And the Winner is ... Iran

Lately, some are talking as if the 'surge' is winning the war in Iraq. While the surge, among other important factors (1), has definitely improved matters, let's see who is really winning and losing. To determine this, let's compare the condition of the major players before the run up to the war vs today. Here's the short story: the winners are Iran, the Kurds, the Shia, al Qaeda and Israel. The losers are America and the Sunnis.

WINNERS

Iran is by far the biggest winner, for several reasons:

Saddam Hussein was removed. Saddam's Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 killing half a million Iranians.

The current Iraqi government, far from being an enemy of Iran, is very close and friendly (2).

Iran is the center of Shia Islam, and Iraq is now controlled by Shia rather than Sunni

Iranian presence in Najaf, the Shiite spiritual center that actually controls the country, is very strong. Iran has even extended its power grid into southern Iraq [Engel 2008].

The Kurds were terribly oppressed by Saddam. Although Kurdistan became quasi-independent after the first Gulf War with American protection, Saddam was an ever present danger. Iraqi-Kurdistan was never occupied by American troops and is independent in all but name today.

The Shia have lived in Iraq for 1300 years under Sunni rule. Today the Shia control the central government and the southern oil producing regions.

al Qaeda had zero presence in Iraq before the run up to the American invasion, Saddam made sure of that (3). Today their presence is reduced from its peak but still significant. The Sunni Awakening leaders are keeping some al Qaeda fighters protected for future use against Iran and the Shia, or America if we don't leave [Engel 2008]. Also, al Qaeda's strategy is to goad America into spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and the Iraq war has added nearly a trillion dollars to our debt. Excessive debt leads to bankruptcy.

Israel suffered from suicide bombers subsidized by Saddam's Iraq. Iraq was also one of the strongest Arab countries committed to Israel's destruction. While this commitment doesn't seem to have really changed, there is no practical threat to Israel from Iraq today.

LOSERS

America before the Iraq invasion had an unbeatable military, a balanced budget, a strong economy and unparalleled support around the world.

Today our ground forces are bogged down and no longer considered invincible.

We have added almost four trillion dollars in debt, with a projected deficit of a half trillion next year, pushing us closer to bankruptcy.

The economy's financial sector is in deep trouble, thousands of people are losing their homes each week, and the dollar is falling like a stone.

We have lost most of our international support and many see America as the land of torture and illegal invasion. This is very bad as international support is critical to winning the war on al Qaeda.

The Sunnis have lost control of Iraq for the first time in 1300 years and about half of the pre-war Iraqi Sunnis are dead or have left the country. See Sunni Extermination?.

It is possible to salvage something from America's Iraq disaster. Dunkirk was a terrible defeat for the British in World War II, but most of the troops made it home even if their equipment did not. England went on to win the war, primarily by enlisting the support of America and Russia. Perhaps we can salvage something from the ashes of our disastrous Iraq adventure.

Notes

(1) Other factors reducing violence include:

Sunni Awakening, a movement that started about a year before the surge. Some Sunni tribes have, at least temporarily, allied themselves with the Americans and against al Qaeda in Iraq. This may be related to the huge losses Sunnis suffered when allied with al Qaeda in Iraq.

Muqtada al-Sadr, who wants the Americans to leave and leads the largest Shia militia, declared a truce in August 2007. This decision may be related to the surge and/or a belief the Americans will leave sometime reasonably soon. Why get chewed up by American firepower if they will leave anyway?

General Petraeus took command of US forces in Iraq. Petraeus was the guiding light for the new
US counter-insurgency field manual. One of the lessons therein: lose the moral high ground, lose the war.

(2) When the President of Iran recently visited Iraq, his visit was scheduled, he arrived in broad daylight to a red carpet, drove from the airport to the Green Zone, and traveled about with little or no security. Contrast this with how American VIPs visit Iraq. For security reasons, Americans arrive unannounced, usually at night, fly to the Green Zone in helicopters, and only travel with massive security.

(3) Saddam was our de facto ally in the war with al Qaeda, but just before the invasion Saddam allowed al Qaeda to establish a presence in Iraq. This was probably related to his strategy to make Iraq ungovernable for the U.S. [Scheuer 2008]. He also let thousands of prisoners out of jail, perhaps for the same reason.

References

[Engel 2008] "War journal: My Five Years in Iraq," Richard Engel, NBC News Middle East correspondent.

[Scheuer 2008] "Marching Toward Hell, America and Islam after Iraq," Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA bin Laden unit.

The Next Commander in Chief

"You cannot kill your way out of an insurgency, you have to turn them" General Petraeus, the most successful U.S. commander in Iraq. Without the support of the Muslim world, no matter how many al Qaeda operatives we kill, they will simply be replaced. If killing were decisive, John McCain might be a good commander in chief, but it isn't. Victory requires turning the Islamic world into our friends and allies, for that we need Barak Obama.

Related posts

This U.S. Military Will Surprise You: a discussion of The U.S. Army - Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual and the rather surprising lessons it has for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the struggle against al Qaeda.

Winning the War on al Qaeda.

FISA

I finally found out what the almost-never stated provisions of FISA are:

1. Wiretapping of American citizens within the US requires a warrant.

2. Wiretapping foreign nationals in foreign countries does not require a warrant. This is true even if the foreign national overseas is conversing with an American in the US.

I'm not sure about foreign nationals inside the US or US citizens in foreign nations.

Leaving aside abuse, for the moment, here are the questions: Is today's FISA the right balance between fighting al Qaeda and the privacy rights guaranteed in the Constitution? If not, what is the right balance? And finally, can reasonable people disagree on the last two questions?

My answers: Probably not. I don't know (1). Yes.

Here's the presidential question: fixing FISA will require public pressure. Is this more likely to succeed with an Obama administration or a McCain administration? (hint: starts with an O)

(1) Here's a case to consider: we know al Qaeda has bases in northern Pakistan. Technically, we could monitor all the communications out of that region (or at least those passing through the US), and send them through computers looking for key words. When the computers find something suspicious, they could pass the communication to a human for analysis. This would be enormously useful, and is probably being done as we speak.

However, it's impossible to get probable cause for an entire region of the Earth, so warrants in the current legal framework don't work. How do we craft a law that allows us to go after al Qaeda in this or similar ways and that also passes Constitutional muster?

Obama and the media

Lately, the press is going through one of its periodic bash Obama phases (to be fair, they are bashing McCain too). Here's my take:

Iraq. The media claim Obama is reversing course because he says he'll 'refine' his position based on the unfolding situation. This is exactly what I want my president to do -- respond to changing conditions. Obama has been crystal clear from the start that he wants out of Iraq. If anything, recent events (1) suggest that 'refinement' may well mean an earlier withdrawal.

FISA. Much is made of Obama's vote for the flawed FISA bill. For the life of me, I cannot find a simple list of all of FISA's provisions. While there are some obvious problems, Obama is a constitutional lawyer with a history of supporting the little guy. Furthermore, we face a real enemy, al Qaeda, using modern communication systems and new approaches are needed. Finally, even the telecom amnesty does not include amnesty from criminal prosecution. All in all, I trust Obama's judgement that these compromises are the best we can do right now. That said, I'll give money to the ACLU to fight the worst provisions.

Some media outlets say Obama and McCain are starting to look the same. This is ridiculous. It's true that McCain is closer to Obama's positions on the environment and stem-cell research than Bush; and McCain has even proposed a pull-out date for Iraq (2013). However, McCain is very conservative and Obama is fairly liberal. Just one example, if McCain becomes president, Roe v Wade is toast.

(1) Obama has suggested a roughly 16 month withdrawal period, but that was when violence was much higher and before the Iraqi government started insisting on a timetable. It was also before a senior U.S. commander suggested that we could withdraw in 2009. Any refinement will probably mean a quicker redeployment.

Winning the War on al Qaeda

On 11 September 2001 al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center in New York and severely damaged the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. This was the most successful attack on any state of the Union since the British burned Washington to the ground in the War of 1812. Although al Qaeda is a tiny organization with a vanishingly small fraction of America's power, nearly seven years later al Qaeda is alive and well, and America is severely weakened. The traditional strengths of the US military, firepower and maneuver, have failed us. The dirty war, featuring torture, secret prisons and Guantanamo has failed as well. To win this war, we need to change course. We need to understand al Qaeda and Islam and we need to apply America's power at the critical points, where victory can be achieved.

Understand al Qaeda

9/11 was not only a tactical success, killing almost 3,000, but a strategic success as well. It successfully goaded America into over-reacting, thereby losing vital support and becoming bogged down in the wrong places.

al Qaeda's strategy is to goad America into overspending ourselves into bankruptcy [Scheuer 2008]. This is succeeding. U.S. government debt ballooned $3.5 trillion to a total of about $9 trillion and counting.

The lack of major attacks on America since 9/11 means little. First, such attacks are rare, so a few years without one means nothing. Second, America is doing what al Qaeda wants - especially getting bogged down in Iraq - so there is no strategic need for attacks since such attacks are often intended to provoke an over-reaction [ U.S. Military Field Manual, page 294].

al Qaeda does a lot of recruiting on the internet using web sites to organize and communicate.

Applying Smart Power to Win

Focus on al Qaeda. Bush has responded to 9/11 by widening the war to include terror and Iraq. The result has been failure on all fronts (1). Congress should declare war on al Qaeda and ensure this war gets first choice of all resources.

Pay our bills. If we continue to rack up debt we will go bankrupt and al Qaeda will win.

Cut off the supply of men. Killing al Qaeda members doesn't do much if they can be quickly and easily replaced. To win, the world's billion plus Muslims must regard America as the good guy and al Qaeda as the bad guy. It's easy to paint al Qaeda as awful, they are. However, America looks about as bad to many Muslims. To correct this we must:

• Stop attacking countries that haven't attacked us. We lose allies and waste resources.
  
• Stop torturing people. Makes us no better than them, with predictable results.
  
• Get American soldiers out of Muslim lands (2). Nobody likes foreign soldiers running around the country, particularly soldiers who don't speak your language, don't respect your culture and/or shoot up the place. Withdraw will also eliminate most of the suicide bomber threat as suicide attacks are characteristic of peoples occupied by armies of a different religion.
  
• Stop bad-mouthing Islam. In a high-quality Gallop poll of Muslim attitudes towards America, the number one complaint was a lack of respect for Islam [Esposito and Mogahed]. It's difficult to get people on your side when you insult them constantly. Every time a right-wing pundit trash-talks Islam we suffer a defeat. It would help if they understood that.
  
• Live up to our highest ideals (3). Our Constitution is our best weapon in the PR war, but we've been trashing it not using it. This war can't be won by fighting dirty.
  

America could also neutralize the recruiting web sites. This can't be done by bringing them down, others will simply pop up. It can be done by flooding them with American patriots. A few months ago Wired magazine featured an article about a woman who learned Arabic and started interacting on the al Qaeda-related web sites. She poses as a radical, gains their confidence, and turns them in. If we had 10,000 like her, al Qaeda's web access would be neutralized. The government could supply English-Arabic translation software, identify al Qaeda recruiting sites, provide lessons learned and tips, and the President could ask us to do it. We would respond.

Cut off the supply of money. al Qaeda is funded by a combination of drug and oil money. Eliminating drug profits can be accomplished relatively easily using the civil court system. Reducing the oil money will be hard, as we are so dependent on it. Conservation is the only immediate way to reduce oil use and prices, and price will get that done. Most of al Qaeda's money appears to come from members of the Saudi royal family and we could at least stop propping up their dictatorship. In the medium term, plug-in hybrid cars could shift about 2/3 of our auto transportation energy to electricity which can be supplied by solar, wind, coal, etc. In the long term, only Space Solar Power can supply vast quantities of energy without severe environmental problems. Nuclear power should be avoided as it provides great targets to al Qaeda and the fuel and waste are critical materials for dirty bombs.

Most of all, this war cannot be won by going shopping, as Bush famously told us after 9/11. Prepare for a lot of work, taxes, and, most of all, don't expect to win without learning a lot about Islam. Don't expect to win without making a deep connection between America and the Muslim world. Don't expect to win without becoming personally involved.

There are over a billion Muslims, and, as General David Petraeus (4) says, you cannot kill your way out of an insurgency, you must turn them. It only took 19 hijackers and a half million dollars to bring down the World Trade Center. Without the support of the vast majority of the Muslim world, it will be impossible to defend this country.

Get to work.

Notes

(1) We have failed to neutralize bin Laden. Failed to destroy al Qaeda. Terrorist attacks world wide are way up. Iraq has improved lately, but is now effectively an ally of Iran. U.S. officials sneak in and out unannounced with heavy security. The Iranian President came on a scheduled visit, was greeted with flowers and a red carpet. Drove from the airport (U.S. officials have to fly in helicopters). And traveled around with minimal or no security. More telling, Iran has extended it's electric grid into southern Iraq [Engel 2008]. This is a massive failure.

(2) Obviously, withdraw will take awhile and must be accomplished very carefully. However, it must be our strategic objective. Anything else guarantees a steady supply of dedicated manpower for al Qaeda and similar organizations.

(3) [Esposito and Mogahed], in a high quality poll, found that even Islamic radicals admired American freedom and democracy.

(4) General David Petraeus is an expert on counter-insurgency warfare and has been the most successful U.S. general in Iraq. He is responsible for the recent reductions in Iraqi violence -- by applying the principles found in the [ U.S. Army - Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual].

[Engel 2008] Richard Engel, War Journal

Esposito and Mogahed] John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think

[Scheuer 2008] Michael Scheuer, Marching Towards Hell

Obama's Actual Tax Plans

McCain and others have claimed Obama plans to raise everyone's taxes. This is false. There is also a dirty little not-so-secrete about McCain's tax plans you might like to know. First, what are Obama's actual tax plans and what might they mean to you?

If you make less than $75,000/year you will probably pay less tax because Obama plans to lower taxes for these taxpayers.

If you make between $75,000-250,000 and have stocks in 401K and IRA plans, your taxes will probably stay the same.

If you make more than $250,000 your taxes will probably go up as Obama opposes extending the Bush tax cuts for these taxpayers.

If you have stock outside of tax-deferred retirement plans, your taxes might go up if you sell for a profit (realize capital gains) (1). However, stocks in 401K and IRA programs will not be affected because they are treated as ordinary income, not capital gains

Of course, not all plans come to fruition so who knows what will actually happen.

One thing that is very likely, though, is that the next Congress will have a Democratic majority. To extend the Bush tax cuts will require an act of Congress. Even if McCain wins the presidency, it's extremely unlikely he will convince Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts. Thus, regardless of who wins the White House, if you make more than $250,000/year your taxes will almost certainly go up.

Finally, Obama is committed to pay-as-you-go budgeting, meaning that he doesn't intend to borrow money every year to run the government (2). This will reduce taxes in the long run because when you borrow money you must pay back what you borrowed plus interest. Since all government income is from taxes, sooner or later taxes will be required to pay the loan off, including extra for the interest. This is why the Bush years increased our taxes in the long run. The Republicans certainly cut taxes for now, especially for Paris Hilton, but they failed to reduce expenditures and borrowed the difference (3). This saves taxes now, but requires us all to pay even more taxes later.

Obama's fiscal policies are middle-of-the-road, boring and sensible. Probably what we need.

(1) Obama may, or may not, try to increase capital gains tax. He favors an increase because it's unfair for billionaire Warren Buffet, who makes his money on capital gains and dividends, to pay a much lower tax rate (15%) than his secretary (probably 28%). However, there is some evidence that increasing capital gains taxes can, in some cases, actually decrease revenue because people make fewer trades if the tax is higher. Unlike some, Obama seems to understand that the purpose of taxes is to raise money to pay for the government.

(2) Because the government is borrowing so much money each year it will take even the most dedicated reformer years to end massive government borrowing.

(3) Total federal government debt today is about $9 trillion, meaning sooner or later we will need $9 trillion in taxes to pay it off and in the meantime we need about $400 billion in taxes every year to pay the interest.

Should America Talk to Her Enemies?

When deciding whether to do something, it's useful to see how similar acts have fared in the past. Consider:

• Ronald Reagan talked to Gorbachev, the head of the 'evil empire,' also known as the Soviet Union. A few years later the Soviet Union collapsed and America won the Cold War.
  
• The Bush administration talked to Muammar al-Gaddafi, the leader of Libya, a state sponsor of terrorism. Libya subsequently gave up their nuclear weapons program, turning over documents and hardware.
  
• General Petraeus, American commander in Iraq, talked to the Sunni insurgents who were killing American soldiers. Many of these insurgents subsequently joined the Sunni Awakening, allied with America, and drove al Qaeda in Iraq to the brink of extinction.
  

With all of this success, why are the Republicans so upset that Barack Obama says he'll talk with America's enemies? To score political points, of course. They are trying to attach the label 'appeaser' to Obama. Appeasement was a spectacularly unsuccessful policy followed by Britain and France before World War II where they gave territory to Hitler's Germany in exchange for false promises of peace.

The Republicans mistakenly think appeasement refers to talking, which is false. The most hysterical example is an MSNBC Hardball discussion where conservative radio talk-show host Kevin James calls Obama an appeaser (see video). When questioned, it turned out James was completely ignorant of the history of appeasement and, in fact, didn't even know what the word meant. Specifically, he didn't know that Britain and France gave Hitler half of Czechoslovakia at a conference in Munich in 1938 -- the most famous actual case of appeasement.

If you want ignorant name-callers to run the country, Kevin James and his ilk are for you. If we allow them to define our political discourse, we will lose the war with al Qaeda, because you can't win tough wars with bullshit. If you want an extremely intelligent president who has real knowledge of the peoples we must bring to our side to win (1), vote for Barack Obama.

(1) "You cannot kill your way out of an insurgency, you must turn them," David Petraeus, the most successful American commander in Iraq.