From Russia with love

By Mustang Bobby

Mitt Romney isn't even the president, but he's already screwing up foreign policy:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that Mitt Romney's characterization of Moscow as the United States' "number one geopolitical foe" has actually helped Russia.

The Russian leader said Romney's comments strengthened his resolve to oppose NATO's plan for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a system Russia believes will degrade its nuclear deterrent. The U.S. insists the system is aimed at Iran, not Russia.

"I'm grateful to him (Romney) for formulating his stance so clearly because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems," Putin told reporters, according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

Mr. Romney's Secret Service code name is Fustercluck. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

World War III

By Carl 

You think I speak in hyperbole. I do not.

Turkey deployed anti-aircraft guns and other weapons alongside its border with Syria, state television reported on Thursday, days after the downing of a Turkish military jet by Syrian forces heightened the tensions between the two countries.

A small convoy of military trucks, towing anti-aircraft guns, entered into a military outpost in the border village of Guvecci, which faces a Syrian military outpost across the border and where Syrian forces and rebels clashed in recent months, TRT television footage showed.

Several anti-aircraft guns have also been deployed elsewhere alongside the border. Some trucks were seen carrying self-propelled multiple rocket launchers, TRT footage showed. 

As a member of NATO, Turkey has called on that group to stand with it. The NATO charter is pretty explicit: an attack on one member shall be deemed an attack on the alliance. Turkey's complaint is kind of small beer, since it's fighter strayed into Syrian airspace, except...

Except based on current foreign policy, there's strategic advantage for NATO (or at least the United States) to take an active role in Turkey. By occupying Syria, the US would have a clear path of friendly-ish nations to roll tanks through: Israel, Jordan/Syria, and Iraq.

Right to the Iranian border. Remember the first rule of chess: to control your enemy and win, you must control the middle of the board. If Syria were to fall into NATO hands, this would put Iran in an island surrounded by western forces, save for the north and nations like Kazhakstan and Uzbekistan.

Check. And if Iran does actually have nuclear weapons, there really is no telling what's next. Heck, even if they don't, Pakistan (nominally our ally) does and it's a mere hop, skip, and a smuggle to get them.

The distractions within the nation, the bombings of a Syrian television station and today's Justice Ministry bombings are indicative that the Assad regime does not have clear control. This will embolden the rebels to be sure, and that Turkey is on the border will give them a refuge in the north. In exchange, Turkey will have an antagonistic position that could come into play if they sortie across the border, then claim Syrian forces attacked them on native soil.

It doesn't matter what the facts will be, the "truth" will be that Turkey's sovereignty was assaulted.

The key development here, the one thing that could prevent now a crisis later, is a meeting in Geneva this weekend among UN special envoy Kofi Annan, the Syrian representative to the Arab League, and the heads of the Five Families, I mean, leaders from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

But I doubt it. I have serious reservations that this game of chess is anywhere near ended. Russia and China must see the threat to Iran, and given their previous support for that corrupt regime, will give it aid and comfort now. I'm not sure what would impel them to give Ahmadinejad a divorce, but one can pretty much see it's not Syria.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

NATO airstrike kills Afghan civilians. Yes, it's time to end this war.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

NYT:

Afghan officials said Sunday that a NATO airstrike had killed 14 civilians, most of them women and children, in the southern province of Helmand on Saturday night.

Local officials said the strike was aimed at Taliban fighters and missed, hitting two family homes.

But in a conflicting account, a high-level NATO official said Sunday night that nine civilians were killed in the strike, which was aimed at five insurgents who attacked a coalition foot patrol and killed a Marine. The insurgents continued to fire from inside a compound when NATO forces called in the strike.

"Unfortunately, the compound the insurgents purposefully occupied was later discovered to house innocent civilians," the official, Maj. Gen. John Toolan, commander of NATO forces in the Southwest region, said in a statement. The general apologized for the civilian deaths on behalf of all coalition forces, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top coalition commander in Afghanistan, and said the investigation into the episode was continuing.

"While I know there is no price on human life, we will ensure that we make amends with the families in accordance with Afghan culture," he said. 

This isn't about "us" being as bad as "them," it's about the quagmire the Afghan War has become, that it has been for a long time now. And making "amends" just won't cut it. It's time to get out.

Now, I'm not sure Hamid Karzai's "last warning" really means anything. NATO (and particularly the U.S.) will stay in Afghanistan as long as it wants.

But what is the point of staying? What is the war for?

There are several answers to that question -- including supporting the country's "government" (i.e., Karzai, who barely controls Kabul), rooting out the Taliban in the name of the "war on terror," building a sustainable state with a legitimate democratic government, as well as a healthy civil society, etc.) -- but not a single one is satisfactory anymore.

It may be impossible to avoid civilian casualties entirely, but this latest incident serves as a reminder of just how pointless the war has become.

Success in Libya

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm still wrestling with the military intervention in Libya. I don't fully support it, mainly because I'm still not sure what the longer-term objectives are, but at the same time I'm not against it, and in fact, if I had to choose, I'd say I support it despite my very serious concerns and reservations.

And, yes, that's because I believe that sometimes war can be an effective instrument of peace. Is there inconsistency in that there is intervention in Libya but not in, say, Bahrain or Yemen? Sure. Is there a possibility of "mission creep"? Of course.

But I suppose the arguments in favour of intervention outweigh the arguments against it. Specifically, there were, and remain, significant humanitarian reasons to act.

And not being able to intervene everywhere, and not being willing to intervene in places with similar problems, isn't an argument against not intervening anywhere. We have to pick and choose. And it seems to me that the right choice was made with respect to Libya -- which, let us not forget, was not made by the U.S. alone but by an international alliance and, perhaps most importantly, the Arab League. And it is not the U.S. leading the intervention but NATO. And Libyans, other than Qaddafi and his thugs, seem to be welcoming it. As the NYT's Nicholas Kristof, hardly a warmonger, reports:

This may be a first for the Arab world: An American airman who bailed out over Libya was rescued from his hiding place in a sheep pen by villagers who hugged him, served him juice and thanked him effusively for bombing their country.

Even though some villagers were hit by American shrapnel, one gamely told an Associated Press reporter that he bore no grudges. Then, on Wednesday in Benghazi, the major city in eastern Libya whose streets would almost certainly be running with blood now if it weren't for the American-led military intervention, residents held a "thank you rally." They wanted to express gratitude to coalition forces for helping save their lives.

Doubts are reverberating across America about the military intervention in Libya. Those questions are legitimate, and the uncertainties are huge. But let's not forget that a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted for now and that this intervention looks much less like the 2003 invasion of Iraq than the successful 1991 gulf war to rescue Kuwait from Iraqi military occupation.

This is also one of the few times in history when outside forces have intervened militarily to save the lives of citizens from their government. More commonly, we wring our hands for years as victims are massacred, and then, when it is too late, earnestly declare: "Never again."

Yes, American troops were welcomed in Iraq, too, before things went horribly wrong. But Libya is not Iraq and this intervention is not that war. Could it become something like that? Yes, perhaps. But there are always risks. In the wake of the Iraq War and Occupation, should the military never be used this way? Is any and all intervention wrong?

Yes, I know. What about not just Bahrain but, say, Burma and North Korea? Well, again, we have to be realistic about when and where intervention for humanitarian purposes can succeed, as well as when and where an international coalition can be put together. Sometimes other measures are called for, like sanctions. I do not support military intervention in Iran, for example, which would likely be a disaster. But sometimes, just sometimes, you need to use force. With Qaddafi threatening mass murder of his own people, at a time of historic pro-democracy movements throughout the Middle East, this would appear to be one of those times.

And, so far, there has been significant success. Check out Juan Cole's list of the top ten accomplishments of the U.N. no-fly zone, which concludes:

The liberation movement at the moment likely controls about half of Libya's population, as long as Misrata and Zintan do not fall. It also likely controls about half of the petroleum facilities. If Benghazi can retake Brega and Ra's Lanouf and Zawiya, Qaddafi soon won't have gasoline for his tanks or money to pay his mercenaries. Pundits who want this whole thing to be over with in 7 days are being frankly silly. Those who worry about it going on forever are being unrealistic. Those who forget or cannot see the humanitarian achievements already accomplished are being willfully blind.

I appreciate the very persuasive arguments against this intervention and I respect many of those making them, including the likes of Glenn Greenwald and many Democrats in Congress. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're being "willfully blind." In the end, they may be proven right. But we don't know how this will end, and, as of right now, even without a sense of what the longer-term objectives are, it is undeniable that a great deal has been achieved, much to the credit of those who have taken the risk to intervene with force.

U.S. military fucks up in Afghanistan, killing children, strengthening Taliban

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Times:

Nine boys collecting firewood to heat their homes in the eastern Afghanistan mountains were killed by NATO helicopter gunners who mistook them for insurgents, according to a statement on Wednesday by NATO, which apologized for the mistake.

The boys, who were 9 to 15 years old, were attacked on Tuesday in what amounted to one of the war’s worst cases of mistaken killings by foreign-led forces. The victims included two sets of brothers. A 10th boy survived.

The NATO statement, which included an unusual personal apology by the commander of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, said the boys had been misidentified as the attackers of a NATO base earlier in the day. News of the attack enraged Afghans and led to an anti-American demonstration on Wednesday in the village of Nanglam, where the boys were from.

Something tells me the personal apology from Petraeus isn't going to help much. As Comrade Misfit puts it, "[n]o matter how many clinics NATO sets up or how many schools are opened, the relatives of the dead children aren't going to be in a forgiving mood."

And neither, of course, will the Taliban, which only gets stronger each and every time the U.S. (and NATO) fucks up like this. As Andrew Sullivan puts it:

Of course this was a mistake. But it reinforces the human toll of fighting an insurgency you often cannot see in a region you cannot fully control where insurgents and civilians are often interchangeable. At some point, the inevitability of this kind of civilian death makes one reassess the justness of this long, long war -- and the chances of "success" whatever that now means.

Can you imagine how we would feel if nine American boys were slaughtered from the air by an occupying power? Does anyone think this kind of mistake -- inevitable in such a war zone -- can do anything but help the insurgency?

Maybe it was inevitable, maybe it wasn't. But the fact that it happened, along with the inevitable anti-American response from justifiably angry Afghans, reveals a great deal about a war that has turned into a quagmire of failure.

Americans would never put up with this. Why should we expect the Afghans to?

Canada vs. the pirates

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With so much attention on piracy off the coast of Africa, mainly because of the taking of the Maersk Alabama and its captain, there seems to be a stepped-up international effort underway to address the problem.

And -- Oh Canada! -- this was something:

Canadian sailors apprehended a band of Somali pirates at gunpoint early Sunday morning after a seven-hour pursuit across the Gulf of Aden, much of it under the cover of night.

HMCS Winnipeg, sailing off the Horn of Africa as part of a NATO-led anti-piracy mission, was escorting a United Nations food shipment when it happened on a skiff carrying seven bandits attempting to hijack the MV Front Ardenne, an 80,000-tonne tanker from Norway.

The Somalis ignored warning shots fired by a Canadian naval helicopter and fled the scene. HMCS Winnipeg, led by Commander Craig Baines, left the food shipment to other NATO vessels and gave chase.

An American ship also joined the pursuit. It was the Canadians who got to the pirates first.

The effort, which includes "a patrol of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that includes ships from Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain and the United States," is admirable -- and ought to be the start of further engagement. Joint military operations can focus both on rooting out the pirates and on protecting cargo ships in the region.

Prime Minister Harper is right, though, that, as of right now, there are serious limitations on what can be done, and hence on what can be achieved. First, there is the problem of Somalia itself. Until that anarchic country is stabilized, piracy will continue to pose a threat. Second, the Canadian military couldn't arrest the pirates, as it does not have the authority to do so. Until a legal process is in place that allows for the detention, as well as the prosecution of these pirates -- who, in this case, were disarmed and eventually released -- the international effort will lack the bite to go along with a bark that is getting louder.

Still, this incident proves that military engagement in the region, if only in the form of protection, can work. At the very least, cargo ships -- and 42 were captured in 2008, "including a Saudi supertanker called the Sirius Star and the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying tanks" -- aren't entirely sitting ducks.

Other Nations Watch US

By Carol Gee

Mideast journalist watched the NATO summit -- As has been noted in the past Aljazeera is a good source to watch and can often provide useful insight into world opinion. This is its view of Bush's current trip. "Bush loses out in Bucharest," was written by Marwan Bishara, who is Al Jazeera's senior political analyst. To quote:

As the Nato conference in Bucharest comes to a close, it is clear George Bush did not get much of what he bargained for. . . Bush's adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq have hurt Washington's standing within the alliance, even if it remains its only prospective leader.

. . . Needless to say, none of this will do the Republicans much good in an election year. With escalation in Iraq, further deterioration in Afghanistan will make it far more difficult for the Bush presidency to claim any success of any sort.

. . . All the while its partners are becoming more numerous than its members with a far more complex set of challenges than dealing with the Cold War threat from the Warsaw pact. It has become clear that the more Nato expands the less effective it has become. If Washington is to expect more European help, it will have to accept more European autonomy in defense and decision making. And even then, the Europeans remain generally reluctant to increase their military budget to four per cent of their GDP as Washington would want them to do in order to share the burden of its adventures.

Watching Putin -- "Putin criticizes NATO but has praise for Bush." Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George Bush each won and gave up a little bit at the NATO Summit this week. Putin is pleased that the Ukraine and Georgia were not admitted into the NATO alliance and Bush is pleased at the generally positive tone of remarks by Putin regarding the U.S. proposed missile shield. To quote the IHT, "Bush, speaking directly to Putin in his remarks, described the two of them as 'two old war horses,' the American official said." Russia's RIA Novosti reports on Bush's meetings in Russia next, for perhaps the last meeting between these two leaders. Bush will leave office next year and Putin will hand over power to his successor Dmitry Medvedev in May. To quote:

Bush and Putin are expected to meet for an informal dinner later today, and will begin negotiations on Sunday. The U.S. leader will also meet on Sunday with Russian president-elect Dmitry Medvedev, who is set to take over in the Kremlin on May 7 when Putin steps down.

The presidents' talks, a continuation of their meeting at the NATO summit which Putin attended as a guest, are again likely to focus on missile defense and NATO expansion. The agenda will also include a broader strategic security deal between the two countries.

References: Deutsche Welle/Germany on NATO: Opinion, easing tensions, Afghanistan, Ins & Outs ; and on the U.S. election: "Dear American Voter" videos @ Link TV.

The Financial Times watches -- For all kinds of news, not just financial, if you can only read one newspaper on line, choose the Financial Times of London. Regarding U.S. job losses, its headline reads, "US loses jobs at fastest rate in 5 years." To quote from the story:

US employers cut more jobs in March than at any other time in the past five years, reinforcing the view that the US is in recession and raising fears about consumer spending.

. . . The Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised upwards its estimate of job losses in January and February. The figures show the US has lost between 76,000 and 80,000 jobs every month since the start of this year and 232,000 jobs during the quarter.

International watch -- In the same way that we are interested in what other nations think, other nations are interested in what we think. From the International Herald Tribune we get this headline: "81% in U.S. poll say nation is on the wrong track." To quote:

Americans are more dissatisfied with the country's direction than at any time since the New York Times/CBS News poll began asking about the subject in the early 1990s, according to the latest poll.

In the poll, 81 percent of respondents said they believed "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track," up from 69 percent a year ago and 35 percent in early 2002.

Although the public mood has been darkening since the early days of the war in Iraq, it has taken a new turn for the worse in the last few months, as the economy has seemed to slip into recession. There is now nearly a national consensus that the country faces significant problems.

The BBC is watching -- the Blackwater story: Despite an FBI investigation begun in November into an "unprovoked" shooting of 17 Iraqis, Blackwater's contract to provide security to the State Department has been renewed. The Clintons' money story, provides a quote:

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and her husband, ex-President Bill Clinton, have revealed they earned more than $100m (£50m) in eight years.

Since 2000, the former first couple took in nearly $110m, with more than $20m made in 2007, and gave more than $10m to charity in the same period.

Viewing the globe as shrinking, it takes less and less time to learn what is going on in the rest of the world. With the advent of the Internet we can instantly "pick up a newspaper" from across the sea without ever getting in a boat.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

PostNATO care

By Carl

Well, some interesting developments in foreign relations today...

NATO has decided not to include the Ukraine and Georgia among its new members after strong objections from Russia. However, the alliance pledged that the two countries would eventually become members.

President Bush was a supporter of the Ukraine and Georgia's bids to become members of NATO.

Former Soviet republics Croatia and Albania were invited to become members in the decision announced Thursday.[...]

Macedonia was denied entry to the alliance after Greece blocked its invitation because of objections to the country's name. However, leaders said Macedonia can join as soon as it resolves the dispute, AP said.

Greece has a northern province that is also called Macedonia, and argues the former Yugoslav republic's insistence on being known as Macedonia implies a territorial claim.

The denial of Macedonia is a pretty silly matter, unless of course, you're Greek, or Turkish, for that matter. It's a little like denying York, Pennsylvania full American rights because it sounds like New York City.

However, the Georgia/Ukraine as well as Croatia/Albania questions... there's an interesting little bit of chemin de fer amongst the NATO allies. Russia, which of course was most decidely NOT a charter member of NATO, set up to defend against the Soviet Union's hegemony into Europe.

One almost gets the sense that Bush got the split difference: he lost out on Georgia and Ukraine, countries he had explicitly asked membership for, but was granted Albania and Croatia, which, while not former Soviet republics, certainly were under USSR influence in the old Warsaw Pact country of Yugoslavia. He had not lobbied for these. Give the baby his candy, perhaps?

This indicates the rise of Vladimir Putin's profile in European matters in tandem with the decline of American prestige in such affairs, even amongst our staunchest allies and pledged defenders.

In his book Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, David Rothkopf makes the observation that the 21st century will see a kind of global government arise that will subsume national governments, and it won't be led by America.

While this was likely inevitable before the Bush administration fumbled foreign affairs so badly after the sparkling diplomacy of Bill Clinton, Rothkopf points out that only the Bush administration could have the world hating us...for being the victim of a terror attack!

This "New World Order," to use a hackneyed phrase, will originate in Asia, and be led by China, India (which is poised to become the most populous nation on the planet shortly), and -- you guessed it! -- Russia.

Indeed, several nations which have been mulling admission into NATO have not aggressively pursued admittance simply because they view NATO as not "European enough" (code word for "too dominated by the US").

Keep in mind that Russia, China, and India all possess nukes, and all have shall we say, close working relationships with Iran?

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Chaos in Afghanistan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A troubling report from Reuters:

The conflict in Afghanistan has reached "crisis proportions," with the resurgent Taliban present in more than half the country and closing in on Kabul, a report said on Wednesday.

If NATO, the lead force operating in Afghanistan, is to have any impact against the insurgency, troop numbers will have to be doubled to at least 80,000, the report said.

"The Taliban has shown itself to be a truly resurgent force," the Senlis Council, an independent think-tank with a permanent presence in Afghanistan, wrote in a study entitled "Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the brink."

"Its ability to establish a presence throughout the country is now proven beyond doubt," it said. "The insurgency now controls vast swaths of unchallenged territory including rural areas, some district centers, and important road arteries."

Senlis said its research had established that the Taliban, driven out of Afghanistan by the U.S. invasion in late 2001, had rebuilt a permanent presence in 54 percent of the country and was finding it easy to recruit new followers.

It was also increasingly using Iraq-style tactics, such as roadside and suicide bombs, to powerful effect, and had built a stable network of financial support, funding its operations with the proceeds from Afghanistan's booming opium trade.

"It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when," the report said.

"Their oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever."

Yes, Afghanistan. The forgotten war. The neglected war. The abandoned war.

Certainly not by Canadians. Certainly not by those who are over there doing the fighting and trying to make something of that oft-abused country.

Rather, by Bush and the Iraq- and Iran-obsessed warmongers around him. For them, what was the Afghan war? Something to do in response to 9/11, an attack on Taliban and al Qaeda, a declaration of American military might. (There was the high-falutin' rhetoric of naton-building, too, but they were hardly serious about it.)

But then... what? Then it was Iraq, with almost all hands on deck for that disastrous misadventure. The Taliban was removed from power, but it is back, and powerful once again. Al Qaeda was weakened, pushed back into the mountainous border region with Pakistan, it too is still powerful. Simply put, the job was not done, not nearly completed, and the U.S. withdrew its interest and attention and launched a new war in the Middle East. NATO is in Afghanistan, and the U.S. with it, but clearly the war is not going well.

And it's not like any of this is new.

I wrote about the coming anarchy back in July of last year. At the time, the top British commander in Afghanistan described the situation as "close to anarchy". Well, chaos and anarchy may well be at hand. And, before long, the Taliban may very well be back in power in Kabul.

There has been much talk, and rightly so, of Bush's failure in Iraq. But what of his failure in Afghanistan?

It was a convenient war to wage, until it was more convenient to move on. Karzai may still preside over Kabul, and the Taliban and al Qaeda may not have quite the sanctuary they had before, but, otherwise, what exactly has gone right, in the long run, in Afghanistan?

When Russia is a neighbor

By Carol Gee

(Image: My Space)

Things can get tense -- Russian relationships with its neighbors are often difficult, requiring a great deal of effort among all the neighbors just to co-exist. The United States and Russia have been forced to work hard at easing tensions as well, given Russia's cold war history and the current administration's stance that can appear to others to be all about war. Our current president (OCP) recently invited Russian President Putin to a family get-together at the beach in Maine to put relations on a more even footing. Most of the change now appears to have been cosmetic, however. Neither the U.S, nor Russia has become more peaceful. And the European Union is the ground upon which the current sabre-rattling drama is playing out.

Tensions in the neighborhood -- One of the thorniest issues between Russia and the U.S this past year has been the U.S. proposal for deployment of a so-called "missile shield" in Europe. And U.S. plans to put additional conventional arms near the Russian border are complicating things even further, as the following story indicates. NATO is omnipresent and members of the former Soviet Union are joining the organization to which Russia has not been invited. Russia's RIA Novosti (7/14/07) headlines,"Russian president decrees to suspend CFE treaty in Russia." To quote from the story:

The fact that NATO's new members have been refraining from ratifying an agreement on adaptation to the CFE Treaty is seen as the above exceptional circumstances. Moreover, some group limits under the CFE have been exceeded since the alliance's expansion.

The document also reads that U.S. plans to deploy conventional arms in Bulgaria and Romania have "a negative impact" on compliance with CFE group limits.

Three ex-Soviet Baltic republics and seven former Communist-bloc states in Eastern Europe have joined NATO since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Former Soviet allies Ukraine and Georgia have also declared plans to join the 26-member alliance.

(Image: U. of Michigan)

The Russian Bear still threatens. He is an absolutely magnificent creature with very big teeth and a big appetite. And he has been loose in the neighborhood. How to be tough with "The Bear" is the current question for the United Kingdom's judicial system, in its efforts to further justice in the Litvinenko case. The Financial Times (of 7/11/07) headline: "UK seeks tough response to Russia." To quote:

Britain is considering serious measures against Russia – which analysts suggested could include expelling diplomats – in response to its refusal to extradite the chief suspect in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB officer.

. . . Analysts said a return to the Cold War tactic of diplomatic expulsions was one option likely to be being considered, alongside visa bans on certain law and order officials, or withdrawing cooperation in areas such as education, social affairs or counter-terrorism information.

But the UK needs to calibrate its response carefully, given the importance of cooperation with Russia on issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme and the future of the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo. Any UK actions can also be expected to trigger retaliatory responses from Russia.

When tension includes the element of dependence -- Russia is very energy rich, and the rest of the EU is less so. When a neighbor has something upon which the others are very dependent, the power ratios change. And, when only two in the neighborhood (Russia and Germany) act independently to make a deal, it inevitably affects the others living nearby. Deutsche Welle (7/13/07), "New Twists and Turns in German-Russian Gas Pipeline Saga":

The German-Russian gas pipeline saga continues with a new disputed region causing a rethink over its route. The Nord Stream consortium is again forced into finding an alternative direction for its maligned project. . . after it was revealed a section had been earmarked for a stretch of water that both Poland and Denmark claim as an exclusive economic zone.

. . . The fact that the project was negotiated by Russia and Germany without consulting the countries between them has also created great ill-will in former Soviet satellites such as Poland and the Baltics.

. . . If completed, it would create separate routes for Russia to supply gas to eastern and western Europe. As a result, the EU's eastern European member states have complained that it would allow Russia to cut off their gas supplies -- as it did to Ukraine in January 2006 -- without affecting supplies to its richer Western clients

Triangulation -- In psychological terms, the "triangulation" dynamic looks like this: One party is the "aggressor," one party is the "victim," and the third party is the "rescuer." These roles have varying levels of relative power. And the dangerous thing in this crazy dynamic is that the roles can switch with blinding speed. Role changes also happen between countries, though more slowly that with individuals.

Two or three players -- In the above articles, for example, the tension between the U.K. and Russia is unilateral; it is about serving justice. It is one thing to have unilateral tension such as between the U.S. and Russia over military arms, such as those addressed in our disarmament treaties. Add in the nations proposed to host the U.S. missile shields and you have a triangle. The deal between Russia and Germany over the pipeline was unilateral. The strain between Russia and various EU countries, over scarce energy resources, is triangulated. And finally, when triangulated relations between the U.S., Russia and the European Union are strained it gets even more complicated.

This is a test; are you tense now? Here is your question. Does anyone wish to venture a guess as to the triangle-roles played by various countries in the above examples? And what about the power ratios?

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Trouble in Afghanistan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So how is the war in Afghanistan going? Not so well, says President Karzai:

President Hamid Karzai accused NATO and U.S.-led troops [yesterday] of carelessly killing scores of Afghan civilians and warned that the fight against resurgent Taliban militants could fail unless foreign forces show more restraint.

"Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such," Karzai said in an angry rebuke that drew a contrite acknowledgment from NATO that it must "do better."

In the past 10 days, more than 90 civilians have been killed by airstrikes and artillery fire targeting Taliban insurgents, Karzai said. The mounting toll is sapping the authority of the Western-backed Afghan president, who has pleaded repeatedly with U.S. and NATO commanders to consult Afghan authorities during operations and show more restraint.

"Several times in the last year, the Afghan government tried to prevent civilian casualties, but our innocent people are becoming victims of careless operations of NATO and international forces," Karzai said at a news conference in his Kabul palace.

The casualties listed by Karzai bring the number of civilians killed in NATO or U.S.-led military operations this year to 211, according to an Associated Press tally of figures provided by Afghan and foreign officials and witnesses.

That tops the 172 civilians killed in militant attacks.

Do better, as NATO suggested? -- yeah, there's a thought.

But what Karzai may not realize is that Afghan life is treated as if it's cheaper than, say, American life. How would Washington or London or Ottawa respond if American, British, or Canadian civilians were being killed so recklessly, and by their supposed friends? Angrily, one imagines. But so what if some Afghanis are killed in hot pursuit of the Taliban? Hardly any real attention is paid to what's going on in Afghanistan anyway, let alone to the plight of Afghani civilians. The war is either ignored entirely or deemed to be such a noble cause that it lies beyond reproach. Either way, who cares about whatever collateral damage there may be? A few civilians here, a few civilians there. Whatever.

That's not my view, of course. I find the matter-of-fact nonchalance in response to reports of civilian casualties, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere, hugely disturbing. It may be a cliché, but we would all do well to put ourselves in their shoes for a change.

Good for Karzai for pointing the finger, and wagging it aggressively, at those who claim to be waging a war of liberation -- a war to free Afghanistan from the clutches of those who would tyrannize over it and use it as a base for terrorism -- but who are, in the process of waging it, killing many of those they seek to liberate.

What's the deal with Iran and the Taliban?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ABC's The Blotter is reporting that Iran is arming the Taliban:

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

Former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke seems to buy it, but SecDef Robert Gates said earlier this week that there was no evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban." So who is making this claim? Anonymous "NATO officials" and "a senior coalition official". Feel free to be skeptical.

Cernig is quite right that this effort to link Iran to Afghanistan (and to a larger proxy war) isn't new. Both his post and my post on the Cheney-Rice feud linked to a Newsweek article that asserted that "Cheney staffers have been intensely interested in a single issue: recent intelligence reports alleging that Iran is supplying weapons to Afghanistan's resurgent Islamist militia, the Taliban". A couple of weeks ago I posted on the effort to link Iran to both al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents in Iraq. And prior to any of this there were efforts to blame Iran for supplying arms to militias and insurgents in Iraq, efforts that went nowhere.

What seems to be happening is that Cheney and those close to him are trying to build a case for war against Iran, which is why they are so critical of Rice's recent attempts to reach out diplomatically to Tehran. If they can make (i.e., fabricate) the case that Iran is waging proxy war against the U.S. through al Qaeda and the Taliban, among others, then they can push for what would appear to be retaliatory war against a "proven" enemy. (Plus, Iran may soon have those WMDs.)

The problem for Cheney and those close to him, however, is that the evidence is sketchy at best, and more likely non-existent, since none of it makes much sense, which is why these reports rely on (suspicious) anonymous sources. As Cernig points out, after all, neither the British nor Afghan President Hamid Karzai are buying it.

The hoodwinking is all too transparent now.