbours not only from their building but from others in the area streamed out to protest at her death. But the police moved in quickly to quell any public displays of grief. They arrived as soon as they found out that a friend of Soltan had come to the family flat.

In accordance with Persian tradition, the family had put up a mourning announcement and attached a black banner to the building.

But the police took them down, refusing to allow the family to show any signs of mourning. The next day they were ordered to move out. Since then, neighbours have received suspicious calls warning them not to discuss her death with anyone and not to make any protest.

A tearful middle-aged woman who was an immediate neighbour said her family had not slept for days because of the oppressive presence of the Basij militia, out in force in the area harassing people since Soltan’s death.

9:15am Defeated candidate Karoubi has called the Iranian government illegitimate. There are reports that that Mousavi and Karoubi are now under arrest but these cannot be confirmed and could be scare tactics. However, we do know that Mousavi has been under increased pressure and most likely has security forces monitoring his every move.

9:11am This is an account of what happened at the rally today (this from a very reliable twitter source):

I see many ppl with broken arms/legs/heads – blood everywhere – pepper gas like war

they were waiting for us – they all have guns and riot uniforms – it was like a mouse trap – ppl being shot like animals

saw 7/8 militia beating one woman with baton on ground – she had no defense nothing – sure that she is dead

so many ppl arrested – young & old – they take ppl away – we lose our group

ppl run into alleys and militia standing there waiting – from 2 sides they attack ppl in middle of alleys

all shops was closed – nowhere to go – they follow ppls with helicopters – smoke and fire is everywhere

Another eyewitness report:

Defying government warnings, the witnesses said that hundreds, if not thousands of protesters, had attempted to gather in front of the parliament on Baharestan Square. They were met with riot police and paramilitary militia, who struck at them with truncheons, tear gas, and guns. One witness said he saw a 19-year-old woman shot in the neck.

9:09am This video shows some of the indiscriminate violence being used by security forces. We cannot confirm if this was from today.

9:07am Here is a video from what is supposedly today.

9:02am Today’s rally did go ahead but it was quickly met by security forces. We are still trying to figure out exactly what happened, but current accounts report to an extremely brutal reaction by security forces. It has been confirmed that security forces severely beat any protesters and shots were fired. What can’t be confirmed yet is if only a few shots were fired or if security forces indiscriminately opened fire into the protesters. What ever happened it was really bad.