25 August 2017
Slate: What Works in Afghanistan
The first is America’s legendary sponsorship of the Afghan mujahedeen who beat back the Soviet invasion between 1979 and 1988. This covert effort began with small amounts of support funneled through various middlemen (including Pakistan’s shadowy security apparatus) and grew into billions of dollars of money, sophisticated weapons (like Stinger missiles capable of shooting down Russian helicopters), and technical assistance. What made this effort so successful was its narrow goal—inflicting Soviet casualties in the context of the Cold War—and the simple truth that it’s easier to support an insurgency than a counterinsurgency, especially when that insurgency is playing on its home turf. However, after this insurgency pushed out the Soviets, the U.S. washed its hands of this support. Over time, parts of this rebel movement would evolve into al-Qaida and the Taliban, with major long-term repercussions for the U.S. [...]
This reflects a broader theory of counterinsurgency that it’s best done by indigenous security forces. To the extent that much of the current U.S.–Afghanistan strategy relies on supporting Afghan forces as they fight the Taliban and al-Qaida, this holds some promise. However, foreign forces cannot fight our wars; eventually interests diverge, or conflict emerges between client and patron. This may soon happen in Afghanistan, particularly if the Afghan government decides to reach a political settlement with the Taliban, and possibly with al-Qaida elements, even as the U.S. wants to continue fighting. [...]
Today, the Joint Special Operations Command machine continues its work across Afghanistan and Pakistan—doing the hard, bloody, dangerous work of counterterrorism with elite special operations troops or drones. This counterterrorism effort most closely aligns with our primary interest (as articulated by President George W. Bush, and President Barack Obama, as well as President Trump) of preventing another attack on the U.S. emanating from Afghanistan. Although this machine is small, it is costly; elite troops cost more, and are in shorter supply, than their conventional counterparts in the U.S. military. However, it is conceivable that the U.S. could continue to operate this counterterrorism machine indefinitely in Afghanistan, whether led by the military’s special operations command or an analogous agency within the U.S. intelligence community. This plan is not without risk though: Counterterrorism raids often risk alienating civilians, or inflicting civilian casualties, in ways that can create enemies or undermine local government partners, as has happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen during the past 16 years. Counterterrorism operations must be carefully calibrated and overseen in order to be effective—something that runs counter to Trump’s promise to take the gloves off and end White House micromanagement of warfighting.
Jacobin Magazine: Assessing Trotsky
Though Le Blanc argues otherwise, there was only one version of permanent revolution — Trotsky’s. No one else adhered to Trotsky’s analysis of the coming Russian Revolution: that only workers could overthrow Tsarism and that as a result the democratic revolution in Russia would have to be a proletarian-socialist one, not a “bourgeois-democratic” one. [...]
In a nutshell, Trotsky thought he could persuade the party to adopt his domestic and foreign policies by majority vote only on condition that the leadership allow freewheeling democratic debate among rank-and-file party militants, not top-heavy bureaucratic “debate” dominated by business-as-usual apparatchiks who, collectively, Trotsky believed, had little interest in proactively building socialism at home, or working intelligently and conscientiously for socialist revolution abroad. [...]
Bukharin understood all too well that Stalin’s cure for the grain crisis was worse than the disease. Thus, a window of opportunity opened, ever so slightly to be sure and ever so briefly, to save the Russian Revolution from final destruction by mobilizing workers and peasants in its defense. Trotsky and the Left Opposition did everything in their power to slam this window shut.
Throughout 1928 Bukharin challenged Stalin’s predatory policies in the countryside, recognizing in them the risk of disaster. The Left Opposition did not. Bukharin and his cohorts, Trotsky explained, in trying to placate the ostensibly kulak-led peasantry, were simply opening the way for capitalist restoration in agriculture and, eventually, in industry. This would be the greatest evil. Trotsky’s slogan of the day was: “With Stalin against Bukharin — yes; with Bukharin against Stalin — never!” [...]
Trotsky’s view of the Right Opposition as capitalist-roaders was fantasy. So was his view that Stalin was a centrist, perpetually tossed now to the right, now to left, and incapable of striking out on his own to become the head of a new ruling class. He never came to terms with his utterly mistaken appraisal of Stalin’s politics, itself founded on a profoundly erroneous analysis of the bureaucracy as a non-class phenomenon, a “caste.” This confounds Le Blanc’s assertion that Trotsky always admitted to errors of political judgment.
Politico: Italy’s Northern League goes soft (on the euro)
Speaking to POLITICO last week, he didn’t attack the single currency or even the EU, instead saying “we want to give Europe one last chance, but in return we want to see real change, especially when it comes to Schengen and the Dublin treaty” — the two EU treaties that regulate cross-border movement in the bloc.
Libero, an Italian daily that follows the Northern League’s line, described Salvini’s comments (first reported in Brussels Playbook) as “a small shift in foreign policy,” with the party moving “from euro-nihilism to Euroskepticism.” It said that shift has become more marked since Marine Le Pen’s defeat in the French presidential election. [...]
In all three Berlusconi coalition governments, he has found a place for the Northern League and that will be the case again if talks to create a center-right bloc succeed. When the Northern League was in power in the past, it didn’t have a clear anti-euro line, which has emerged since Salvini took over the leadership. [...]
Salvini doesn’t just want to prop up the old warhorse Berlusconi. This admirer of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin wants to be prime minister — and he could achieve that ambition if his party gets more votes than Berlusconi’s. (The tycoon, who turns 81 next month, won’t be prime minister anyway, as a conviction for tax fraud means he cannot be elected to parliament). [...]
He has succeeded in turning the Northern League from an anti-migrant party that wanted to split from the poorer Italian south into a stronger force that campaigns against the euro (and still doesn’t like migrants), and has no qualms about forging ties with the likes of the neo-fascist Casa Pound activist group.
The Guardian: Science envoy resigns over Trump – with a letter spelling out 'impeach'
Daniel Kammen, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a letter posted on his Twitter account that Trump had failed to condemn white supremacists and neo-Nazis, part of “a broader pattern of behavior that enables sexism and racism, and disregards the welfare of all Americans, the global community and the planet”. [...]
The science envoys serve as unpaid volunteers and engage with government and non-government science officials around the world. In his letter, Kammen also criticized Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Accord. The first letters of each paragraph spell out the word “IMPEACH.” [...]
Similar to Kammen, members of the President’s committee on the arts and the humanities who resigned en masse last week used the first letter of each paragraph in their resignation letter to spell out “RESIST,” a rallying cry for Trump’s opponents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)