Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Partisan face-off stalls economic change

July 22, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Burlington Free Press.]

The Vermont economy, like the national economy, is in trouble. We are often given vapid reassurances by politicians that things are not all that bad, but economists and real working people have rather different take on the matter.  Unfortunately, many are anticipating a further, probably fairly serious deterioration of our national economy.

Vermont does not have the kind of balanced revenue mix that mitigates economic recessions. It is a state that is inordinately dependent on tourism for its income.

Spending on tourism is almost entirely discretionary. That money is spent after the necessities of life have been secured, that is, if there is any money left over. Vermont’s visitors, who directly and indirectly provide a large amount of Vermont’s tax revenues, are squarely in that category.

Wednesday’s Burlington Free Press had an interesting front-page article on IBM’s decision to invest $l.5 billion in new production and 1,000 new “nanotech” jobs in New York rather than in Vermont (“IBM investing $1.5 billion in New York,” July 16). In it, IBM’s concerns about the negatives of conducting business in Vermont, which have been made “quite clear” to Vermont officials, are laid out once again. Listed are: “the circumferential highway, energy prices, housing costs and site permitting issues”.

In contradistinction to these issues stand the contemporary Vermont preoccupations with sprawl, opposition to the Circ, environmental laws that slow down and sometimes paralyze the permitting process as well as attitudes toward energy generation, particularly alternative approaches, and other regulatory issues.

Vermont Republicans, in the main, would like to see a more favorable business climate because it would stimulate job growth and that, in the long run, would increase state revenues. Additional revenues would then permit investment in Vermont’s infrastructure, which would also support a more favorable business climate.

Democrats, on the other hand would like to have more money for social programs, medical services, education, low income housing and support for our underprivileged citizens. Presumably this would come through increased across the board taxation.

Increased taxation and the continuation of Vermont’s current attitudes toward businesses like IBM will not provide new income sources for Vermont’s economic needs. In purely economic terms, that will not foster growth. Without growth, there will be little hope for increased revenues to support the projects favored by either Democrats or Republicans.

It is absolutely pointless take sides on these issues, even though virtually all Vermonters do so. Given the structure and current state of Vermont’s economy, which does not favor increasing state incomes, Republicans and Democrats want additional resources, albeit for different purposes.

And yet, no party seems ready to budge an inch. Talk about the softening regulatory environment or building the Circ and there is a great hue and cry from those organizations that oppose them, even though they might be part of the solutions they seek for greater revenues. Talk about increased state resources for education in support of a better-prepared work force or state sponsored health care that would ameliorate the business climate and the Republicans howl.

The key here is well-paid jobs. Right now, because of its practices, laws and policies, Vermont has not positioned itself favorably in the national inter-state competition for those jobs.

No one can have it both ways. The kind of entrenched, diametrically opposed political attitudes that exist in Vermont today are not going to solve any of the state’s problems, particularly in these difficult economic times. Vermont will continue to have to try to muddle through.

Haviland Smith lives in Williston.

Posted in United States |

What was it we were fighting for?

July 13, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus.]

As a group, intelligence officers are like automobile repairmen and electronics technicians: They are preoccupied with why things happen. In the case of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, that has presented a perplexing problem: Given the results, just why did the Bush administration invade Iraq?

All of the “compelling reasons” that supported an Iraq invasion and which have been presented by the White House to the public and Congress, have been proven to be either suspect or deliberate distortions of the truth. The existence of weapons of mass destruction, substantive Iraqi contact with al-Qaida, the suggestion that Iraq was behind or in some way involved in 9/11, the liberation of the Iraqis from a repressive regime, that we would be greeted by Iraqis throwing flower petals, the spread of democracy in the Muslim world and “fight the terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them at home” have all succumbed to subsequent examination.

All of these mendacious rationales should be relegated to the category of things said by the Bush administration to keep the American people frightened and thus willing to continue to support a war in Iraq. Americans are also asked to support all those administration policies – wireless wiretapping, renditions, torture, Guantanamo, etc. — which are claimed to be an integral part of that effort and of the “Global War on Terrorism” and, coincidentally, to keep them supporting the Republican Party.

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s recent “tell-all” book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” whether you admire him personally or not, indicates clearly that every time the White House or its supporters says anything that pertains to Iraq, Iran, terrorism or just about anything else, we all need to think again and question what has been said. It’s not that this book is going to tell us a lot about the Bush White House that we don’t already know or suspect, it’s that it gives us a frame of reference for just about everything said by this administration and its supporters since the decision was made to invade Iraq.

It now appears that the slow and deliberate parceling out of “reasons” for the invasion were part of a carefully designed propaganda effort designed to get America behind the Iraq invasion and the global war on terror. At worst, this effort appears to have been a purposeful administration attempt to mislead the public and the Congress. Of course the next question that begs to be asked is, “why was this ‘culture of deception’ put in place?”

This administration, probably because it believed that a perpetual climate of fear would keep Republicans in power, has done everything possible to keep its citizens ginned up and fixated on their personal security. Only a frightened, intimidated and security-obsessed population could be counted on to support the war on terror and the Iraq occupation. As long as that atmosphere could be maintained, the Republicans could fantasize about long-term occupancy of the White House and the Congress, the “permanent Republican majority” dreamed of by Karl Rove. Hence we also have the Rumsfeldian concept of the “long war” and Sen. John McCain’s recent notion that we could maintain a military presence in Iraq for “maybe a hundred years” and that “would be fine with me.”

Until the national repudiation of Republican Iraq policy in the 2006 congressional elections, this deception effort was quite successful. The machinations that have provided those successes have included measures like our color-coded terrorist warning system, enhanced airline security, increased border controls and the Patriot Act. Most effective of all have been the constant accusations by the administration and its supporters that if you are not with them, if you say anything negative about any of the so-called global war on terror policies, you are you are somehow unpatriotic, an appeaser or worse.

We now know from two insider “tell-alls” that the Iraq invasion had been planned prior to 9/11. It would appear that, in order to perpetuate Republican power, the Bush administration undertook the invasion, inter alia, to mire America in a permanent struggle which would create and maintain political support at home. Incredibly, they did so against the advice of the vast majority of experts on foreign policy and the Middle East, both in the government and in academic life.

This Iraq policy, sold by a duplicitous domestic propaganda machine, has brought America international political isolation, a severely damaged military establishment, rejuvenated Muslim fundamentalist terrorism, a weakened dollar, record national and foreign debt, a recession uniquely accompanied by inflation, diminished constitutional rights and political divisiveness here at home. Who is winning here?

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff. He lives in Williston.

Posted in Iraq |

Change, Not Panaceas, Needed in Oil Crisis

June 26, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Randolph Herald.]

Americans are more upset and more unified about the prices of crude oil and its byproducts than they are about Iraq or abortion.  We are, after all, incredibly dependent on that commodity in our daily lives.  And just wait until next heating season!

The automobile is absolutely indispensable in suburban and rural America. What happens when gas costs the commuter who lives 25-50 miles from his job, as is so often the case, an additional $50-100 a week?  He can’t afford it.  All he can afford is public transportation, but outside our major population centers, there isn’t much of any.  Much of rural America, including Vermont, is crisscrossed by abandoned rail, trolley and bus lines, facilities we have given up injudiciously during our love affair with the automobile.

Everyone has a special demon to blame for the price of energy.   We blame Iran, Venezuela, the Arabs, OPEC, Russia, international oil companies, in short, anyone we don’t like who is in any way involved.  How easy that is!  Unfortunately, the real reason is even simpler.  The real reason is that the international demand for energy has skyrocketed in the past decade.  Thousands of new automobiles constantly hit the roads of India, China and the rest of the world.  There are daily almost 20,000 additional humans inhabiting our planet, demanding food, housing, heating and cooling and all the other things that people feel they need.

And through all of this, Americans remain by far the highest per capita users of energy on the planet. As it is, our energy self-indulgence is forcing up the price we pay for it, damaging our balance of payments problems and our economy, lowering our standard of living and making our lives more precarious.

The solution to this problem is tightly entwined with global warming.  The two simply cannot be separated.  Calls to drill into the Alaskan reserve and all the other untapped suspected pools of crude hardly will solve the long-range dual problem.  Ditto coal reserves.  Such activity may add to established reserves, but it will exacerbate climate change.   Even the Bush Administration, traditionally denigrators of climate change theory, have now acknowledge it exists and is a problem.

For that reason, many of the so-called “solutions” to the energy problem are purely political – typical pandering hogwash.   The “gas tax holiday”, the cessation of replenishing the strategic oil reserve, a windfall profits tax on the oil companies and the otherworldly Chrysler offer for $2.99 per gallon gas for three years to help them sell unsellable, gas-guzzlers, are all really useless suggestions that do not address the real problem.

This country needs to stop all the political and commercial grandstanding and accept two realities:  Oil is in sort supply and burning oil threatens the planet.  The solution to the problems lies in investment in new energy sources over which we have control and which do not exacerbate global warming.  None of that includes finding and pumping new crude or digging more coal.  It involves cutting our self-indulgent use of energy and that means, God forbid the word should be used, conservation:  new mileage standards, better public transportation, new searches for alternate power, a nationwide 55 mph speed limit, etc, etc.  The four-day work week (20% energy saving) isn’t even a bad idea!

If you don’t like these ideas, you are not only part of the problem, in a democratic society, you are the problem.   We Americans are truly self-indulgent folks – unlikely to apply the necessary political pressure to change things quickly.

Over the past couple of centuries, America has repeatedly demonstrated one basic characteristic.  We do not easily plan ahead!  In this case, we love our cars and the sense of freedom they give us.  If there is more crude to be found, let’s go ahead and pump it wherever it is and to hell with the economic ramifications or climate change!  And so, we move forward on paths that do not have rational bases and do not lead to solutions to the root problems.  And guess what?  We don’t find needed solutions because they are not being sufficiently vigorously sought.   Then, we suddenly are faced with disaster!

The better side of our national character is that, faced with imminent disaster, and perhaps only then, America has always, at least until now, come up with real solutions.  The issue to consider right now is whether America is still up to that performance, and even if it is, why not face reality today, get on with finding solutions and avoid real pain before the situation goes completely critical?

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in East and West Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff.

Posted in United States |

Expiration date at hand: Legal basis for U.S. troops in Iraq at an end

June 15, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Barre Times-Argus and Rutland Herald.]

America’s military presence in Iraq was legally established by a United Nations Security Council resolution that expires at the end of 2008. At that point, unless the United States has negotiated a security agreement directly with the Iraqi government that authorizes the continued presence of troops, there will be no legal basis for a U.S. military presence in Iraq.

In the absence of such an agreement, the United States will be faced with the humiliating prospect of trying to get the UN Security Council, which has never supported our Iraq invasion and occupation, to renew our license to remain there. Given the attitudes of China and Russia, not to mention those countries that used to be our closest allies, such as Britain and France, that seems like a fool’s journey. So, we are faced with negotiations.

Early this year, the United States began those negotiations with the Al Maliki government on Iraq’s future and America’s role therein. Early media reporting on this process was focused on whether or not the negotiations would produce an agreement or a treaty. If it produced a treaty, as appeared to be the case, given some wording which committed the United States to maintain the stability of Iraq’s government from internal and external threats, it appeared that it would require congressional approval, something on which the Bush administration clearly could not count.

By March, media reporting, which has remained minimal throughout this process, began to focus fuzzily on the real issues at hand, which included a formalized U.S./Iraq relationship and the future military role of the United States in Iraq, in effect, a status of forces agreement.

Earlier reporting between 2003 and 2005 alleged that the United States was planning for a long-term military presence through the establishment of “enduring bases” in Iraq. Additional reporting at that time said that the United States was planning to establish four super-bases in Iraq into which we would consolidate American forces. Congress has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars for such construction and the presumptive Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has since added his contribution of a 100-year occupation.

In the past few months, little has been written about the negotiations. We have been told by the Bush administration only that the details of U.S. negotiating positions were – and would remain -secret.

Early this month however, the Iraqis apparently began to leak details to European media. These U.S. demands reportedly include: U.S. control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet, long-term use of dozens of military bases, the right to pursue the War on Terror inside Iraq, wide U.S. arrest authority, the right to launch military actions without consultation and the grant of immunity for all American personnel in Iraq from arrest under Iraqi law.

What we know for a fact is that on June 4, a group of Iraqi parliamentarians presented a letter to the U.S. Congress, which demanded that the United States establish a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq before any agreement on conditions could be reached. The letter was signed by a majority of the members of the Iraq Parliament. The letter further stated:

“The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq.”

In the face of such a statement, it is reasonable to believe that reporting on the demands attributed to the United States above are likely to be accurate.

So, where does that leave this matter? We do have some choices – none of them good. We can literally attempt to browbeat the Iraqi negotiators into agreeing to our demands. That might well cause a flat refusal, or a mass Iraqi withdrawal from the negotiations that could precipitate a real crisis. Or, the Iraqis might accede. In that case, the agreement would go to the Iraq Parliament where it would almost certainly be rejected.

Or, we can go hat in hand to the UN, an organization that excites only scorn from the neocons in the Bush administration and beg them to validate our continued stay in Iraq. That might be rejected out of hand, or those nations in the Security Council that do not agree with us might well attach humiliating conditions to it.

Or, we can give them a fixed timetable, acceptable to the Iraqis, for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Presumably that would not be in 100 years.

Whatever we do, in the absence of the existence of an overall agreement with the Iraq government, our lease on the continued U.S. military occupation of Iraq expires on Dec. 31.

Perhaps the Iraqis are going to do what we have been unable to do ourselves ­ get us out of Iraq. In the process, perhaps they, rather than our own impotent Congress, are going to put an end to the Bush dream of bequeathing to his successor an entanglement from which he cannot escape for decades. Do not believe for one minute that a U.S.-initiated withdrawal from Iraq would be a simple matter, or that it would not have major political consequences here in America. Perhaps the only smooth way out is to be tossed out!

Such an end to our occupation would come from our own misbegotten policies. The Iraqis appear to be sick and tired of us and clearly want us out of their country on their terms. We truly have no one to blame but ourselves.

We cannot legitimately feel aggrieved by this. It is part of the democratic process in Iraq where we have relentlessly pushed democracy. This is precisely what happened when we pushed successfully for democracy in the recent Palestine elections that brought Hamas to power. We might start being more careful what we wish for.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Eastern and Western Europe, the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff. He lives in Williston.

Posted in Iraq |

Everyone’s talking in the Middle East — but us

May 28, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in Nieman Watchdog.]

A former CIA station chief writes that in Lebanon and elsewhere, consequential conversations are taking place that are critical to our national interests. But because we refuse to talk to such major players as Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria, we’re not involved.

The Lebanese tell a story about themselves that is ironically revealing of the virtually constant troubles that have plagued their country since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

It goes as follows:

When God created the Earth, he saved what is now Lebanon for last. He threw up magnificent, snow-covered mountains, cedar, apple and pear trees and flowers. He added crystal clear rivers and streams filled with fish and a beautiful high desert. In the west, along the bountiful Mediterranean Sea, he created beautiful white sand beaches and majestic rocky cliffs rimmed by date palms.

God stood back and looked. He thought that such beauty and bounty, when compared to the rest of the world, simply wasn’t fair. No other place on the face of the earth was as special, so to compensate for that, he installed the Lebanese people as its residents.

It’s hard to know what God meant by that, but the practical reality is that Lebanon is populated by virtually all of the factions that are at such odds today in the rest of the Arab world. Sunni, Shia and Christian with small sprinklings of Jews and Druze are among the sectarian groups that remain in Lebanon.

Lebanon is a political and sectarian microcosm of all the issues that have ruled in the Middle East over the past 50 years and is, sadly, not immune to any of them. When the Middle East falls apart, Lebanon falls apart internally with it.

Lebanon has been settled for over 5,000 years. Byblos is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world, having existed since before 3000 B.C. In more recent times, under the Ottoman Empire, Lebanon was a part of Greater Syria. At the end of World War I, Lebanon became a part of the French Mandate of Syria and remained so until 1926, when the French created the Lebanese Republic. Lebanese independence was gained in 1943.
Because of the pressures caused by its religious diversity, Lebanon has long had an unwritten political agreement. The national pact establishes that the president of the republic will always be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni, the president of the national assembly a Shia and the deputy speaker of the parliament a Greek Orthodox. In addition, representation in the parliament has to be maintained at six Christians to five Muslims.

Clearly, the Christian French Republic had a large hand in this, virtually guaranteeing that Christians would be in charge of Lebanon long into the future. It is said that in the early years of the Lebanese Republic, when many Christians were emigrating to the West, the Christian majority, which has for some time been doubtful, was maintained along with the validity of the national pact by counting the overseas Christians as citizens of Lebanon. This has not eased tensions in Lebanon, because Muslims, the real majority in their country, have increasingly felt disenfranchised.

Recent events have finally threatened the accepted political structure. Hezbollah, which is designated a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel, had its origins in Shia Lebanon during the 1982 Israeli invasion. It is trained and funded by Iran. However, rather than evolving into a strictly terrorist organization – and it certainly does conduct terrorist operations – Hezbollah has firmly planted its roots in the large Shia community of Lebanon. It runs clinics, radio and television stations and welfare operations. It takes care of its people, is widely supported by the Lebanese Shia community and holds seats in the Lebanese Parliament, although far fewer than true per capita representation would probably bring it. Today, Muslims hold 64 seats in the parliament and Christians 64.

The population of 4 million Lebanese breaks down roughly into 1 million Shia, 1.4 million Sunni and 1.6 million Christians, comprised of Maronites (Catholic), Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Greek Catholic, Coptic and Syrian Orthodox.

The endemic, Muslim-wide, Shia-Sunni tensions are very real in Lebanon. The profusion of Christian sects has often resulted in shifting, often unpredictable alliances between various Christian and Muslim factions which have further complicated the situation.

In addition, Syria has always felt that Lebanon should be part of Syria. Their irredentist passions have often caused them to interfere in Lebanese politics, causing immense internal political pressures there. Then there is the wild card of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, particularly given its immense hostility to Iran and Hezbollah.

The current Lebanese government is strongly supported by the United States. Apparently concerned about Hezbollah preparations for another war with Israel, it recently provoked a showdown with Hezbollah, probably with urging from the Bush administration. The government tried to preempt Hezbollah’s dedicated communications network and removed both a Hezbollah surveillance camera and the Lebanese installation commander, a Hezbollah sympathizer, on whose turf it was installed. Hezbollah responded by taking to the streets. In short order, they controlled much of Beirut and met with virtually no resistance from the Lebanese Army which clearly saw it could not win such a battle.

The important fact to remember is that Hezbollah is Shiite and supported by Iran. Add to that the fact that Hezbollah embarrassed the Israeli Army last summer in Lebanon and you can see that it is a total anathema to the Bush administration which has refused any kind of substantive contact with Iran or Hezbollah on these issues.

Today, Europe is conducting talks with Hamas, which Iran also supports. The Arab League is actively involved in Doha, trying to mitigate Lebanese violence. The Lebanese factions have already reached some political accommodation in talks in Doha. The Syrians are holding Turkish-mediated “indirect talks” with Israel on a “comprehensive peace agreement.”

All of these discussions are taking place without the involvement of the United States. This fact underlines our almost total isolation in the Middle East. We are isolated because we have no leverage in the area. We have nothing we are prepared to give up that anyone wants. What is wanted from us is: the end of the U.S. military occupation of Iraq; the end of U.S. support of repressive, non-representative Arab regimes; the removal of U.S. troops from holy Muslim ground in Saudi Arabia and a just peace for Palestine.

There is a lot of political movement taking place in the Middle East right now. Just about everything that happens there will affect us directly. It is most certainly in our national interest to see that we have our input.

Yet, we refuse to talk to the real players in the area – Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria – who will directly affect the outcome. If what little leverage we have offers the hope of a positive outcome for us as well as the region, why are we not more heavily involved?

Playing our hand according to our own national interests would ease many of our current political, military and economic troubles. It is a national shame that we are not involved in these processes and using what leverage we have. It may be a very long time before we get another shot.

Posted in Middle East |

When Middle East falls apart, Lebanon falls with it

May 25, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus.]

The Lebanese tell a story about themselves that is ironically revealing of the virtually constant troubles that have plagued their country since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

It goes as follows:

When God created the Earth, he saved what is now Lebanon for last. He threw up magnificent, snow-covered mountains, cedar, apple and pear trees and flowers. He added crystal clear rivers and streams filled with fish and a beautiful high desert. In the west, along the bountiful Mediterranean Sea, he created beautiful white sand beaches and majestic rocky cliffs rimmed by date palms.

God stood back and looked. He thought that such beauty and bounty, when compared to the rest of the world, simply wasn’t fair. No other place on the face of the earth was as special, so to compensate for that, he installed the Lebanese people as its residents.

It’s hard to know what God meant by that, but the practical reality is that Lebanon is populated by virtually all of the factions that are at such odds today in the rest of the Arab world. Sunni, Shia and Christian with small sprinklings of Jews and Druze are among the sectarian groups that remain in Lebanon.

Lebanon is a political and sectarian microcosm of all the issues that have ruled in the Middle East over the past 50 years and is, sadly, not immune to any of them. When the Middle East falls apart, Lebanon falls apart internally with it.

Lebanon has been settled for over 5,000 years. Byblos is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world, having existed since before 3000 B.C. In more recent times, under the Ottoman Empire, Lebanon was a part of Greater Syria. At the end of World War I, Lebanon became a part of the French Mandate of Syria and remained so until 1926, when the French created the Lebanese Republic. Lebanese independence was gained in 1943.

Because of the pressures caused by its religious diversity, Lebanon has long had an unwritten political agreement. The national pact establishes that the president of the republic will always be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni, the president of the national assembly a Shia and the deputy speaker of the parliament a Greek Orthodox. In addition, representation in the parliament has to be maintained at six Christians to five Muslims.

Clearly, the Christian French Republic had a large hand in this, virtually guaranteeing that Christians would be in charge of Lebanon long into the future. It is said that in the early years of the Lebanese Republic, when many Christians were emigrating to the West, the Christian majority, which has for some time been doubtful, was maintained along with the validity of the national pact by counting the overseas Christians as citizens of Lebanon. This has not eased tensions in Lebanon, because Muslims, the real majority in their country, have increasingly felt disenfranchised.

Recent events have finally threatened the accepted political structure. Hezbollah, which is designated a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel, had its origins in Shia Lebanon during the 1982 Israeli invasion. It is trained and funded by Iran. However, rather than evolving into a strictly terrorist organization – and it certainly does conduct terrorist operations – Hezbollah has firmly planted its roots in the large Shia community of Lebanon. It runs clinics, radio and television stations and welfare operations. It takes care of its people, is widely supported by the Lebanese Shia community and holds seats in the Lebanese Parliament, although far fewer than true per capita representation would probably bring it. Today, Muslims hold 64 seats in the parliament and Christians 64.

The population of 4 million Lebanese breaks down roughly into 1 million Shia, 1.4 million Sunni and 1.6 million Christians, comprised of Maronites (Catholic), Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Greek Catholic, Coptic and Syrian Orthodox.

The endemic, Muslim-wide, Shia-Sunni tensions are very real in Lebanon. The profusion of Christian sects has often resulted in shifting, often unpredictable alliances between various Christian and Muslim factions which have further complicated the situation.

In addition, Syria has always felt that Lebanon should be part of Syria. Their irredentist passions have often caused them to interfere in Lebanese politics, causing immense internal political pressures there. Then there is the wild card of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, particularly given its immense hostility to Iran and Hezbollah.

The current Lebanese government is strongly supported by the United States. Apparently concerned about Hezbollah preparations for another war with Israel, it recently provoked a showdown with Hezbollah, probably with urging from the Bush administration. The government tried to preempt Hezbollah’s dedicated communications network and removed both a Hezbollah surveillance camera and the Lebanese installation commander, a Hezbollah sympathizer, on whose turf it was installed. Hezbollah responded by taking to the streets. In short order, they controlled much of Beirut and met with virtually no resistance from the Lebanese Army which clearly saw it could not win such a battle.

The important fact to remember is that Hezbollah is Shiite and supported by Iran. Add to that the fact that Hezbollah embarrassed the Israeli Army last summer in Lebanon and you can see that it is a total anathema to the Bush administration which has refused any kind of substantive contact with Iran or Hezbollah on these issues.

Today, Europe is conducting talks with Hamas, which Iran also supports. The Arab League is actively involved in Doha, trying to mitigate Lebanese violence. The Lebanese factions have already reached some political accommodation in talks in Doha. The Syrians are holding Turkish-mediated “indirect talks” with Israel on a “comprehensive peace agreement.”

All of these discussions are taking place without the involvement of the United States. This fact underlines our almost total isolation in the Middle East. We are isolated because we have no leverage in the area. We have nothing we are prepared to give up that anyone wants. What is wanted from us is: the end of the U.S. military occupation of Iraq; the end of U.S. support of repressive, non-representative Arab regimes; the removal of U.S. troops from holy Muslim ground in Saudi Arabia and a just peace for Palestine.

There is a lot of political movement taking place in the Middle East right now. Just about everything that happens there will affect us directly. It is most certainly in our national interest to see that we have our input. Yet, we refuse to talk to the real players in the area – Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria – who will directly affect the outcome. If what little leverage we have offers the hope of a positive outcome for us as well as the region, why are we not more heavily involved?

Playing our hand according to our own national interests would ease many of our current political, military and economic troubles. It is a national shame that we are not involved in these processes and using what leverage we have. It may be a very long time before we get another shot like this.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief, who served in Eastern and Western Europe, Lebanon and Tehran and as chief of the counter-terrorism staff. He lives in Williston.

Posted in Middle East |

Americans Don’t Know Enough History To Try To ‘Fix’ the World

May 22, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Herald of Randolph.]

This year’s news reports have brought us stories ranging from Kosovan independence, through Moqtada al Sadr’s changing positions on a Shiite ceasefire in Iraq, to Turkish incursions into Iraqi Kurdistan.   Far too many Americans fail to recognize that these struggles, like innumerable other examples throughout the world, are products of conflicts and animosities that have been going on sporadically or continuously for centuries, even millennia.

Much of today’s conflicted world is built on age-old animosities, or more recently on animosities occasioned by three centuries of western colonialism in today’s less developed world. These unsettled areas are often tribal, or Muslim, or ruled by modern dictators or imperialist governments.  In most cases, their people do not know and do not seek any other form of governance.  Yet America is convinced that a world that largely has no history of democracy, free press or the rule of law – the absolute minimum imperatives on which democracy is built – is somehow ripe for democratization.

Today’s American democracy evolved over 500 years.  During that period, Europeans and North Americans hammered out its philosophical bases and battled through its revolutionary birth pangs. Along with our European forebears, we came by our belief in and adherence to “democracy” experientially and legitimately through centuries of difficult intellectual and physical conflict.

In the halls of American power, the old truism is true:  No one reads history.  If they did, they would probably not be eager to get involved in battles that have been going on for centuries, offering the curative wonders of democracy and capitalism as their one-size-fits-all solution for the ills of the world.  Yet we blunder on, selling democracy rather than the basic right of self-determination, which is the right of people to choose the form of government under which they will live.

Deeply embedded in the psyche of the American people is the notion that they have the objectively most perfect form of government and economic system on the face of this earth.  Even with all its faults and inequities, that may be true – at least for us Americans.

And what of Islam?  Islam holds that the Koran represents the only enduring truth. It gives believers a complete and unequivocal blueprint for life, while we hold the same true for our Constitutional underpinnings.  Who is right?  Does it even matter who is right?

Part of the problem we face in the world today is a problem of our own creation.  Much of it is occasioned by our absolute conviction that we know the truth. Our truth it is based on democracy and capitalism and we will bring it messianically to the rest of the world, militarily if need be, whether they want it or not.

Americans and Muslims alike believe that their system is the best.  Both parties have evangelical components.  The Muslims are told it is their duty to bring Islam to the rest of the world simply because it is the perfect word of Allah.  Americans are told we must bring democracy to the world because it is the absolute best form of governance on the planet.  Neither side can comprehend the other’s disinterest.  This conflict is like all the other ethnic, tribal, religious and ideological conflicts in the world because believers on both sides see themselves as right and their opponents as wrong.

The portent in these conflicts for the United States is that we will suffer unless we learn that there are no easy, quick fixes.  What may appear to be the right thing to do in any given situation may well be wrong, or inflict further damage on mankind, or both.  That understanding, which brings with it acceptance that truth is relative among different cultures, is the only thing that can possibly save us from our own inclination to “fix the world”.

The history of man gives reasonable evidence that there are endless traps lying in wait for 21st Century America.   We really had better know what we are doing when we stick out a toe, however tentatively, with the notion that, in doing so, we will make the world a better place.  Our current policies on Iraq and terrorism demonstrate clearly that we see the world only as we would like it to be, rather than as it really is. That lack of understanding will always serve us poorly.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA Station Chief who served in East and West Europe and the Middle East and as Chief of the Counter-terrorism Staff.  He lives in Williston.

Posted in foreign policy |

60 years on, Israel’s predicament intensifies

May 11, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Barre Times-Argus and Rutland Herald.]

Israel is 60 years old. There are very few Americans who do not support the existence of Israel. America was there at Israel’s birth and has been its most consistent supporter over the last 60 years. We have stood up for them faithfully and consistently, both in the Middle East and in the U.N. Security Council.

The $64 billion question for Israel is, what does it want to be and how does it plan to accomplish its goals? Will it continue to expand into Palestine through its settlement policies? Is it to be a uni-national Jewish state or a bi-national democratic state?

During its first 20 years, Israel simply concentrated on the process of establishing itself. There wasn’t really much impeding that process. The Palestinians, who felt aggrieved because the creation of Israel forcefully ejected them from their homeland, were spread out as refugees in their own diaspora in the Middle East. It was not a happy time for them as they were never accepted or integrated into the countries on whose soil their refugee camps were built. They were politically noisy, but they certainly were no threat to Israel.

The Six Day War in 1967 changed all that. When the brief battle was over, the Israelis had occupied the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. In doing so, they had, at least for the moment, solved some of their military defense issues. On the other hand, they were occupying all of Palestine – a fact that would become increasingly problematic for them as time passed.

If Israel had chosen in 1967 to trade that land for peace with its Arab neighbors, the world would likely be very different today. The Arabs were ready for it, but Israel was not. Instead, what we have seen over the ensuing 40 years has been an Israel more interested in permanently occupying portions, if not ultimately all, of Palestine at the expense of peace with the Palestinians, and Arabs intent on destroying Israel.

The formulation for peace over the past 40 years has been Israel and Palestine living in side-by-side states in peace – the “two-state solution.” There were times during that period when it seemed it might be attained. But today, no one believes seriously that the two-state solution is viable. All one has to do is look carefully, not at the words, but at the actions of the participants and it becomes clear that no one wants such a solution. Why? Because, quite simply, those in charge in Israel want to increase their occupation of Palestinian territory through their settlement program and those really in charge in Palestine want to “throw the Israelis into the sea.”

It therefore seems unlikely, absent divine intervention, that the Arabs and Israelis will go for the two-state solution. Nevertheless, there is still movement on the Palestine issue which is and will continue to be demographically driven. These new realities will drive the Palestinians toward a one-state solution.

One of the most closely held secrets in Israel is a complete revelation of their demographics. How many Jews are there in Israel? How many Arabs? How many Jews immigrating? How many emigrating?

If one takes the combined population totals of all the souls living in Israel and Palestine, Israel contains about 5.7 million Jews (including settlers in Palestine) and 1.4 million Arabs and Palestine (including Gaza) has about 3.9 million Arabs. This adds up to a population breakdown of 5.7 million Jews and 5.3 million Arabs living in historical Palestine together.

The Palestine Arab birth rate is a little over 3 percent and the Israeli birthrate is about 1.7 percent. Arab births are now 63,000 per year greater than Israeli births. With 400,000 additional Arabs needed to equal the Israeli population, it will take six years and four months to get there at today’s birth rates. Some say that situation already exists.

If today’s Israel continues to occupy Palestine through its settlements, the point is not far off when Arabs will outnumber Jews in historical Palestine. If Israel manages to complete the walls separating Jews from Arabs, democracy will take a major hit. This reality is already creating serious tensions within Israel, which is, after all, at least within its pre-1967 borders, a democratic state.

This set of realities is extremely important for the future of Israel. Will Israel choose the democratic or the anti-democratic route? It is also very important for the United States and our current struggle with terrorism, as the lack of an equitable solution to the Israel/Palestine stalemate is an important element in the range of issues that motivate radical Islam against us.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served, inter alia, in East and West Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff. He lives in Williston.

Posted in Israel/Palestine |

CIA credibility suffers

May 8, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Rutland Herald.]

In our democracy, credibility is the lifeblood of any national intelligence organization. If the public, or the administration in power, doesn’t believe it is getting told the truth, then the organization has lost its purpose and effectiveness and it is the public perception of credibility that matters most.  Thanks to current White House tasking and use of the CIA, the Agency appears to be losing that battle today.

The role of any intelligence organization is to examine the facts and provide intelligence information and estimates to policy makers in support of security and foreign policy issues.
During the Cold War, the CIA did its best to do just that.  It was not always as effective as it might have been, but it was a principled organization staffed by motivated, reputable people who did their best to do their job and do it right.   The Cold War CIA did not lie or fabricate intelligence for policy makers or for public consumption.

CIA management occasionally suffered from poor judgment and did some really stupid things, however, with the possible exception of Iran/Contra – who knows if Reagan knew and approved? – The CIA never undertook covert activities without White House direction.  It was never the “rogue elephant” that its fiercest critics persistently alleged it to have been.

Unfortunately, concerns about CIA credibility have grown since 9/11.  The role of the CIA in enabling the Iraq invasion is probably still not fully understood, muddled as it is by the machinations of the Bush Administration.  The persistent, unprecedented visits by Vice President Cheney to CIA Headquarters during the run-up to the Invasion, reportedly to seek changes in CIA estimates on Iraq which would support such an invasion, have never been fully explained.

Perhaps most importantly, the Bush administration has permitted, if not encouraged the country to believe that CIA was responsible for the intelligence failures that lead to 9/11.   Further, the “slam dunk” moment on Iraqi WMD; allegations of CIA waterboarding, renditions, a gulag of prisons around the world and, most recently, the question of why the waterboarding tapes were destroyed have all added fuel to the credibility fire.

Structural changes have weakened CIA credibility, as well.  The post-9/11 creation of the new Office of the Director of National Intelligence at the expense of the CIA was senseless and bureaucratic.  The persistent efforts of the Pentagon under SecDef Rumsfeld to usurp CIA functions and to denigrate the CIA, its processes and its products have added further to an atmosphere in which CIA credibility is routinely publicly questioned.

In early September 2007, Israeli jets flattened a structure in the Syrian Desert. Israel, Syria and America all acknowledged the act, but none gave any explanation for it, that is until recently.  Now we see pre-raid photos of the inside of the Syrian structure with virtually identical companion pictures of North Korean nuclear sites. The Syria photos presumably were obtained from the Israelis.

In the meantime, the Syrian Ambassador in Washington, who can hardly be viewed as impartial, claims the photos are CIA fabrications.  This claim has since become the object of speculation in the American media!  What’s going on here? Why was this information held so tightly and only released now, 7 months later?   Is the CIA lying about this issue?  Has the CIA fabricated these photos?  Have the Israelis done the fabrications and passed them on to us?  All of these questions and more are now under media examination.

Ultimately what is true and what is false about this Syria incident is of secondary importance to the effect that a media examination of the subject has already brought and will continue to bring. What will matter is that further doubt will arise in Americans’ minds about CIA credibility.

For better or worse, the CIA provides the only real organizational capability the US government has for the clandestine collection of intelligence.  Unfortunately, the US involvement in the “War on Terror” and in Iraq have put tremendous pressure from the White House on the CIA to undertake activities which even if not illegal, create an aura of mistrust in the public mind. In today’s world, no one is quite sure if the CIA is on the “right” side of anything.

That creates a legacy of mistrust in and a lack of credibility for the CIA that will continue for years after the Bush Administration is gone.  This legacy may be serving this White House well right now, but it will disastrously serve its successors.  In a world plagued by terrorism, the US can ill afford to have in doubt the credibility of its only effective intelligence service, its best potential protection against that terror.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA Station Chief who served abroad in Europe and the Middle East, as Executive Assistant in the Director’s Office and as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff.  He lives in Williston.

Posted in CIA |

We’re Not Facing a New Cold War, 
Just a Newly-Confident Russia

April 24, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Randolph Herald.]

Over the centuries, many in the West and in Russia itself, have found it convenient and relatively accurate to characterize the Russian people as paranoid. Over the centuries, Vikings, Tatars, Mongol hordes, Swedes, French and Germans have invaded Russia. Had that happened here, we might well have become paranoid ourselves.

This national paranoia persisted during the Cold War when the Soviets always referred to themselves as victims of “capitalist encirclement.” They have also used these foreign “threats” to keep a disparate country united and their peoples’ minds off the inadequacies of their lives. If you can acknowledge those realities, then their recent behaviors are more understandable.

At first glance, one might think the Cold War was starting up again. Presidents Bush and Putin have been arguing about issues in Central Europe and the dialogue does seem to have some of the old tone of the Cold War. But there is no resurgence of the Cold War. We are not about to have a nuclear holocaust. What’s happening here is that two powerful nations are flexing their muscles — with predictable results.

Since the relative instability of the 1990s and as a result of the increased social and political stability that Vladimir Putin’s policies have brought to Russia, as well as the very helpful rise in the value of vast quantities of Russian oil on world markets, Russia has become far more socially and economically healthy than it ever was during the Soviet era. Putin, despite the fact that some of his policies are patently anti-democratic, has become wildly popular in Russia. He has approval numbers that any American president would die for.

Russia probably feels better about itself today than it has at any time during the past century. It sees itself as a player on the world stage, one that should be treated with respect.

If you look at today’s events knowing that paranoia is a longtime part of the Russian psyche, you will see why they see only threats and problems in the current U.S. policy of further expanding NATO to include their former East European satellites. For the Soviets, in the worst case, NATO has remained a military threat. In the best case, its move into a former sphere of Russian influence in Central Europe is humiliating for a country that is increasingly feeling it should be respected. And now, their oil and gas riches give them considerable leverage in Europe, where those commodities are needed; and they have used that leverage to persuade some NATO members to their side. Further NATO expansion has been shelved, at least for the moment.

Any indication that the United States is changing the rules that existed during the Cold War still brings apprehension to the Russians. Our withdrawal from the ABM treaty and the Bush administration’s drive to install a “missile shield” are precisely the rule changes they fear.

The 1972 ABM treaty, from which the United States unilaterally withdrew in 2001, was part of the structure of MAD (mutually assured destruction) that played an important role in keeping the Cold War from becoming hot. That treaty stipulated that its cosigners, the USSR and the U.S., would not develop anti-ballistic missile systems. This was based on the reality that if one country were to do that, the balance brought by MAD would be tipped in favor of the country that had the ABM system. If that system had been developed and deployed secretly, its owner would be in a position to initiate a preemptive strike, since it would have the ABM system needed to negate the counterattack. Thus the ABM treaty was an important part of keeping the peace.

America has withdrawn from that treaty, is seeking to place the “missile shield” on the territory of Russia’s former satellites and to bring more of those countries into NATO, an organization created to counter Soviet power. If you were a paranoid Russian today, wouldn’t you wonder about American motives?

The reality is that we have no objectively valid reason to build the missile shield at this time or to expand NATO further into what was previously a Soviet sphere of influence. On the other hand, the Russians have no objectively valid reason to fear those American moves.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Europe and the Middle East, working primarily on Soviet and East European targets. He lives in Williston.

Posted in Russia |

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »