Marin Forum

Many people are quick to point the finger at the Bush Administration for being inept at capturing Bin Laden, but there is more to the story. Yes, the Bush Administration has made several mistakes which has made the situation only worse, yet our ability to gather accurate information about our enemies had deteriorated long before President Bush set a foot in the White House.

Pakistan and Afghanistan provide the perfect example of why the CIA struggles to hunt down Bin Laden and his network. It basically comes down to two reasons why we have been failing.

The first reason is that we are extremely reliant on proxy forces and intelligence services for our information. During the Soviet-Afghanistan War in the 1980s practically all our information came from the Saudis or the Pakistanis. We didn’t have our own personnel on the ground, so we had to rely on those with expertise in the region. The problem with relying on proxies is that those proxies have agendas of their own. Information from foreign intelligence services was constantly skewed to provoke a certain US reaction. In a sense we were basically manipulated, but it didn’t matter so long as the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan. In other cases proxies may be extremely ineffective. In Afghanistan the CIA funneled large sums of money to mercenary groups that disappeared into thin air. An increased reliance on proxy forces is one clear sign that an intelligence apparatus has atrophied.

The second reason is that we have become highly reliant on high tech surveillance equipment that many see as a substitute for human intelligence. In the late 1990s the new favorite toy of the of the CIA was the Predator drone. The problem with drones and satellite images is that they only provide a snapshot in time. They are nothing more than a picture or a video clip. They do not provide motives or background for what is going on. Technology is supposed to compliment and supplement traditional forms of intelligence gathering not replace them.

The Bush Administration inherited a poorly functioning intelligence apparatus. In the Middle East we became too dependent on proxies and technology. We have very little idea about what is happening on the ground. That is why we struggle to find Bin Laden. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was one of the first times in decades that US eyes and ears were placed on the ground in the region. The solution must be to restore the importance of human intelligence so we can understand the social-cultural-economic aspects of our targets. Once those are understood we can better combat global terrorism.

Of all the technologies currently available, solar energy is proving to be the most effective and environmentally friendly. Nuclear power has too many political issues at the moment and crop based biofuels are the equivalent of a fad. Most biofuel research is only a temporarily solution. So solar power is the alternative that should be turned to, but at the moment it makes up only a tiny fraction of the total energy output. Solar thermal technology is showing the most promise, yet photovoltaic cells are still going to be an important part of the solution.

One of the larger problems with solar power is land. Plants requires large amounts of land which might be unavailable in more built up areas. The solution is to install photovoltaic cells on as many roofs as possible. Except maybe during peak hours (also cloudy weather and nighttime) the solar panel array will produce more energy than the household consumes. Since electricity is hard to store, it has to be fed back into the power grid or it will be wasted. Thus, each individual household becomes a electricity producer for the entire power grid. Dirty powerplants such as coal and petroleum can be taken off-line until they are needed during peak hours and after dark. Of course this only covers residential communities as industrial and commercial sectors would still require power from the grid, but it would make residential communities energy sustainable.

The issue then arises how do you get people to install solar panels. Installing a solar panel array can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000 which is beyond the price range of many people. The most important first step is to achieve grid parity or the point where photovoltaic energy is equal or cheaper than grid power. In areas with abundant sun or high fuel prices grid parity has been reached. In the United States grid parity will first reach or has already reached the Southwest, California, and Hawaii. Grid parity can be reached in other areas as photovoltaic technology becomes more efficient. So more money needs to be funneled into this area of research to achieve grid parity.

The second step is to provide financial incentives. Many areas provide government subsidies for installing solar panels. The California Solar Initiative gives homeowners a 20-30% rebate on the total cost of the system. Subsidies can go a long way toward making solar panel systems more affordable. Homeowners can also sell their excess energy output back to the power grid. Trough metering systems a fixed price can be set for each unit of energy outputted to the grid. In the long run this makes the solar panel array pay for itself.

There are three parts to the solution. The first is reaching grid parity by making the current technology more efficient and cost effective. Second, the initial capital required should be reduced through government subsidies (also new research should yield cheaper technologies). Finally, a simplistic and easy to understand system needs to be developed to allow homeowners to sell back their unused energy output. There also needs to be incentives or requirements on new construction that demands the installation of solar panels.

The net effect will be to make residential communities far more sustainable. The individual communities will produce their own green energy which in turn will decrease the demand for dirty energy. Power companies will not need as many plants operating or personnel which would decrease their costs. Maintenance costs would be reduced as the individual homeowner would be the one responsible. There is vast potential in solar power; all that the field requires is the will to implement it.

On the June 3rd California ballot voters will decide whether to reform eminent domain and eliminate rent control under Proposition 98. Regardless of what you make think of rent control, Prop. 98 should be viewed as a flawed and deceptive initiative. Prop. 98 uses a rather uncontroversial issue (eminent domain reform) to hide a “secret agenda” (elimination of rent control).

Proposition 98 consists of of six sections. Only one of the six sections involves eminent domain reform. Section six titled ” Effective Date” lays out how rent control will be eliminated, yet the section feels tacked on at the end of the initiative. There is also one more instance where rent control is mentioned. Art. 1 Sec. 19 (b) (3) (iii) of the the Californian Constitution would read:

regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.

That paragraph is the only section in the proposed amendment that mentions rent control. The amendment contains 24 paragraphs; 23 of them deal with eminent domain reform. The stated purpose of Prop. 98 furthers the perception that the anti-rent control measure is tacked on. No where in Section 2 Statement of Purpose is rent control mentioned. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) all involve eminent domain. Why isn’t rent control mentioned in the “Statement of Purpose?”

Perhaps there is no “secret agenda” behind Prop. 98 and the main purpose of it is to pass eminent domain reform, but then why is rent control tacked onto it? Eminent domain and rent control are two different issues. The anti-rent control portion is a rider and its inclusion makes the entire purpose of the initiative suspect. If interest groups want to eliminate rent control then they should create a separate initiative that puts the decision clearly before the voters. Proposition 98 is nothing more than a lame attempt to deceive voters and sneak in a controversial issue.

Torture is extremely difficult to define, especially when one is trying to differentiate between torture and coercive interrogation.

Amnesty International defines torture as “the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain in any form by one person on another, or on a third person, in order to accomplish the purpose of the former(interrogator) against the will of the latter(victim).” A fundamental question arises: what is “acute pain.” Pain is hard to define for it differs from person to person. Electrocution is going to painful for anyone, but what about forced standing? Where do we set the threshold? If the threshold is set too low then we risk labeling everyday and perhaps necessary law enforcement practices as torture. However, the threshold cannot lie anywhere above practices such as electrocution, removal of fingernails, etc.

That is one of the problems in giving an exact definition of torture. A general definition is easy to come up with, but once specific cases are examined lines begin to be blurred.

To make matters even more difficult is the issue of psychological pain. Psychological pain is even harder to define that physical pain. Yet the infliction of psychological pain is a common practice in torture/interrogation. In many cases an individual will completely break down after seeing a loved one imprisoned and then tortured. Psychological pain is extremely broad and subjective. Furthermore, it leaves no physical marks on the body which makes it hard to treat it on equal footing with physical pain. Yet psychological events can be just as traumatic as physical pain. Studies during the the 1950-70s by the CIA showed that certain psychological events such as sensory deprivation can permanently impair the mind. So once again there’s the threshold problem.

Torture and coercive interrogation differ merely on extent. Forced standing for 2 hours may be coercive interrogation but forced standing for 10+ hours may very well constitute torture. The problem lies in that there is a substantial gray area between the two. Where is that threshold set? The answer to that question requires in depth psychological research into the studies of pain and the body. Perhaps research into this field will further support the claim that torture is a very inefficient intelligence gathering tool.

This caught my eye on the Washington Post for its absurdity:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001571.html

Mr. James Miller suggests that the best way to appease Hillary Clinton and her supporters is to give her a spot on the bench for the Supreme Court. Apparently she would be able to provide the energy to fight back against the conservative members of the court, and her views on most issues are nearly identical to Obama. Putting Clinton on the Supreme Court is ludicrous for several reasons.

1. Where are Clinton’s law credentials? Yes, she went to law school but she failed the the DC bar exam. She is not Supreme Court justice material since she has no experience in this area, and Obama nominating her would be similar to when Bush nominated Harriet Meirs. Hillary Clinton is a politician, not a justice.
2. Putting Clinton on the Supreme Court would further politicize the Court. Supreme Court Justices should be selected on merit, not as political patronage. Turning the Supreme Court into a body for political patronage would weaken the legitimacy of the Court since justices would be accountable to the president. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a completely independent entity.
3. The nominating process would lead to a losing battle for the newly elected Obama. Mr. Miller claims that Clinton would easily be confirmed by the Senate, yet that is highly unlikely. Republicans can’t stand her and many Democrats are wary of her. A Democratic majority in the Senate may not translate into a successful confirmation. Harriet Meirs didn’t get confirmed by the then Republican controlled Senate. In any event the nomination of Clinton to the Supreme Court would be a long and drawn out battle that would tarnish Obama’s presidency. I’m surprised that someone who has written a book on the Senate could be so naive to think that Clinton would be confirmed without any problems.

Hillary Clinton is a politician not a justice, and her future lies in the Senate, the vice-presidency, or maybe someday the presidency. Furthermore, nominating Clinton to the Supreme Court in an act of political patronage would cripple the legitimacy of the Court. I usually respect the opinions of the columnists for the Washington Post, but on this issue Mr. Miller is completely out of touch with the current political climate and the workings of American political institutions.

Many people assume that once a Democrat is in the White House we will be out of Iraq by the end of the year. While both the candidates for the Democratic nomination sincerely want to extricate the United States from Iraq, they know very well that their hands are tied. It’s partly for this reason that neither Obama nor Clinton have made an immediate withdrawal of troops a priority in their campaigns. They don’t want to promise complete and immediate troop withdrawals but then break that promise upon finding that such an option is not practical. The Bush administration got the United Stated mired in Iraq and they leave the next president with the mop to clean up everything.

What could be even more constraining to a Democrat in the White House is the spectre of Islamofascism (if such a thing exists). Here’s a hypothetical situation (with way too many factual holes to count): The US withdraws all its troops by 2010; however, the Iraqi Army is still poorly performing. Without US military might the Iraqi government falls apart and is replaced with more radical Islamic politicians and leaders. Thus, Iraq becomes another Islamic state espousing anti-US/anti-Israel rhetoric. If this were to happen it would be 1948 and the fall of China to communism all over again. Republicans would jump all over the the Democrats and blame them for allowing Islamic extremism and terrorism to expand.

The premise of that situation is factually flawed, but the fear of losing Iraq to Iran’s influence has to be in the back of Obama/Clinton’s mind. In other words they will have to tread very carefully to prevent the perceived influence of Iran from increasing.

Militarily, the current strategy is having success. Even though General Petraeus is rotating out, US strategy will remain unchanged. The Pentagon found something that is working and they are going to stick with it regardless of who’s commanding. Since there has been success the Joint Chief of Staff and the commanding officers in the field will only want to see a slow and carefully planned withdrawal. The Pentagon will constrain the White House in how quickly US soldiers return home.

So in 2009 we will see the same strategy in Iraq being used. The only difference will be the extent and timing of troop withdrawals. The Pentagon believes it can start lowering troop numbers, but it wants to take it slow. Obama or Clinton would most likely defer to those general’s assessments since neither candidate is a foreign policy buff. They may push the generals for quicker withdrawals, but in the end of the day neither candidate wants Iraq to turn into a complete mess. Perhaps McCain is not too far off the mark when he said that we will be out of Iraq by 2013. Maybe with a Democrat it will be 2012 or 2011, but we will not be out of Iraq by December 2009.

What a Democrat in the White House will do, however, is to push forward an endgame strategy. Obama or Clinton will not pull the US out of Iraq in 2009 but either one will set us on the path toward extrication.

Currently the US Army is going through its officers to find colonels who will be suitable for promotion to brigadier general. Most of the colonels in consideration are steeped in counterinsurgency tactics fine-tuned by General David Petraeus. The article can be read here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403366.html

The first interesting aspect this article highlights is the pivotal role that General Petraeus is playing in the Army. Clearly he is being branded as the general for the 21st century. Global terrorism will continue to be one of the biggest threats to international security so our military needs to be well trained in counterinsurgency tactics. If trends continue General Petraeus could go down in history as one of the most influential generals of the first half of the twenty-first century.

A second interesting point was the renewed emphasis on human intelligence. One of the colonels under consideration wrote a paper on the importance of the political and cultural aspects of the war. Rumor has it that he will play an important part in shaping Army doctrine in the upcoming years.

In the 1990s we became too dependent on technology. The airforce became confident that it could win wars through superior technology (stealth bombers, laser guided bombs, drones). At times Clinton’s foreign policy could be considered a matter of launching tomahawk missiles into the desert. The success of this strategy culminated in the Balkan conflicts. However, the Serbian Army was one of the last conventional armies that the the US faced. September 11th changed all that. Furthermore, the air-war developed during the 1990s was practically discredited following the July War in Lebanon (2006) and Israel’s failure to eliminate Hezbollah.

Many of our mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq can be attributed to poor intelligence and understanding of the area. The CIA suffered the same problem. It’s human intelligence ability had atrophied to the point where it was nearly nonexistent. Predator drones may keep our men and women out of harms way, but there’s no substitute for a pair of human eyes on the ground.

Proper counterinsurgency requires embedding our forces in local communities and creating alliances among the people to flush out terrorist organizations. Of course to do this properly we need a better understanding of the local politics and cultures. In other words, it is about time that the military rethinks its strategy for combating twenty-first century global terrorism. In today’s world it is imperative that our leaders have a full understanding of the political and cultural implications of military engagement.

Military actions and cultural-political implications are becoming closely entwined.

On May 15, as President Bush addressed the Israeli Knesset on the 60th anniversary of the birth of Israel, he raised the specter of the Holocaust to compare the policies of “some people,” in other words, the Democratic Party, to those of Nazi appeasers preceding World War II. According to the President, by sitting down to talk with the heads of terrorist states and other radicals, or negotiating, we would be ignoring the lessons of history taught to us before WWII. Here is part of what the President said: “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Okay, I’ll give him that. Appeasement was thoroughly discredited during the run up to WWII. However, to conflate appeasement and negotiation is dangerous, and the power of negotiation most definitely hasn’t been discredited by history. Look at U.S./Soviet relations during the Cold War. We negotiated with the terrorist Soviet state then, and thank God we did. Can you imagine what may have happened if JFK had refused to negotiate with Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis? At least JFK was smart enough to realize that before he leads the world into nuclear war, he should do everything in his power to prevent it, including talk to someone he doesn’t like. If JFK had bought into the same dangerous logic that President Bush was espousing in front of the Knesset and conflated appeasement and negotiation, we may have seen the end of the world in 1962.

What further irks me about the President’s statement is his total lack of integrity and willingness to completely misrepresent the facts regarding negotiation and appeasement. Not only is it dangerous, as I mentioned above, but it’s also nothing more than an unfounded political ploy, a play in the political game of fear mongering. This statement was designed to scare Americans and Israelis alike into thinking that negotiations will lead to another Holocaust in the same way that appeasement did in the late 1930’s. Well, since I haven’t seen anyone in the media deconstruct Bush’s argument and point out the differences between negotiation and appeasement, allow me.

Negotiation is not appeasement. Negotiation is characterized by give and take. Everybody makes some concessions. What concessions did Hitler make when Chamberlain was trying to appease him? None. For the President to suggest that Democrats would not expect concessions from, say, Iran, is shameless. It is to suggest that Democratic negotiations would lead to an Iranian invasion of Israel in the same way that appeasement led to a Nazi invasion of much of Europe.

When Senator Joe Biden was asked about the President’s remarks, besides calling them “bull***t,” he asked, “Since when does this administration think that if you sit down, you have to eliminate the word ‘no’ from your vocabulary?” Exactly. Just because we sit down to talk doesn’t mean we give up our right to reject the outcome of the negotiation. All it means is that we tried to avoid war and exhausted every resource in doing so. If the situation comes to conflict after all diplomatic roads have been exhausted, then so be it. We don’t have to succumb to Iranian demands just because we negotiate with them. Unfortunately, however, President Bush’s vested political interests don’t lie in telling the truth, but instead depend on scaring people into believing that negotiations lead to appeasement, which would then lead to a replay of WWII in the Middle East.

The slow response by the government of Burma following Cyclone Nargis led several countries to demand for direct intervention under the UN’s “responsibility to protect.” Traditionally the United Nations only forcibly intervenes in a country for peace enforcement issues. The best example of this is the Korean War. In all other cases of intervention the country in question will “invite” the UN to mediate a conflict. However in 1997 a reform was initiated where the international community agreed to a “clear and unambiguous acceptance by all governments of the collective international responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. ”

This reform was aimed at preventing a repeat of Rwanda or one of the many other conflicts in the 1990s. Yet does this “responsibility to protect” expand to humanitarian crises where a government may withhold or hinder relief efforts? Does withholding relief efforts constitute “crimes against humanity?”

In light of recent events in Burma countries such as France have argued that the international community should intervene. By hindering relief efforts the government is failing to protect its citizens and its actions are resulting in the deaths of thousands. Thus, the indirect deaths from government action (or inaction) is held on nearly equal footing with government action directly killing its citizens.

While direct humanitarian intervention may be the right thing to do, it might have unintended consequences that could make the situation worse. The presence of foreign military forces might weaken the government of the country in question. A humanitarian crisis would then be expanded into a political crisis.

The “responsibility to protect” is best applied to conflict situations. It should only be expanded to humanitarian crises under certain circumstances which should be determined on a case by case basis. If the intent of the government in question’s slow response is not due to bad intentions then the international community should not intervene. Furthermore, if the country is political instable and intervention would only increase the instability then the international community should refrain from intervening.

While the “responsibility to protect” may save hundreds if not thousands of lives in a humanitarian crises such as in Burma, the consequences must be weighed carefully. Quick and efficient recovery will only result if the country has long-term stability.

Since Slobodan Milosevic was ousted in 2000 Serbia has struggled to decide on a path to follow. Would it try to become part of the European Union or would it turn back to long time ally Russia? The Pro EU group had a slight majority over the Ultranationalist groups, but Kosovo’s independence gave the ultranationalists the chance to gain power. However, today President Boris Tadic and his pro EU bloc won parliamentary elections with 39% of the vote. Yet the large victory does not mean that Serbia is heading to the EU. The ultranationalists and other opposition parties could create a coalition in parliament to gain enough seats to form the government.

Kosovo is the epitome of the problems that Balkan leaders face, namely the inability to move on. Throughout the 1990s the Balkans were engulfed in civil war as leaders espoused nationalist agendas. While the leaders may be gone, the nationalist sentiments are still present. Serbs still believe that Kosovo rightfully belongs Serbia for religious and cultural reasons even though Serbs constitute a minority in the region.

If anything Kosovo is a drain on Serbian resources. In the latter 1990s the Former Republic of Yugoslavia launched a war that resulted in thousands of deaths and further tarnished the country’s international image. The result of the war led to the deployment of NATO soldiers on Serbian soil which compromises Serbia’s national sovereignty. Now with Kosovo’s independence Serbia needs to recognize that Kosovo is gone for good. With several of the world’s powers (the United States one of them) recognizing Kosovo, Serbia cannot intervene in Kosovo without severe repercussions.

EU membership is necessary for the country to move beyond the bloody 1990s. But as long as Serbian leaders cling to unobtainable nationalist symbols, the country will never fully integrate with the West. The Ultranationalists will only aggravate tensions in the volatile Balkan Peninsula, and closer ties with Russia would only increase tensions and further remove Serbia from the benefits of an European partnership.

Serbia’s future is still uncertain, but a plurality of Serbs want to integrate with the European Union. Boris Tadic’s government must shore up support if it wishes to set Serbia on the track to EU membership.