Here's what I don't get...

The Colombian government has been locked in conflict with the FARC for decades. They are beginning to make the sort of progress that might finally bring some degree of resolution to the conflict...and suddenly the negotiation for release of a few hostages (as important as they certainly are to their families and friends) is being held up as a higher priority than neutralizing the FARC (you know...the guys responsible for taking hostages in the first place...

The biggest losers in Reyes' death appeared to be the hostages the rebels want to swap for jailed guerrillas.

You don't suppose that, perhaps, the biggest losers in Reyes' death might just be the FARC, do you?

France's foreign ministry said Uribe knew France was communicating directly with Reyes in an attempt to secure the release of former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, a dual French national who has become a cause celebre in Europe.

The rebels said Tuesday that Reyes died "completing a mission to arrange, through President Chavez, a meeting with (French) President (Nicolas) Sarkozy" aimed at securing Betancourt's release. Correa claimed his government, too, was talking to the FARC about securing freedom for hostages. He alleged Reyes' killing stymied those efforts.

Because the safety of a hostage - who is a cause celebre in Europe, after all(!) certainly takes priority over the security and stability of an entire country locked in a long term guerrilla war, right?

Last week, the FARC released four hostages to Venezuela's justice minister, who said the Colombian raid proved the "intent of the fascist Colombian government is to hamper the handover of hostages."

At least I can understand this sort of talk from the FARC. They just got served an atomic wedgie from the Colombian military...they're obligated to put SOME sort of PR spin on it.

Correa suggested that the raid was aimed at blocking any release of hostages. Though offering no proof, Correa said he agreed with speculation that Colombia "killed him (Reyes) to prevent a deal for the liberation of the hostages from going forward."

You suppose Correa would have the same attitude if it was HIS government locked in a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign...?

Violence Leaves Young Iraqis Doubting Clerics - New York Times

Interesting. This one stirred some thoughts:

1. When's the last time we heard mention of Sistani? He held more sway over the Shia population of Iraq than any other single man for probably the first two years after the invasion. He seemed to lose a lot of influence during the general outbreak of sectarian violence in 2006. Will he regain support and stature now that people are looking for moderation? Or will he be painted with the same brush as other religious leaders and continue to be sidelined?

2. Does the American empowerment of different elements - such as Iraqi Security Forces and the Sheiks who are participating in the "Awakening" - dilute the power of religious leaders?

3. What will this mean for future elections in Iraq? Lower turnout because Iraqis are more dismissive of religious edicts to vote? Less backing for religious parties? Who would fill that void? Here's an interesting perspective on politics in Iraq - 2008 style.

4. How will Sadr, the master political opportunist, react? Will he minimize his (always questionable to begin with) religious credentials? Play up his role as a nationalist looking out for the good of Iraq? How much more would he have to crack down on his own organization to really convince Sunnis that he's serious about reconciliation?

Sadr's a pretty good weather vane for determining the future direction of Iraqi politics. His decision to extend his cease fire tells us a bit about his take on the primacy of politics over violence within Iraq - at least for the time being. And that's true regardless of whether you think the cease fire reduced violence in the first place or was merely a clever political ploy to increase his stature and protect his forces during the American surge.

Further proof of a sharp swing to the Left

Not that most political observers needed it...but Ortega's words of condemnation - and ridiculous suggestion that, somehow, the moment for productive peace talks has been lost - reminds us again of how far the region has steered to the Left over the last few years.

Put simply, the FARC has never negotiated in good faith and has typically not even bothered with the illusion of peaceful intentions unless they are on the ropes (which they are right now, by the way). Ortega and Chavez obviously see reason for concern regarding the long term viability of FARC's movement and message.

Say it ain't so part 2!

U.N. Finds Fraud, Mismanagement in Peacekeeping - washingtonpost.com

UN Forces primarily generated from corrupt nations with corrupt militaries and inept ruling bureaucracies creates corrupt, ineffective Peacekeeping/making/monitoring? Who'da thunk?

Say it ain't so!

Vote-rigging by the criminal enterprise that is the Russian State apparatus? Who'da thunk?

Iran and the domino effect

It's hard to judge how much more Iran could really affect the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (much would certainly depend on how much damage strikes inflicted) but it would be safe to bet that oil prices would be greatly affected if nothing else. And high energy prices are more likely to hurt us and help our current set of rivals than anything else (both in terms of international standing and economic hardships).

Now I don't want to say I told you so but...

Global Guerrillas: JOURNAL: The strong that fight the weak become weak

Ethiopia should have abandoned Somalia (as planned) as soon as the ICU was out of power. Their efforts to achieve "stability" with the aid of the wet blanket that is Somalia's "officially" recognized government only make them appear weaker.

Spero News | Gangs, terrorists, and trade

A "progressive" call to arms: strengthen States (even those with leaders we frown upon) or be prepared to contend with powerful nonstate entities - that are far more difficult to engage, influence, or coerce.

FIlling the void created by ineffective States

In Rio's Slums, Militias Fuel Violence They Seek to Quell - washingtonpost.com:

Imagine it: A police officer who works for the state never gets any respect, and suddenly he joins a militia and he's worshiped as the man who brings peace to the community,' said Turnowski, who described the militias as dangerous substitutes for the state resources chronically lacking in the city's poor communities.

A sneak peek at a world without States?

Global Guerrillas: THE VIRTUAL CALIPHATE

Well, okay. Maybe a bit of an exaggeration. Still...I found this little snippet particularly interesting:

While territory is claimed, it cannot always be held. As a result, the territory it does hold is very similar to a description of a temporary autonomous zone (TAZ) :

For him, a state’s perimeter extends only so far as men stand with guns to defend it. Tamimi’s vision of statehood suggests he conceives of the ISI as a governmental amoeba, constantly shifting its zone of control across Iraq’s western expanses as ISI forces redeploy. It never controls all of the territory it has claimed, but demands that all residents of that territory swear allegiance to the ISI’s Emir.

The political goods this organization delivers do not include the material. It is assumed that is taken care of by the global marketplace and by the people themselves. What it desires to provide is enforcement of a code of conduct (the PCC has its own rules for this, the ISI's is Sharia).

Changing the paradigm

Grand Strategy IV - How America Can Prosper, by Fabius Maximus:

"You cannot eat soup with a knife.

You must first change the conditions of the problem."

Actually, he's got quite a few quotables in this one:

Whether America’s cultural “aggression” is deliberate or inadvertent is not relevant to those defending against it.

I think this brings us back to a fundamental truth...the end of the Cold War postured us, as a nation, in a position from which we were doomed to come into conflict with others. As a hyperpower, we influenced too many too much and became too easy to blame for anything that happened (or didn't happen...) just because it only seems obvious that such power gives us the ability, as a nation, to affect anything and everything. It's a false assumption, of course. But that hardly matters to our newly organized enemies, does it?

Looking for more good quotes? He throws us this one from Kung Fu as well:

Disciple Caine: Master, do we seek victory in contention?

Master Kan: Seek rather not to contend.

Disciple Caine: But shall we not then be defeated?

Master Kan: We know that where there is no contention, there is neither defeat nor victory. The supple willow does not contend against the storm, yet it survives.

From episode #1 of the television show “Kung Fu” (1972)

Moving away from Kung Fu quotes, we do get a more reasonable strategy - one simple enough that a chaotic democracy just MIGHT be able to execute it successfully:

1. Do not increase the cohesion of our enemies. Try not to make new enemies.

2. Don’t gamble. Adopt slow but sure tactics.

3. Survive until we win.

I'm a big fan of simple elegance, by the way. And I'm also a big fan of occasionally throwing out a quote to appease Dan:

Crusades are more fun, at least for those who do not actually fight them. High risk endeavors generate excitement and the prospect of great gains, and accrue power to their leaders. Until failure. Then the bills come due.

I just like the turn of phrase...

Venezuela to Give Currency New Name and Numbers - New York Times:

We’re witnessing policy in the form of window dressing, all carried out at the whim of one man whose strong point is not economics,” said Hugo Faría, an economist at the Institute of Higher Management Studies, a private business school here. “Anyone who sees a 12 ½-cent coin as a remedy for this country’s problems isn’t thinking too clearly.

Another interesting note buried in the article speaks to Chavez's anti-Imperialist rhetoric (unless he's talking about his own imperialist ambitions, that is...)

Mr. Chávez has no intention of limiting his attempts at monetary reform to Venezuela. “One day in Latin America we will have our own currency,” he said on his television show, and he proposed naming it after Antonio José de Sucre, a Venezuelan aristocrat and independence fighter who was a friend of Bolívar’s.

Israeli analysis of the PA "unity" government

ANALYSIS: The unity gov't may be the last nail in Fatah's coffin - Haaretz - Israel News:

Some disturbing points here. At least when Fatah resisted Hamas, they put themselves in a position to act as a better choice come the next election cycle. External pressure on Hamas (and thus the efficiency of government) had the possibility of strengthening Fatah's hand during the next election cycle. By instead providing a moderate face to Hamas extremism, they seem to quietly be admitting there is no peaceful solution with Israel.

Meanwhile, Hamas is continuing its quiet revolution. Recently 11 Hamas members were appointed to senior posts in the PA Education Ministry, and the number of hours of religious studies has been increased by about 20 percent.

Hamas reaches the hearts of the people, and one of the best ways to do this has always been through the mosques. In 2000, there were 100 of them in Ramallah; today there are 190. Without laws to limit it, Hamas has managed to lead a cultural change in Palestinian society. Most women in the territories wear head coverings, including some who do so to avoid public criticism. Fewer restaurants sell alcohol and halls for weddings and other festivities are being asked not to host belly-dancers.

...and then there's the AP perspective:

Palestinians installed a new, more moderate coalition government on Saturday, in hopes of persuading the international community to end its isolation of the Palestinian Authority and lift a year of bruising sanctions.

A disturbing look into Russia's "victory" in Chechnya

USNews.com: Chechnya, a War That Is Gone but Not Forgotten

Chechnya slowly - kinda-sorta - rises from the ashes of conflict but does so in an all too familiar manner. Its new "government" is little more than a shell used by local warlords and "big men" to justify their own bases of power. I see signs of the same arising in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian Authority...the facade of government becomes little more than a hasty paint job slapped over criminals, tribal chiefs, militias, and warlords. In fact, Hezbollah's efforts to pull the mask of "legitimate government" over the face of their own actions is essentially the same.

This appears to me as a regression in the development of the State. The power of the State becomes a spoil of war to be captured like any other booty to be found on the battlefield. Institutions like the UN, designed to preserve the sanctity of nation-states, tend to reward such behavior, making it far more difficult to ensure, encourage, or compel good governance.

A snippet from the US News report on Chechnya:

Day-to-day security in swaths of Chechnya is left to locally recruited Kremlin-loyalist forces, who run things much as they please. This makes their de facto chief, Putin-appointed President Ramzan Kadyrov, perhaps the most important man in Chechnya. Kadyrov, 30, is the son of a prominent Islamic leader who in 1999 abandoned the rebels for the Russian side and served as Kremlin-installed local president before being assassinated in 2004.

[...]

What does cause jitters in Moscow is that the bulk of the estimated 7,000 armed men associated with Kadyrov are themselves former rebel fighters enticed or coerced into switching sides. "Everyone knows the so-called pro-Moscow militias in Chechnya are in fact tribal military formations loyal only to their chiefs," said Moscow-based military affairs specialist Pavel Felgenhauer. "Basically, the rebels in Chechnya have entered a rest period and are getting training under the Russian flag."

Hrmph.

Let's be realistic for a moment here

Beijing increases defense spending - International Herald Tribune

I know there are a lot of pundits within the US who enjoy pointing to China as a new mega-villain - another black-hatted rogue that allows us to don our own white hat that has been gathering dust in the corner since the early 90s...but, frankly, trying to force China into that role worries me more than increased Chinese defense spending. Why?

1. China is a giant, nuclear power. We aren't going to be waging conventional war with them any time in the near future. That's just the bottom line. The benefits will very likely never outweigh the risks.
2. Our military-industrial establishment LOVES pointing out "threats" that justify maintaining our preferred force structure, doctrine, and procurement processes. We don't, as a military, like fighting the wars we get asked to fight. We WANT to prepare for the Big One. So painting China as the next big military opponent only pushes us further down the wrong road.
3. It drives us into a more confrontational stance with China simply because we choose to view them as a military opponent. We can't stop China from growing more powerful. We can try to avoid making Chinese leaders assume they can only rise if they weaken us.

Okay...enough pontificating on a subject I probably don't know enough about anyway...

Interesting sentiment...

Iranian President to Visit Saudi Arabia - New York Times

“They know that the best thing that can happen to Iran at this stage is for the Americans to attack them.”

A Contrarian opinion of the US from the front lines of a Christian/Muslim confrontation

Contrary to global trends, Nigerians love America | csmonitor.com

According to Mr. Oyewumi, northern Nigerian Muslims are less likely to have a favorable opinion of America for the same reason that many Christians in the south look up to the US – the war on terrorism.

"America is seen as the leader of the Christian West against the Islamic world," says Oyewumi, a Muslim, but also of the southern Yoruba ethnic group. "The religion factor is crucial."

Interesting. I wonder how Ethiopians, struggling with a similar religious conflict, view the US.

Here's the whole study. Of note, world opinions of China, somewhat on the rise over the past few years, are diving as well. Personally, I think people tend to fear too much power (Economic, political, military, cultural, or otherwise) in one entity. China enjoyed a pass while others viewed them as a counterweight to the US. As they've grown more powerful, they're seen as a hegemonistic threat in their own right.

My personal theory on US worldwide (un)popularity is this: we were doomed to lose ground following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the acceleration of globalization. While the Bush Administration's questionable execution of the GWOT certainly don't help, they only speed a natural process. As the world's most powerful nation, we take the blame for what we don't do as well as what we do. As the most culturally powerful nation, we bear the brunt of anti-globalists because American companies, American media, and American faces have been most visible as the Information Age blossoms. It's kinda like NASCAR fans that dislike products endorsed by drivers they don't like...people don't like many of the consequences (or supposed consequences) of globalization. When they look for someone to blame...well, there's McDonalds. Or Microsoft. Or Hollywood.

Combine all that with the incessant media coverage of the war in Iraq, the improper actions of handfuls of Strategic Corporals, and...surprise, surprise, people look unfavorably upon the US. Many on the Left look to Democratic leadership to somehow reverse this natural trend...unlikely. Especially because many view globalization as nothing more than a populist tool for spurring the masses to vote. That in itself will prevent America from regaining the shining image it often carried through the Cold War as the white-hatted protagonist.

For those who were curious, I take my definition of "confrontation" from Rupert Smith's new book on modern warfare.

Hezbollah rebuilds

Yeah, it'd be great to think Israeli military action defanged Hezbollah last summer. I'm betting not. On the plus side, UNIFIL has at least pushed Hezbollah's frontline positions much further north. And hey...maybe this time they won't be within "danger close" distances to UN observation posts:

In one case, a bunker complex 100 feet underground covering an area of almost a square mile was built within 300 yards of a UNIFIL observation post and an Israeli army position on the border, but its existence remained hidden until after the war.

"They let us see certain things like their observation posts along the border fence, but all the time they were building an underground city in the south that we never knew existed," says Timur Goksel, who retired as UNIFIL's senior adviser in 2003.

Islamist Insurgency in Thailand grows...

...despite the best efforts of Thailand's new military (and Muslim-led) government to shift from a hard-edged to a softer approach.

Strategy vs. Tactics.

The US aids Ethiopia in ousting the ICU in order to chase after a handful of individuals...achieving a minor tactical success in the process.

Islamic insurgents go into hiding while Somalia descends into chaos.

As Ethiopia begins to withdraw, the weak Somali government propped up by the Ethiopians loses control and violence spirals upward in Mogadishu.

Likely end state?

1. The Islamists return to power.
2. People are happy with the stability they bring.
3. They frown upon the US and its allies for creating chaos in the name of chasing a handful of individuals.
4. Islamic militants have another "victory" over US-sponsored allies to fuel the jihadi movement.

So who has the greater strategic vision here?