Denial is a River in the Hindu Kush

Obama continues to ignore the ramifications of his Pakistan policy. Osama bin Laden is killing Americans now. Pakistan is unable and unwilling to clear out the FATA and NWFP now. We likely have intelligence to put the heat on a lot of AQ and Taliban members now. By his standards, we should be lighting up the Pakistani frontier. This isn't a hypothetical, this is a reality. Either he is willing to resume raids in Pakistan or he isn't, and if he is he needs to acknowledge that attacking Pakistan is going to be just as damaging to support for the war on terror as supporting Musharraf in Pakistan. They were shooting at us. This isn't an academic question for point-scoring - this is a real policy decision, and Obama needs to tone down the rhetoric or prepare for a conflict that will be nowhere near as clear-cut as he would have us believe. Pakistan made a truce with the Taliban because they were tired of killing their soldiers and their citizens and because in counterinsurgency, sometimes you have to deal with the devil. Letting us smack around Pakistanis and tribal kinsmen is only going to create more attacks on the Pakistani government. We too will have to make deals with those tribes if we want to stabilize Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, McCain's Afghan policy continues to buy into the fantasy that another "surge" will save Afghanistan. It won't, unless you want a larger surge (let's talk 3-4x larger), and a replication of one of the pre-surge reductions in violence - an Anbar awakening. That means allying with some of the fundamentalist tribes that used to harbor or support al Qaeda, not hunting down and destroying every formerly anti-American tribe in Afghanistan (or, Senator Obama, the NWFP or FATA). We essentially have two options to stabilize Afghanistan without a massive long-term presence that will last generations - installing a less-than-democratic central government that has made peace with some of the belligerents and delegated to the tribes, or a new Iron Amir with dictatorial powers. America wants stability, democracy, and withdrawal within a few years - it will get two if it is lucky.

McCain had a stronger performance than his last debate, and seemed to tackle the real long-run issue for the "American empire" - domestic expenditures - more directly than Obama did. Both, however, were mum on Medicare, the biggest and faster growing of the American entitlement programs. Both made legitimate points on their own healthcare proposals, but ultimately as far as the "elephants in the room" are concerned, nobody really knows what to do about the immediate problems of global financial meltdown (especially since this will increasingly require linking foreign and domestic policies), and nobody really wants to talk about how many planks of their platforms will have to be torn out in January.

I haven't needed to wait long for the geopolitical hysteria over the financial crisis to start. Iceland, unable to bail out its financial institutions without compromising its fiscal solvency, hoped the EU would be able to bail it out. No such luck. Now Russia may offer the capital injection, and already some observers think it may be part of a Russian attempt to subvert NATO (and perhaps even establish a security presence in the North Atlantic!).

As usual, everything in the Middle East is going swimmingly.

Going long on dollars and bullets

Recent rumors from Saudi Arabia, while very much overstating the militant-AQ split, are emblematic of the uncomfortable choices Americans may be forced to make in the future. If the United States is concerned about more than a manhunt, then we must accept some previously politically unacceptable things. Unfortunately, those American politicians who might otherwise support "talking to our enemies" are more concerned with the manhunt than winning the war. Going, guns blazing, into "where Osama lives" will, at best, severely undermine our ability to effectively deal with the Pashtun tribes, and at worst, start a war of truly catastrophic proportions.

More bad news for "the long war" - Congress seems set to choose pork-laden weapons systems over manpower expansion. Despite the fact that the military is already overworked and will be facing personnel strains in the near future, there's simply little politico-economic incentive to support military expansion when fighter planes with parts made in 48 out of 50 states might have to be chopped. One of John McCain's few good points during the last debate was that the government has to curtail wasteful defense spending. Given the economic constraints facing the next President (well, let's be frank -Obama), he will need to take on Congress if he wants a military ready for a future of counterinsurgency. Or we can just keep laying down firepower from standoff positions, aircraft and provincial capitals until OBL dies or we get tired of dealing with Afghanistan. I guess the realistic question is - which comes first?

On the subject of catastrophe, the American bailout has not done much to shore up confidence in the European economy. The inability of European governments to effectively cooperate to deal with bank failures that individual member states can no longer handle. As previously noted, European banks are often more ponderous than their American counterparts, at least proportional to the countries they reside in. Like the Georgia crisis, the coming weeks may be another test and indicator of the strength and cohesiveness of the EU.

Of course, things are going pretty poorly in the US too. As for the debate - expectations are low. The economic issues are too complex for reasonable political discourse and perhaps too global for a single government to effectively cope. Anyone who claims the next four years are going to be great is probably lying, at least as far as the economy is concerned. But what we should really all be worried about, with the "American" crisis clearly taking a global dimension, are the consequences of globalization "failing" - if history is any lesson, they will not be easy to ignore.

Global chaos aside, we can at least comfortably predict the outcome of the election (and so I invite the world to prove me wrong).

On Nonsense - Liveblogging the VP debate

2100: I now have money riding on this.

2102: Biden - the failure of the government to respond to the economic crisis proves that the market has failed. Everyone who opposes Biden is a rabid laissez faire capitalist, even though both campaigns support the bailout.

2105: Palin thinks that John McCain is responsible for the probable success of the bailout bill and future oversight.

2107: Palin - McCain not wrong on the economy being sound because American workers are "the best" and saying the economy isn't doing well makes them feel bad.

2109: Palin - "Darn right it was the predator lenders." Wall Street is corrupt, also evil. Good to hear that Palin is on board with the 'fix the economy by putting people in jail' plan. I'm also glad to know that we're thinking of putting usury back on the list of threats to society.

2110: Biden is pulling out the old deregulatory trope and blaming it on George Bush. Never mind that the '90s were a massive period of deregulation, or that that regulatory expenditure expanded massively under George W. Bush.

2114: Oh God. Is Palin listing her record as Mayor as a qualification to be President and manage the American economy? She is right about McCain wanting to regulate whatever tickles his fancy, though.

2115: Biden reinforces the real issue of this debate - massive run on sentences. Corporations are not part of America now, too.

2116: Palin thinks patriotism is refusing to be regulated or taxed. Do either of these people know what patriotism is? Also - Palin makes a legitimate point about healthcare regulation across state lines.

2118: Biden argues that redistributing wealth is just "fairness," while demanding that the government not tax the wealthy's healthcare to pay for healthcare for the poor. Tyler Cowen is right - Americans really, really, really don't like means testing.

2120: Biden says that he will cut John McCain's tax cuts from his administration's future programs to counterbalance Barack Obama's spending. Unfortunately, budgetary credit may not transfer across alternate universes where Obama and McCain are simultaneously President. Hiring foreigners is now "unpatriotic" too.

2122: More oil company tax break football. She refuses to take anything off the table, simultaneously leave Americans alone while eliminating greed and passing a massive financial bailout bill.

2125: Great. They all agree on the windfall profits oil tax as a solution to our economic woes. Lowest common denominator politics at their finest.

2126: Please. Stop. Saying. Corruption. And. Greed. Does the term "market failure" mean anything to you?

2128: Palin always has to answer her last topic before addressing the current one. Someone's finally matched Biden in blowhardiness. She's also passed the essential political test of blaming foreign people and their filthy foreign oil for our economic problems.

2130: Being from "our nation's only Arctic state" qualifies her on environmental issues, too. "Real changes are goin' on in our climate." "Effect the impacts." Also, switching to domestic oil apparently will reduce warming, since, as we all know, everything foreign is more dirty.

2132: Biden really shouldn't be criticizing McCain for coming out against biofuels.

2133: Palin is proud of hosting the country's most expensive pipeline? I guess they're only wasteful earmarks when Alaskans don't like them. She also pronounces nuclear the "folksy" way.

2136: Same old conservative gay marriage trope. But she's tolerant and her family is diverse, so it's OK. Of course, nor does Biden support redefining marriage. Can these two agree on a good idea?

2139: More adulation for Petraeus. Why don't we let this guy be President?

2141: Barack and Joe think it's time for the Iraqis to start fixing their own stupid country. Since when is it our responsibility to take care of countries that we destroy?

2142: Palin - SURRENDER! THE SURGE! THE SURGE! THE SUUUURRRRRRGGGGE! More backhanded compliments to Biden on opposing all of Obama's votes.

2143: Biden argues that McCain was incorrect in arguing Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction, yet argues exactly this position now.

2145: Time to roll out the Pakistani disaster bandwagon. Biden thinks Pakistan is going to nuke Israel? I wasn't aware Pakistan gave a damn about that part of the Middle East. Biden wants to support the Pakistani democracy by illegally violating its borders whenever we feel like it.

2146: Palin - Petraeus thinks the central front of the war on terror is in Iraq, so it is. Always and forever.

2150: There really is no point to discussing diplomacy as a contrast issue without "nuance," is there?

2151: "Never again" applies to both Israel and... American homeowners. Took until now for Palin to apply it to the former, though.

2152: Joe Biden needs to stop referring to Joe Biden in the third person.

2153: Barack Obama and Biden are against ill-advised wars against Muslim countries unless they're Pakistan or... Lebanon? Do any Americans really think putting troops into Lebanon again is a good idea? Why is this a talking point now?

2154: "I'm so encouraged to know we both love Israel."

2155: Biden wants to know how John McCain's position differs from Bush's on Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq - increasingly, McCain differs by not moving toward's Obama's positions, for better or worse.

2156: Palin wants to implement the "surge principles" in Afghanistan... Without mentioning what exactly those are.

2158: For all Biden's bluster about arms control, he needs to explain how this is going to be possible when we go after Osama in Pakistan.

2159: Palin knows McClellan's name! Too bad she's about 150 years off.

2200: Biden thinks the American public has the stomach for success. Biden is against wars that aren't his idea. Good to know.

2202: Yes, Sarah Palin, it is very obvious you're a Washington outsider. But we can't blame you for trying to fit in with that flip-flopping speech.

2204: Biden think he can revoke the sovereignty of other countries and then invade them - that makes it OK.

2205: John McCain, on the other hand, knows how to win wars on his own.

2210: "Joe Biden's Neighborhood" sounds like it has potential as a CSPAN children's show.

2211: Shout out to 3rd graders. Is this a first?

2208: Palin winked again. What does it all mean?

2214: I WIN PALIN BINGO. A great day for all Americans who are me.

2218: "America is a nation of exceptionalism." Exceptional something, I'll give you that. Wait. Did she just misattribute "City on a hill?"

2224: Biden brings up the one court case Palin still knows.

2228: It's almost over. Thank God, it's almost over. Please let this never happen again. These are by far two of the most - "national security freedoms?" What?

2230: Joe Biden makes one last gasp attempt to show he hates CEOs more than Sarah Palin. Anyway, please let these two never appear in tandem for an extended period ever, ever again.

A Good Fight?

If there's one thing Americans appear to agree on, it's Afghanistan - the war is winnable, but it needs more troops. Untainted by the stigma of preemption or unilateralism, Afghanistan is the "good war" that everybody can get behind. However, we should not confuse righteousness with feasibility.

There is no mistake that Afghanistan has been shortchanged since the beginning of the conflict. The effort to rectify this, however, is much larger than many imagine. Afghanistan, were it to have a level of military presence proportional to successful counterinsurgency campaigns, would likely require 400,000 troops for stability. Counting current NATO deployments and the Afghan security forces, that is twice the number of troops we have in Afghanistan today. Neither candidate has proposed sending anywhere near 200,000 troops to Afghanistan, nor could they feasibly be expected to do so. Nor is it likely that the United Kingdom, France, Canada or Germany will be willing to commit thousands more of their soldiers. Indeed, the British ambassador to Afghanistan has allegedly written off the Afghan campaign as futile, with a dictatorship that holds the country together as the optimal outcome - a new Iron Amir.

Of course, one might retort that a "surge" in Afghanistan could work as well as the one in Iraq did. However, this is far less likely to work out in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has dozens of millions of people, just like Iraq, and far more difficult terrain - a brigade in Afghanistan simply isn't as helpful as a brigade in Iraq. The surge in Iraq was also accompanied and preceded by significant changes in tactics that are far less likely to occur in Afghanistan. The Pashtun tribes that harbor al Qaeda and the Taliban are far less likely to switch sides, and in many cases al Qaeda is too deeply integrated with tribes to make such a strategy effective. Nor would the assassination campaign that JSOC conducted in Iraq work effectively in Afghanistan - enemy leaders are less accessible, and crossing the border into Pakistan is only making us more enemies on the other side of the border.

A strategy to stabilize Afghanistan would likely require rebuilding the tribal structure, perhaps even at the expense of the "national" level strategy, and placing more troops in harm's way. While Americans might have the stomach for such a war, European reactions to attacks indicate they may not, while the effects of the Anbar Awakening in Iraq should remind us that empowering tribes may create friction with the central government. We would also need to establish a long-term political, military, and economic commitment to Afghanistan. But with billions of dollars in bailouts down the pipe and an American public that will be clamoring for relief in the months to come (perhaps in Europe, too), NATO members will have a tough time convincing their people that Afghanistan is worth it. Success in Afghanistan is not likely to occur within the next four years. Perhaps not even within the next eight. Should we add a war in Pakistan into the mix, it may not be won at all. There is nothing wrong with believing Afghanistan is a just war. But if it is just, and we wish to win it, we're going to have to commit enormous resources to it. Something Americans should keep in mind as they throw all besides the economy to the wind.

Elsewhere, the Somali pirate drama has spotlighted a more disturbing trend - the looming escalation of the conflict between the Sudanese government and southern (ie, not Darfuri) separatists. Simultaneously, skepticism about AFRICOM does not bode well for American response capability or a "revolutionized" military policy in Africa.

Citizens of tomorrow, be forewarned

Regardless of the merits and problems of the Paulson bailout plan, it emphasizes a lot of key trends and disturbing points about the direction in which the global economy is moving. Firstly, the US, for better or for worse, is still a major standard-bearer for Western and Westernizing economic norms. What we do will echo in the rest of the world, and we should not undertake any action that we would not want turned against us later on. As Drezner points out, the US, so far, is doing fairly well; other countries experiencing such financial turmoil have not been so lucky. The US, like its banks, is too big to fail - with around a fifth of world GDP, a financial collapse here would reverberate with massive consequences around the globe. The EU faces a huge test of its fiscal prowess even now, while China cannot afford a world economic downturn that would halt its rapid growth. The world economy for the past 60 years has increasingly been a positive-sum game. While this is not inherently enough to pretent catastrophe, there is no doubt turning it into a zero sum game only encourages it.

To cast a further cynical light on things, the bailout, from a separation-of-powers perspective, should be terrifying. The executive branch, in tandem with the Federal Reserve, can issue hundreds of billions of dollars without judicial review or much legislative oversight. What makes this all the worse is that the Federal Reserve is the only institution that has performed reasonably well throughout the crisis. Congress refused to back down from a program of aggressive homeownership expansion even in the midst of a housing bubble, while opportunities for both parties to reform the GSEs went unexploited. Confronted with the crisis, Congress passed an utterly useless fiscal stimulus bill. I have little confidence constructive responses will emerge in an expedient timeframe barring some massive shift in attitudes and norms in the legislature (Dodd's proposal is decent, but given some of its provisions, it is unlikely to fly through Congress and into law fast enough for Wall Street's liking). Ultimately, the economic crisis may give the executive - the one sitting, and likely whoever wins in November - powers the Iraq War could not grant them. These powers may remain theoretical, though. The burden of financing these bailouts will severely impede whatever discretionary programs they now promise - whether they be tax cuts or spending on social programs. If there is "Caesarism" in 21st century America, it will be centered around national power, rather than "bread and circuses."

On the other hand, we may have that Congressional oversight and those bread and circuses. The current proposal could easily be stacked with Democratic "riders" to bail out whoever that party thinks needs additional relief. Doing so, of course, would only further implicate Congress with a possible (some would say likely) failure of the bailout plan. With an election coming up, too many incentives are on politicians to wash their hands of current problems rather than take on the much more difficult task of fixing them. We may well be stuck between gridlock and the unchecked executive.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world so rudely refuses to act according to our preferences. Despite suffering a major terrorist attack which could have decapitated the government, Pakistan continues to stand against American intrusion. This seems illogical until one considers how al Qaeda started out - attacking "apostate" governments which turned to the US for security. Should Pakistan allow American intervention, it is reasonable to expect more bombs, not fewer, targeted at the Zadari government.

The Myth of Omnipotence

A big commonality between any two American Presidential candidates these days is an overwhelming belief in American power. While candidates may argue that their opponent or predecessor has squandered this power and influence, rarely will they ever argue that they have permanently diminished it. Even if they privately feel their country is in irreversible decline, it's politically infeasible to admit as such - American exceptionalism is not dead, and will not be for some time. With the "good" people in charge, the problems that prevented the previous administration's grandiose schemes from working will disappear.

Neither candidate is immune from this fallacy. John McCain, despite his criticism of the Bush administration's implementation of neoconservative strategy, still thinks that those same botched wars could have worked if only someone who put "country first" and devoted the country fully to the task was in charge. So too does he believe that "big government" would work a lot better if the government shaped up to his values. Obama, for his part, holds some similar beliefs. America can undertake unilateralist actions - like attacks against Pakistan - so long as somebody sufficiently "understanding" of our allies is there to soothe their concerns. Similarly, many Democrats (likely Obama included) argue that if only "someone else" had been in charge, regulation could have been put in place to stop the current economic crisis - despite a lack of any clear steps the government could have taken to prevent it. So too has the government's heavy-handed response been underwhelming. But Bush is "laissez-faire," so if we had people who believed in government, it would have worked, right?

Returning to foreign policy and, (once again), Pakistan, there's one further danger to bring up. Obama, to his credit, has staked a huge amount of his foreign policy experience on nuclear nonproliferation. A successful nuclear attack could derail globalization, a constructive post-Bush fight against terrorism, and intensify animosity among great powers. However, it is impossible to develop an effective nonproliferation regime without the cooperation of Pakistan - a nuclear power and serial proliferator of technology. Between its offers to help other Muslim countries to develop nuclear technology or AQ Khan's black market, viewed in light of the cozy relationship between most organs of the Pakistani security establishment and Islamist militants, securing Pakistani arms and technology is absolutely essential to effective nonproliferation. However, it is difficult to imagine Pakistan cooperating on an issue it views as essential to its own security while the US violates its borders. Worse, the Pakistani nuclear program could easily be detached from civilian control, and a humiliated military would likely cling to its nuclear arms to compensate for its inability or unwillingness to retaliate to American attacks.

There are other dangerous precedents. Just as the next American President will want to rebuild America's relationships with its allies, America is demonstrating (and the candidates often affirming) that some allies (and the American national interest) are more important than others. This would be sensible and acceptable were not so much of Obama's campaign staked on rebuilding America as a moral leader in the world. Many Americans speak of rebuilding America's relationship with Europe - but Europe itself does not have a unified foreign policy. It will be difficult to please both pro-Russian natural gas customers like Germany and paranoid post-Soviet states like Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltics.

Meanwhile, the American abandonment of Georgia will likely lead other minor states near regional powers to question our commitment. When America will not even protect their territorial integrity, it may seem like a better idea to accommodate rising regional powers (Russia, China, Iran) rather than rely on the US Cavalry that may never come. There are fears this is already happening in the Persian Gulf. Allowing relationships between the US and states on the peripheries of rising powers to erode will be especially dangerous. If a strategy of negotiations and engagement fail, the US will have to turn to a strategy of containment. Without those peripheral states, such strategies can become much more difficult.

Ultimately, successful diplomacy cannot occur without clear objectives, and we cannot have clear objectives without acknowledging what concessions we will make and what goals we will not pursue. Is the United States willing to make concessions on free trade, environmental regulation, military aid, and tolerance of human rights abuses to keep other countries working with us? Sure, there are unilateral decisions the US can make - closing Camp X-Ray, ending torture, taking the lead on climate change legislation - but eventually the US will have to sacrifice degrees of either its idealistic aspirations or material ambitions to make multilateralism work. Rejecting the Bush Doctrine is not a concession; declining to invade other countries without the sanction of the international community is the bare minimum of accepted behavior for most states. Undoubtedly, the candidates do privately know what specific goals and concessions they are willing to work towards. The problem of course, is getting the American people to accept them when the illusion of Washington's omnipotence can no longer be upheld.

If it is Worth Doing...

Usually one does not cite William Tecumseh Sherman in a rumination on military restraint, but...

Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and defeat.

... seems to be an appropriate turn of phrase lately. The war in Iraq was fought by exactly such a metric. It was a plan to fight the war from the air, move in with less troops than we used to liberate Kuwait, and spend a few dozen billion to have them sit around in a country where only a few hardened Baathists would resist our lovely presence. Five years later, here we are.

So, forgive me when I recommend an outspoken war critic and Presidential candidate not be so cavalier about attacking Pakistan, especially when he has no real plan for how to prevent such a conflict from escalating, or what the boundaries of such a mission would be. I will not go so far as to argue there are no circumstances under which we can attack Pakistan and buy into a foreign policy based on multilateral cooperation and support for Pakistani democracy. Faced against an increasingly uncooperative Pakistani government, attacks into the frontier may not be the worst option as far as the war in Afghanistan is concerned. Nevertheless, to be "realistic" about this aspect of the strategy means to stop clinging to any notion that we intend to pursue a policy of cooperation or support for democracy in Pakistan.

We are making a lot of enemies, ones with uniforms and nuclear bombs. I can't tell you how it will end, but I can say how it won't - there is not going to be a friendly Pakistani government. There is not going to be a cooperative Pakistani army willing to absorb thousands of casualties fighting tribesmen backed by the ISI while a foreign power humiliatingly violates their sovereignty. Do you want a prime example of the US shelling a society into support for extremism? Start watching Pakistan. Even if there is no escalation into a shooting war with Islamabad, we will poison democracy in Pakistan. The most basic function of a government is not education, or healthcare or welfare. It is protecting its citizens from coercion. Either the leader who allows his citizens to die will be replaced, or the system that put him into power will. Whether a stronger nationalist is voted into power or a coup occurs, Pakistanis are highly unlikely to tolerate such transgressions.

However destabilizing Iraq was, fomenting a crisis with Pakistan will be just as troubling with the international community in general. Sure, India might be happy, but who else will be? Europe operates in Afghanistan, too, and given the unease that many Europeans already feel about their Afghan troop presence, attacking Pakistan, if anything, would expedite their withdrawal. China will be very angry about an attack on its strategic partner, while the world public in general will see the unsavory aspects of the "Bush Doctrine" as permanent fixtures in America's 21st century policy, rather than a 7 year phase. In short: if you believe in soft power, you should be pleading with Obama-Biden to tone down their rhetoric on Pakistan. If you think attacking Pakistan is a good idea, maybe liberal internationalism shouldn't the keystone for your foreign policy this term. Perhaps the best Vietnam analogy isn't Iraq. Cambodia, after all, came from the guy who was going to "end the war," too...

Lest one assume I'm being too hard on Obama, let me point out that Palin's Charlie Gibson interview is more than proof enough that she is unfit to be Vice President come 2009. The idea that Mr. "Country First" would put her on the spot is extremely disturbing. Yes, she was a smart choice to unify the base. However, we've had 8 years of an folksy, outsider, common-man conservative ex-governor with no foreign policy experience. Excuse me if I am not willing to risk a few more.

Elsewhere in the world, OPEC has decided $100 is too low for a barrel of oil Any politician who tells you they've got a plan to enrich Americans by "lowering gas prices" or taxing "windfall profits" from oil companies is full of it - especially when the Gods seem to be on the side of higher oil prices, too. Also in unsurprising news today, Hugo Chavez has "had enough of so much shit" from the US.