Iran and the bomb

Let's start with an excerpt from The Economist, on a possible air attack on the Iranian nuclear program:

Attacking Iran: Up in the air

But even if things went off without a hitch Iran would retain the capacity to repair and reconstitute its programme. Unless Israel was prepared to target the programme’s technical leadership in civilian research centres and universities the substantial nuclear know-how that Iran has gained over the past decades would remain largely intact. So would its network of hardware suppliers. Furthermore, if Iran is not already planning to leave the NPT such an attack would give it ample excuse to do so, taking its entire programme underground and focusing it on making bombs as soon as possible, rather than building up a threshold capability. Even a successful Israeli strike might thus delay Iran’s progress by only three or four years, while strengthening its resolve.

In other words, an air attack simply will not prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

From the print edition:

Proponents of an attack argue that military humiliation would finish the regime off. But it is as likely to rally Iranians around their leaders.

In my opinion also, the best possible thing that can happen to a paranoid xenophobic regime like Iran or North Korea is a limited attack on it. Think about it: the government chiefly legitimizes itself by creating a worldview where their state is under constant attack from a hostile surrounding world. It's totalitarianism 101. An attack on Iran would basically tell the population that the bearded crazies ranting about how the Great Satan America is going to attack them any minute now were right all along. In an article I link to later, Iran's opposition "Green movement" is quoted as saying that a US/Israeli attack is the worst possible thing that could happen to reform in Iran. There can be little doubt that they're right.

As an article in the Washington Monthly strongly argues, the whole notion of a nuclear-armed Iran as a horrible disaster for the whole world doesn't seem to be grounded in any actual strategic scenarios. On the contrary, Iran only seems to want a nuclear capability to deter the US and Israel. Not that any clear case for the air strikes is being made, either; the USAF chief of staff recently wondered what the objective of an air campaign might be, in fairly skeptical terms.

It should be remembered that Iran constantly faces an aggressive near neighbor with a considerable nuclear, biological and chemical arsenal and a propensity to invade nearby countries: Israel. Iran is also one of the rare nations that has had weapons of mass destruction used against it in the not-so-distant past; the conventional carnage of the Iran-Iraq war was horrifying enough, but Iraqi atrocities like the Halabja attack added an element of pure horror to the war. Iranian leaders are unlikely to have forgotten that the Iraqi chemical arsenal was provided by the very countries that are now so stridently opposed to Iran's nuclear program, or that the US helped silence reports of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians.

Iran can also hardly be expected to forget that those same Western powers have for decades tacitly accepted Israel's nuclear arsenal, even keeping quiet when Israel actively participated in the apartheid-era South African nuclear program. From Iran's point of view, the West's position seems to be that while Western allies are allowed to use weapons of mass destruction against Iran, and countries like Israel and apartheid South Africa can develop a nuclear capacity, Iran can't. It's a policy that's hard to justify to its victims.

An attack on Iran would be militarily risky, wouldn't stop it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and would seem to have no positive consequences whatsoever for the security and stability of the Middle East. And that's exactly why Israel is so likely to carry it out.

The basic strategy of Israel since its founding has been the strategy of the "iron wall", best described by Israeli historian Avi Shlaim in his book of the same name. In short, throughout its existence Israel has deliberately maintained a high state of tension with its neighbors. Most of the time, little active effort has been required, but when it has, Israel has resorted to terrorism and provocations, and as a last resort, invaded its neighbors. This strategy of tension serves to keep Israeli domestic policies in line; with the constant threat of an external enemy, criticism of the powers that be can be stamped out as treason, and any external criticism dismissed as anti-Semitism. Israel's entire foreign policy rests on its image as a peace-loving victim of its innately evil neighbors; without that image the world would be too free to take a long, hard look at the way the Palestinians are being treated, and at other disagreeable aspects of Israel. The only lasting peace Israel can conceive of is one that it dictates.

This policy was last prominently seen in action in the criminal Israeli raid on the Turkish aid ship bound for Gaza. From a strategic point of view, the way Israel handled the situation was a disaster: nothing in the relief mission to Gaza was of sufficient importance to justify such a brutal attack, let alone the international outcry that followed - unless creating that outcry was one of the strategic aims of the operation: to once again "prove" to the Israeli people and their government's supporters abroad how the world is in league against poor, misunderstood Israel. The same motive has informed Israel's "settlement" program, which is deliberately designed to, among other things, sabotage the Palestinian peace process. It last accomplished this function when it was used to destroy the high-profile peace negotiations started by an astonishingly naive Obama administration.

An escalation of tension in the Middle East would be in Israel's interests as part of its continuing strategy of tension with the Muslim world. For that reason, they may very well present the US with a fait accompli in the form of an unilateral strike on Iran before the next presidential election. Because the topic of Israel simply cannot be addressed rationally in US politics, it would be electoral suicide for the Obama administration to not support an Israeli attack, no matter how counter-productive it would be from the point of view of US strategy. As long as US politicians continue to pretend that the United States and Israel have the same strategic goals, US Middle Eastern policy will be at the mercy of Israel's military adventurism. When this combines with the fact that US public discourse on Iran is completely detached from reality, Israel's design stands a good chance of succeeding.

In the long run, an Iranian nuclear capacity would probably stabilize the Middle East by making Iran more secure from intervention. The same thing happened with both the Soviet Union and China, even though hawks in the West prophesied disaster at the time. In its political history so far, the Islamic Republic of Iran had shown itself to be a largely rational state actor. So far, nuclear weapons in Muslim hands haven't led to a global or even local apocalypse. Treating Iran as a collection of genocidal lunatics to be cowed by a surgical use of American military power is repeating the same hubris that led to decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with potentially far worse results. In fact, the one thing that could be relied on to push Iran's leaders toward unreasoning radicalism would be a brutal US-Israeli attack. And that may well be exactly what Israel's political leadership wants.

If the aim is stability and consequently security in the Middle East, it seems to this blogger that the best way to achieve it in the current situation would be through mutual deterrence, as pioneered and perfected between the superpowers in the Cold War. Erect the paraphernalia of Mutually Assured Destruction anew in the Middle East: mutual and third-party verification of weapons, arms control treaties, a telephone hot line, the lot. There should still be plenty of Cold War know-how around. Such an arrangement would represent an equitable solution that addresses both parties' need for security and the rest of the world's interest in a peaceful oil-producing region. Included in the negotiations would be Iran's support for terrorist groups like the Hezbollah, and Israel's assassination campaign against the Italian nuclear program.

In the real world, this will never happen, because the West seems to be unable to exert the kind of diplomatic pressure on Israel that would bring it to the negotiation table and actually agree to a solution. Even acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons seems to be an insuperable obstacle, let alone bringing them up for negotiations.

Another option would be for the United States to extend some kind of security guarantee to Iran; essentially a "non-invasion" promise similar to the one made to the Soviets on Cuba. This, too, seems impossible. President Kennedy could do it, President McCain might have; President Obama simply can't. Even if he somehow found the foreign policy willingness and ability that his administration has so conspicuously lacked, letting the right go berserk over "appearing islamofascism" could decide the election.

Once again, the most likely outcome is that stability in the Middle East will remain as elusive as ever; not because of any inherent characteristics of the region and its inhabitants, but as a consequence of the West's continuing insistence on treating Israel's interests as identical to theirs. As long as this dangerous illusion persists, the West's policy will remain essentially counter-productive to any lasting peace in the region.

It's almost inconceivable that the US, still embroiled in two wars (despite Obama's cold war-esque "withdrawals"), is contemplating intervention in Iran and even Syria to boot. Unless cooler heads prevail, the ongoing Middle Eastern entanglement (1990-?) and concurrent "war on drugs/terror/civil liberties" will become a national trauma to dwarf Vietnam, with far worse consequences for the stability of the whole world.

Top 10 Threats of 2012

Arnaud De Borchgrave
Friday, 06 Jan 2012
Full Article:
http://www.newsmax.com/deBorchgrave/Iran-al-Qaida-Pakistan-threats/2012/01/06/id/423323

These are the top 10 that directly threaten the U.S. homeland and are likely to trigger U.S. military involvement:

A mass casualty attack on the U.S. homeland or on a treaty ally.

A severe North Korean crisis (e.g., armed provocations, internal political instability, advances in nuclear weaponry).

A major military incident with China involving U.S. or allied forces.

An Iranian nuclear crisis (e.g., surprise advances in nuclear weapons/delivery capability, Israeli response).

A highly disruptive cyber-attack on U.S. critical infrastructure (e.g., telecommunications, electrical power, pipeline output, transportation and emergency services.

A significant increase in drug trafficking violence in Mexico that spills over into the United States.

Severe internal instability in Pakistan triggered by a civil-military crisis or terror attacks.

Political instability in Saudi Arabia that endangers global oil supplies.

A U.S.-Pakistan military confrontation, triggered by a terror attack or U.S. counter-terror.

Intensification of the European sovereign debt crisis that leads to the collapse of the euro, triggering a double-edged transatlantic crisis.

Happy New Year!

Introducing the Helsinki-Kotka Interregional Blood Bowl Turboleague

Let's play football! Pictures feature the gorgeous Tehmeena Afzal, Pakistan's gift to the world.

Next year, Nuffle willing, will see the inauguration of the Helsinki-Kotka Interregional Blood Bowl Turboleague. I'll be posting game results and standings here, so if you're not interested, then just skip these posts. They'll be identified by the handy abbreviation HKIRBBTL.

We'll be playing Blood Bowl by the Competition Rules, available here. As league conventions go, we would prefer that everyone play with a team of more or less appropriate, painted miniatures. As a minimum requirement, teams should be made up of miniatures in such a way that different player types can be told apart at a glance; i.e. an Orc Blitzer and an Orc Lineman need to look different. There also obviously has to be a way to tell which lineman is which, to appropriately award star player points and tell leveled-up linemen apart from the others.

My personal opinion is that there shouldn't be a league commissioner at all. If there's a rule dispute during a game that can't be easily resolved amicably, I suggest using the old GW standby: both players roll a d6 and the higher-scoring player's interpretation stands for that game. If there's still disagreement afterwards, we can discuss it collectively and come up with a house rule. Anything outside of games can certainly be resolved through discussion.

Each season of the league will consist of a regular season, followed by the playoffs. Each regular season game will count toward the regular season standings: a win is worth three points, a tie one point to each team, and a loss gets you no points at all. If the game is tied at the end of the second half, it ends as a tie; no overtime or shootouts in the regular season. Teams will be seeded for the playoffs based on regular season standings, in a manner specified for each season, and reseeded for every round. The exact playoff format, as well as the number of regular season games and so on, will depend on how many people are participating and so on, so we'll figure that out later. For starters, we'll probably go with each team playing two games against each opponent, a home-and-home series or double round robin, if you will.

The tiebreaking formula for the regular season is: head-to-head games, goal differential, casualties inflicted, goals scored, fatalities inflicted. If all these are tied, roll a d6.

All team rosters are public at all times; an opposing coach can inspect your roster at any time during the game. Each coach is responsible for their own record-keeping, but should deliver certain stats to me, so I can keep standings and statistics on this blog. After every game, each coach should have recorded:

* the score
* touchdowns
* completions
* casualties inflicted
* fatalities inflicted
* sacks (knocking down or Wrestling down the player carrying the ball)

And for the last five, the players responsible so we can keep track of top scorers, passers and so on. Only casualties and fatalities that a team's players were awarded Star Player Points for count, so pushing someone into the stands or an opposing player failing a Go For It roll don't count as inflicted casualties. As it is, your players don't actually get any star player points for knocking down the player with the ball, but I think they should. We'll keep stats! However, the last statistic is different:

* casualties sustained

For this one, count all injuries and deaths sustained by your team from whatever source. This should be fairly easy to do in the post-game. Include injuries healed by apothecaries, regenerated or whatever.

As far as the post-game is concerned, I'd suggest that everyone make advancement rolls for leveled players in the presence of their opponent, note down the results and make their choice of skill or stat increase at their leisure. Developing players is such an important part of a Blood Bowl league that I don't think it would be right to rush those decisions.

At the end of the regular season, we'll award a wholly metaphorical and entirely meaningless trophy to the regular season winner, as well as to the players with the most touchdowns, completed passes and casualties. The player with the most regular season fatalities will receive the coveted Dick van der Smut Memorial Trophy, named after the frighteningly deadly roller-skating, meltagun-toting Van Saar gang leader from our Necromunda campaign. For these purposes, and to maintain the individual statistics in general, it would be really nice if all players had names.

The overall playoff winner will take home the tentatively titled Hellbird Turbocup, possession of which will grant the team one additional re-roll that counts toward team value as normal. Both the total fans and the total winnings for the semi-final games and the final are doubled. I suggest that playoff games be played to the bitter end in sudden death overtime; if the score is tied at the end of regulation, simply play more "halves" until a goal is scored, alternating kicking and receiving, replenishing re-rolls and so on exactly like in a normal half-time. More definitive information on the playoffs later!

Before or during the regular season, teams can play as many pre-season or friendly games as they like. These games will be played with the team's regular roster, but won't count for points or statistics, and players will accrue neither Star Player Points nor injuries. In fact, a friendly or pre-season game won't change the team roster in any way. Injuries and even deaths are ignored after the game, no MVP or other Star Player Points are awarded, and no money is made or spent. These games are really just intended for practice, or maybe as an exhibition game against an outside team.

I'm sure there's lots of other things I should address here, but frankly, I can't think of them. This should get us started. We'll look to start the regular season in January, and I'll be posting more stuff on the coming season and the participating teams as it comes along.

Obama's foreign policy failure

When Barack Obama was elected, one of the campaign's favorite buzzwords was "change". In the field of foreign policy, the Obama administration was going to make America the darling of the world again. Remember the big New Beginning speech in Cairo? And the state visits that US critics called the "World Apology Tour" that were supposed to usher in a new era of American foreign policy?

So what actually happened?

Iraq

Almost two years ago, I predicted that if Obama actually goes through with the US withdrawal from Iraq, the consequences will be catastrophic. If the Iraqis are abandoned to their own devices, or to put it in Vietnam-era terms, the conflict is "Iraqi-ized", the country will face a real danger of collapse.

So far, this has been avoided through a simple ploy; the Obama administration has said it withdrew all US combat troops, leaving just 50,000 troops in the country. Back in the Cold War, it was customary for both superpowers to station troops in third countries but not admit it. Back then, they were usually called "advisers" no matter what they were actually doing. In the terminology of the time, the US has withdrawn all its combat troops, but left five divisions of advisers.

Now, with the supposed withdrawal carried out, Obama can declare victory. David Letterman actually said it best. Remember when George W. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and delivered his "Mission Accomplished" speech? As Dave put it: "Well, they're trying that again."

The real withdrawal is coming at the end of 2011. In terms of strategy, I believe these deadlines have a horribly detrimental effect on the coalition effort to stabilize Iraq. What the late 2011 deadline does is it gives all the al-Qāʿida -affiliated insurgents a target to prepare for. If you know the Americans are leaving on such and such a date, start planning to overthrow the Iraqi goverment immediately afterward. Until then, stockpile armaments and supplies and expand your infrastructure. I believe this is exactly what they're doing.

This is exactly what happened in late 1974, when the Americans had left Vietnam. Congress signed a bill banning any US military activity in Indochina, and President Nixon was impeached and resigned. Knowing that the Americans wouldn't intervene, the North Vietnamese Army overran South Vietnam in a matter of months. The entire process of Vietnamization, transferring the burden of the war from the American to the South Vietnamese armed forces, had been a complete failure.

There's a very real risk that the same thing will happen in Iraq a little over a year from now. Remember when George W. Bush talked about the axis of evil and all that, including the idea that Iran was supporting the Iraqi insurgency? He was ridiculed for it back then, but now we can read, via the New York Times, what Wikileaks has let us know about Iran's involvment in Iraq.

NYT: Leaked Reports Detail Iran’s Aid for Iraqi Militias

During the administration of President George W. Bush, critics charged that the White House had exaggerated Iran’s role to deflect criticism of its handling of the war and build support for a tough policy toward Iran, including the possibility of military action.

But the field reports disclosed by WikiLeaks, which were never intended to be made public, underscore the seriousness with which Iran’s role has been seen by the American military. The political struggle between the United States and Iran to influence events in Iraq still continues as Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has sought to assemble a coalition — that would include the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr — that will allow him to remain in power. But much of the American’s military concern has revolved around Iran’s role in arming and assisting Shiite militias.

As of this writing, the Iraqi political process is still deadlocked, with no government in place. This year, Iraq ranked seventh on the Failed States Index, barely doing better than Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe. In all likelihood, the US withdrawal will leave behind a country in total disarray, if it isn't completely taken over by the Iranian-supported militias.

Whatever happens, the hurried retreat from Iraq will ensure that the eight-year war will have one enduring result: some 4,000 American soldiers will have died in order to cement Iran's status as the leading power in the Middle East. The only country that directly gains from the chaos in Iraq is Iran.

Over the years, several left-wing commentators have delighted in pointing and laughing at the US attacking Saddam Hussein, because in the 1980's, the West largely supported Saddam's regime. What they either don't realize, or leave unsaid, is that there was a very good reason why the Americans supported Saddam: his Iraq wasn't the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iranian islamism was seen as a much greater threat than Saddam.

The defining political dynamic of the Islamic countries of the Middle East has been that there is no clear leader. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran have all contended for a dominant position in the region, with the Iraqi-Iranian conflict being, in one sense, precisely about regional dominance. Now Iran is becoming more and more powerful, and the elimination of Iraq as a counterbalance is a major geopolitical victory for Teheran.

It might be worthwhile for the decision-makers in Washington to recall that the reason the United States became embroiled in Iraq in the first place, that is twenty years ago, is because of the threat Iraq posed to Saudi Arabia. Ever since FDR, Saudi Arabia has been seen as a vital ally of the United States in the Middle East; some readers may be surprised to learn that over the years, the Saudis have received more military aid from the United States than Israel. The reason for the Gulf War was the threat Saddam's Iraq posed to Saudi Arabia. If the Obama administration goes through with the policy of withdrawal, effectively leaving behind a failed state under the sway of Iran, all the Iraq War will have accomplished is to change the threat to the Saudis from the Iraqis to the Iranians.

It's ironic that in the 1980's, Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war over the dominance of the Middle East. By some estimates, Iran may have suffered as many as one million casualties in the fighting. The war was inconclusive. Twenty years later, the US fought an eight-year war against Iraq, and this time, Iran won.

**

Afghanistan

Next summer, according to Barack Obama's timeline, the US will begin to withdraw from Afghanistan as well. If Iraq was seventh on the Failed States Index, Afghanistan is sixth. The post-Ṭālibān government of Hamid Karzai has turned into a dictatorial, corrupt regime reminiscent of South Vietnam at its worst.

The comparison isn't far-fetched: the coalition forces in Afghanistan are fighting an insurgency based in a neighboring country, waiting for the occupying forces to leave so they can take over. The key to Afghanistan is Pakistan, a fact that Obama seemed to recognize in pre-election debates but has resolutely ignored in office.

Just recently, we were told that American's most wanted man, Usāmah bin Lādin, is living comfortably in northern Pakistan, along with second-in-command Ayman aẓ-Ẓawāhirī and the rest of the gang.

The Daily Telegraph: Osama bin Laden 'living comfortably in Pakistan'

Osama bin Laden is alive and well and living comfortably in a house in the north-west of Pakistan protected by local people and elements of the country's intelligence services, according to a senior Nato official.

The latest assessment contradicts the belief that the al-Qaeda leader is roughing it in underground bunkers as he dodged CIA drones hunting him from the air.

"Nobody in al-Qaeda is living in a cave," according to an unnamed Nato official quoted by CNN.

He added that Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's second in command, was also living in a house close by somewhere in the country's mountainous border regions.

Pakistani officials on Monday repeated their long standing denials that the Saudi-born terrorist mastermind was being given safe haven.

Ever since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Pakistani intelligence service has been playing a double game. In addition to channeling US and other Western aid for the anti-Soviet insurgency, Pakistani intelligence moved drugs the other way. Afghanistan has been the world's premier producer of heroin for a long time, and Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence moves some of the stuff out of Pakistan. The money they make off the operation is used, among other things, to interfere in Pakistan's internal politics and to fund terrorist operations against India.

As part of this lucrative narcotics deal, the Pakistanis have a cozy relationship with the Ṭālibān, who also fund their operations through the drug trade. At the same time, they're supposedly a staunch ally of the United States and totally committed to the war on terrorism. While the intelligence service continues to move heroin for the Ṭālibān, there is a full-blown insurgency going on in northwest Pakistan, which has by all accounts become the most important basing area for the Ṭālibān operating in Afghanistan.

As in Iraq, so in Afghanistan: the US withdrawal will leave behind a failing state that will probably fall to the Ṭālibān. If this happens, the next target of the insurgency will be Pakistan, and in the worst case scenario, Pakistan will fall to Islamism. It's more than probable that the Pakistani government will have to come to terms with the Ṭālibān, possibly meaning a wholesale radicalization of the whole country and an escalation of the conflict with India.

For the United States to withdraw from Afghanistan before a viable government is in place and the Ṭālibān insurgency has been defeated amounts to, for all intents and purposes, abandoning the country to the Ṭālibān. If the Obama administration goes through with the plan, then the entire Afghanistan War will have been fought for nothing.

At best, US troops will leave behind a corrupt dictatorship that will come to some kind of terms with the Ṭālibān. The country will continue to be used as a base for terrorism, which was the reason the US invaded it in the first place.

**

What is needed in both Iraq and Afghanistan is not a withdrawal strategy, but a winning strategy. For Iraq and Afghanistan to become viable states that won't collapse like a house of cards as soon as the last American troops leave, the insurgencies need to be defeated. In the case of Afghanistan, this also means addressing the insurgency in Pakistan.

Right now, none of these things are happening. With the Ṭālibān securely based in Pakistan, largely immune from US operations, there's going to be very little stopping them from retaking Afghanistan after the US withdrawal. The situation in Iraq looks slightly better, but again, there's very little standing in the way of the militias restarting a full-fledged civil war, with Iranian support, as soon as the Americans leave.

Both the Iraq and the Afghanistan war were badly conceived, poorly executed and massively expensive policy blunders. The wars in themselves weren't necessarily a bad idea; getting rid of the Ṭālibān and Saddam Hussein is a victory for the entire world. The way the George W. Bush administration went about them was the problem, and now the Obama administration is compounding the problem by essentially abandoning both countries to the islamists. I genuinely hope I'm wrong and nothing horrible happens. It's just incredibly difficult to see how either Iraq or Afghanistan can become anything other than failed states if Obama goes through with the withdrawal.

**

Israel

Elsewhere in the Middle East, the Obama administration has also had grandiose plans for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was even described as a top priority.

That said, this is a topic on which the administration, even the President himself, can't seem to make up their mind. A couple of years back, I wrote about how Obama visited Israel as president-elect and strongly supported Israel's reprisal air strikes. On the other hand, Obama had stressed the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and demanded that Israel stop its "settlement" construction. At Cairo, he told the audience that "the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements".

Any hopes of a fresh approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were dashed quite spectacularly in March 2010. As vice-president Joe Biden was visiting Israel, the Israeli government announced that it was going ahead with a plan to build 1,600 new homes in occupied East Jerusalem, in direct defiance of the Obama administration's demands that Israel halt "settlement" construction.

In diplomacy, this is what is called a slap in the face, and the Obama administration politely turned the other cheek.

This year, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched a new round of talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians, going so far as to say that a Palestinian state could be achieved within a year. Anyone who felt skeptical was amply rewarded when the Israelis torpedoed the negotiations by deciding to continue "settlement" building in occupied territory. Again, the Obama administration was apparently powerless to react.

American policy-makers don't always seem to realize how crucially important the Palestinian issue is in the Middle East. Despite Obama's grandiose talk of a new beginning, his administration's policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has in many ways been the worst possible choice. He's managed to antagonize Israel and the Israeli lobby in America, while failing to further the peace process or improve America's relations with the Muslim world.

**

Russia and Europe

In 2007, the George W. Bush administration announced plans to build a missile defense system based in Eastern Europe. The goal of the system is to defend the United States and Europe against small-scale missile attacks from a country like Iran or North Korea. The system the Bush administration planned would have a very limited capacity, and would be practically useless against a Russian nuclear attack. Nonetheless, the Russians were vocal in their protests against the system. Their opposition has nothing to do with missile defense in itself, but is geopolitical: a US missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic is a very strong guarantee to these countries that the United States is interested in their security versus Russia.

In August 2008 there was the Georgia war, or if you prefer the Sov...Russian nomenclature, the amred conflict in South Ossetia. According to the Russians, they have stationed peacekeepers in the sovereign states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. These sovereign states are recognized by a wide variety of free countries, including and limited to Russia, Venezuela, Nauru and Nicaragua.

Nicaragua.

In what was apparently a colossal miscalculation, Georgia attacked the breakaway republic of South Ossetia, which gave the Russians the perfect excuse to invade Georgia. This was old-fashioned sphere of influence politics: the Russians consider Georgia to be in their backyard, and they get to decide what happens in their backyard. It was also a brazen violation of international law and an invasion of a sovereign country. To make things worse, the country in question was a member of the NATO Partnership for Peace, and had recently hosted US troops on a joint exercise.

How did the Obama administration react to Russia's actions? By deciding to scrap the missile shield.

Guardian: US scraps plans for missile defence shield in central Europe

Barack Obama today reversed almost a decade of Pentagon strategy in Europe, scrapping plans to deploy key elements of a US missile defence shield.

Instead, he said, a more flexible defence would be introduced, allowing for a more effective response to any threat from Iranian missiles.

The U-turn is arguably the most concrete shift in foreign policy from that of the Bush administration, which spent years negotiating to place silos and interceptor missiles in Poland, and a radar complex in the Czech Republic.

The shift is a triumph for the Kremlin, which has long and vehemently argued that the shield is aimed at neutralising its intercontinental missiles; Moscow had warned of a return to a cold war arms race, and threatened to deploy nuclear missiles in its Kaliningrad exclave, surrounded by EU states.

Yes, of course the administration said that Russia shouldn't invade other countries, but this is the only concrete political action they took immediately following the crisis.

Viewed on its own merits, several commentators considered Obama's missile defense U-turn reasonable. That may be so, but this is to ignore the geopolitical significance of the missile shield for Eastern Europe. Viewed from the Kremlin, Obama's move to scrap the missile shield is pure weakness. The Americans come up with a plan; Moscow protests; the Americans retreat.

This wasn't the first time Obama was ready to sell out Eastern Europe, either. in March 2009, Obama approached the Russians on the subject with a letter.

NYT: Russia Welcomes Letter From Obama

The Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, said Tuesday that his administration was open to overtures from the United States on its proposed missile defense plan, but he dismissed the notion of a deal in which the United States would shelve the plan in exchange for Russia’s help on Iran.

The statement came in response to a report in The New York Times about a private letter from President Obama to his Russian counterpart, saying the proposed missile defense system would not be necessary if Moscow could help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons and nuclear warheads.

On the Foreign Policy website, a blog post described the letter as "Yalta all over again":

"it could also turn out to be a second coming of Yalta -- a sell-out of America's eastern European allies of epic proportions."

The Yalta Conference was held at Yalta in February 1945 between these three gentlemen and their entourages.

One of the topics of the conference was no less than the division of Europe into two spheres of influence. Probably the most infamous example is Churchill's draft proposal, which he pencilled out on a sheet of paper: he suggested to Stalin that they divide up Central Europe between themselves, listing names of countries and percentages of influence each side would have. For example, Romania would be 90% Soviet and 10% Western, with Greece the opposite. On a smaller scale, Yalta was where the Western Allies agreed to repatriate all Soviet citizens to the Soviet Union, regardless of their own wishes or their upcoming fate. This meant death for thousands at the hands of Stalin's execution squads.

In short, at Yalta the western allies sold out Eastern Europe to the Soviets. The comparison may be exaggerated, but the way Barack Obama's administration has reacted to the Georgian war certainly doesn't show strength. Offering to trade the missile defence of NATO to the Russians in exchange for fuzzy diplomatic guarantees is unlikely to send a strong message that the United States is committed to resisting Russian expansionism, and the failure to react in any way to the invasion of Georgia only strengthens the message. If anything, the weakness of the Obama administration will embolden the Russians to act more aggressively inside what they consider their sphere of influence. As I'm writing this blog post uncomfortably close to the Russian border, I can say that this is bad news for all of us over here.

It isn't just relations with Eastern Europe that Obama seems intent on sabotaging, though. He caused a stir in 2009 by seeming to downplay the UK-US "special relationship", prompting the Daily Telegraph to ask:

DT: Will Barack Obama end Britain's special relationship with America?

A British official said: "I don't think Obama is steeped in the tradition of the special relationship going back to Churchill and Roosevelt. Of course someone of his generation is going to look at it differently. I think what he looks at are the assets that are brought to the table and the expertise you have. This is a definite change of emphasis."

In the six decades since in which Winston Churchill first coined the phrase special relationship, successive American presidents have paid ritual obeisance to the notion that Britain should assume a place at the White House top table.

Now even allies of Mr Obama believe he intends to extract a higher price for access to the corridors of his power.

This might seem overly paranoid, but a year later, Argentina brought out an old hobby-horse: the Falklands. The Argentinians consider the Falkland Islands their territory, but the islands' British-born population does not. Earlier this year, Argentina threatened to blockade the islands, and Venezuela's dear leader strongly supported them. As a blogger for the Telegraph put it:

So far, the mounting Falklands conflict has been met with deafening silence from Washington. Both the White House and State Department have failed to comment on the situation, despite a significant heightening of tensions. Not only is this another striking failure of leadership on the part of the US administration, but it also demonstrates an extraordinary level of indifference towards America’s closest ally.

As far as Europe is concerned, Obama's foreign policy looks worryingly like an effort to appease the Russians at the expense of Europe.

**

All in all, I consider President Obama's foreign policy so far to be a total failure. He has brought no leadership and no new vision to US foreign policy. The mere fact of his election, and the rhetoric of the first few months, seemed to raise the world's opinion of the United States, and got him the Nobel Peace Prize. A prize that was earlier given to organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Grameen Bank, and since to an imprisoned Chinese human rights activist, was given to an American president for making a speech. To paraphrase a percentage-jotting alcoholic, never has so much been awarded to so few for so little.

Obama did succeed in raising hope; where he failed was in capitalizing on it. His Middle Eastern policies range from the inept to the potentially catastrophic, and his humiliation by Israel has effectively ended any hope of an outreach to the Muslim world. If his administration has had any impact on relations with Europe, it has been a negative one, undermining the special relationship with the UK, destabilizing NATO and encouraging the Russians in their quest to become a superpower with a Cold War-like sphere of influence.

I haven't really mentioned East Asia, as I don't feel that I'm qualified to comment on it, but suffice to say that the Obama administration has attracted criticism for a soft policy on China as well, preferring to concentrate on economic interests to the detriment of human rights.

One of the many great injustices of a representative democracy is that in foreign policy, as in nearly all other fields, the consequences of Obama's actions will be borne by his successor. If the rest of his term plays out like this, the next guy is getting a bum deal.

Axis powers celebrate F1 win

(with apologies to the Runoff Area)

The Axis powers scored a potentially decisive victory over the Allies in Belgium last weekend, as Finland, Italy and Germany took the podium at the Belgian Grand Prix at Spa. The highest-placing Allied driver, Mark Webber of the Australian Imperial Force, only came in ninth.

The F1 series, a global conflict being stage-managed by a diminutive man with dictatorial powers and funny hair, will next break out in Italy one week from now. Britain's Jenson Button leads the championship, with the Pact of Steel of Rubens Barrichello and Sebastian Vettel not far behind.

Despite near-universal agreement that Kimi Räikkönen won the race, the Finnish government has strongly denied participating in F1. "Mr. Räikkönen was not driving in the Belgian Grand Prix," Finnish foreign ministry spokesman Dr. Korhonen insisted. "He was driving a separate Grand Prix series and merely happened to find himself on the same track as the other drivers. This was pure coincidence. Any suggestion that Finnish drivers are participating in Formula One are false, and stem from an inability to understand Finland's unique strategic position." McLaren's PR department supported the Finnish government, openly scoffing at reports of a second Finnish driver in the race.

This year, the constructors' championship is firmly in Allied hands, although their lead in the drivers' series is not secure. French team Renault won two consecutive drivers' championships before surrendering, leaving the series a free-for-all with consecutive Axis and Allied victories in the drivers' series and an Axis-dominated constructors' series.

The strategic landscape of F1 is set to change next year with the United States entering the conflict, but hopes for a strong initial showing are not high. The United States team is widely considered to be inexperienced, and is expected to take time to fully mobilize their potential. Until USF1's application to join the F1 series, US motorsport had been governed by the Monroe Doctrine, limiting F1 to a maximum of two races in North America and restricting American drivers to the isolationist Champ Car imitation series and that thing where they drive around ovals.

Also in the wake of the Belgian GP, Pakistan's Minister of Defence (below) has accused India of destabilizing the region after Force India took their first podium. Minister Turgidson claims that the success of the Indian team has led to the creation of a dangerous "motorsports gap".

Pakistan is responding to what the Minister of Defence called "irresponsible Indian escalation" by founding several kart racing series, but UN officials are trying to broker a strategic racing limitation treaty to stop a "motorsports race" between the two countries.

Meanwhile, reports that South Korea has secured funding for its 2010 Grand Prix did not seem to concern North Korean representatives. They scoffed at the decadent practice of driving cars, pointing out that North Korea has no cars, or indeed anything motorized whatsoever, and is still the world's third-largest economy, with a higher standard of living than Japan. A reporter who questioned their figures was shot. Also, North Korean representatives pointed out that the Great Leader, Kim Jong-il, had previously set a lap time of 1:44.82 around the Spa-Francorchamps circuit, a full two seconds faster than Sebastian Vettel's fastest lap in this year's Grand Prix, and furthermore, the Great Leader set his time on foot.

The next race is set for Sunday, September 13th, pending an FIA investigation into possible French use of Brazilian kamikaze pilots in last year's series. By international accord, the practice of fielding a completely inept second driver for the sole purpose of causing destruction on the track is permitted only for the now defunct Super Aguri team.

Some reading for the weekend

Reuters: Alp-sized peaks found entombed in Antarctic ice

H. P. Lovecraft: At the Mountains of Madness

**

The Wall Street Journal: The War on Drugs Is a Failure

**

Also, the latest in global warming alarmism, from the New Scientist:

How to survive the coming century

How unbiased is it? The author is called Gaia.

(I'm kidding, but they are being a bit extreme)

For instance:

"All of the world's major deserts are predicted to expand, with the Sahara reaching right into central Europe.

Glacial retreat will dry Europe's rivers from the Danube to the Rhine, with similar effects in mountainous regions including the Peruvian Andes, and the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges, which as result will no longer supply water to Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Bhutan, India and Vietnam."

Is it just me, or does it seem like the author is saying Europe's river water comes from glaciers? The one link the article had anywhere near that was to an article that said no such thing. There seems to be some consensus that rainfall in Europe will decrease by as much as 20% in the worst case scenario, but that's nowhere near enough to "dry Europe's rivers". As with so many other impacts of climate change, the effect will be to increase rainfall in the winter and decrease it in the summer.

The idea that the Himalayas will "no longer supply water" is ludicrous. Maybe someone should explain to the author what a drainage basin is and where river water comes from. Yes, a significant portion of river water in summer comes from glaciers, and apparently in a worst-case scenario the Ganges may become a seasonal river, flowing only in the summer, but rivers will not vanish because of glacier retreat. They'll only vanish if rainfall stops completely.

After scaring you with overblown images of desertification, the author gets to the real point:

"In order to survive, humans may need to do something radical: rethink our society not along geopolitical lines but in terms of resource distribution."

"If we use land, energy, food and water efficiently, our population has a chance of surviving - provided we have the time and willingness to adapt."

And the article goes on and on about what kind of a global planned economy we need to set up to "survive the coming century":

"We need to look at the world afresh and see it in terms of where the resources are, and then plan the population, food and energy production around that."

I have to write some more on environmentalist alarmism in the future, but the biggest reason articles like this make me highly sceptical is the effortless way in which the writers go from looking at the science of global warming to positing global fascism to deal with it. From the author's own website:

"The most obvious logical solution is to move the people where the resources are, and I explore this idea in a recent article. There are other options. How about enforced sterilization of people that have produced one child - this would immediately shrink the population?"

Um, because human population may decrease in the future, we should decrease it ourselves by force? Why not just advocate shooting people? One of the comments to the post hits right to the heart of this kind of thinking:

"Hi agree with limiting population growth - people should have to apply to have children, instead of it being everyones god given right. The world is being filled up with the ill-conceived offspring of degenerates and criminals, from families too large to already look after themselves."

Maybe a little extreme, but then again, James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia theory, basically agrees with him: 'humans will survive and be "culled and, I hope, refined."' Also, how does Ms. Vince imagine we would go about "moving people to where the resources are"? By force? What other way is there?

I'm not a global warming skeptic, and I'm not arguing global warming isn't happening. I'm arguing that I'm frightened by the possibilities of what might happen if global warming gets worse; I'm also frightened by the idea of the kind of people who write these articles getting to impose their ideas on the world.

The idea of "planning the world" in the way the article describes would require a total abandonment of many of our basic human rights and of representative government. Environmentalists try to justify this by saying it is necessary to the survival of our species. Somehow, eco-fascism doesn't seem like too extreme a word to describe these people.

**

Finally, some old school Internet humor: Niilo Paasivirta