Eric Margolis

AT THE PENTAGON

WASHINGTON DC - I was invited last week to the Pentagon to brief the US Air Force’s Strategic studies group – known as `Checkmate’ – on the Mideast and Southwest Asia.

The last time I was in the Pentagon was during my army service in 1968, when I participated in command briefings for the Chiefs of Staff. For this edifice’s 23,000 military and civilian personnel the Chiefs are like Valhalla’s gods. In the Pentagon’s 17 miles of corridors, I half expected to see some lost WWII officers still looking for an exit.

`Checkmate,’ planner of the crushing 1991 US air campaign against Iraq, is an interesting outfit. Recently updated, its brainy commander, Brig Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem, reports directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, four-star general Michael Moseley, who sits on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and advises the president.

`Stutz,’ as he is known, is likely destined for senior command. He and his staff of majors and colonels are highly educated, smart, and have open, seeking minds that are often too rare in the stultified, bureaucratic military.

The US Air Force has always been the most progressive, forward-thinking of the services. Among `Checkmate’s’ jobs are innovative strategy, thinking ahead, and evaluating different strategic viewpoints. The last point is important, because all militaries tend to become victims of group-think. The forward-thinking US Air Force is trying to breathe fresh air into the often stale confines of the Pentagon.

I presented my views on developments in the Arab World, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan in an off the record seminar to a group of officers who were clearly up to date on the subject matter. They knew the Muslim World was headed for serious change and were clearly seeking answers on how to deal with the political and demographic earthquakes that are coming.

The USAF recently added cyberspace to its missions. Checkmate’s Dr. Lani Kass is heading a new office directing operations across the entire electro-magnetic spectrum. It seemed rather odd that Kass, a former Israeli military officer, now holds a key Air Force position, particularly after repeated concerns over her nation’s intelligence operations to acquire US national security secrets.

Kass and `Stutz’ also spend a lot of time trying to implement Gen. Moseley’s campaign to renew the `warrior spirit’ in the Air Force’s specialized `target and equipment-fixated’ officers.

This is the curse of specialized high technology. I saw the same phenomena during my own military service in the Vietnam era. Senior US Army officers had become so specialized in technical fields that they had never learned the basics of war: military history, strategy, tactics. So I organized and taught seminars for colonels and generals on just these topics. `Now general,’ lectured 26-year old me, `let me explain how a pincer attack works.’

The USAF is fizzing with new ideas, but it is also not happy. The US Army and Marines are getting most of America’s sympathy and support for their role in Iraq. The Air Force, without which these wars could not be waged, and which provides decisive, 24/7 top cover for the troops with almost instant response, gets far too little credit. In fact, its decisive role is barely seen except when the rare aircraft crashes or is shot down by enemy ground fire.

Ironically, the USAF is a victim of its own success. No US ground troops have been attacked by enemy aircraft since 1953. The USAF has no enemies because it has shot them all down.

America’s air force fights so efficiently and seemingly effortlessly that neither the US Congress nor public understand the enormous logistic, manpower, financial and technological efforts required to keep it dominating the globe’s skies, space, and cyberspace.

The over-stretched USAF has been in non-stop combat for the past 17 years. Its aircraft are getting dangerously old. B-52 heavy bombers are now in their 50’s. One B-52 pilot I met, knick- named `Boomer,’ must have been near half his bomber’s age. Many tanker aircraft date to 1957. Many fighter aircraft are 24-years old. Non-stop operations over Iraq and Afghanistan are rapidly wearing out aircraft and men.

Meanwhile, war against Iran is looming. Interestingly, a senior Pentagon source insisted `the decision to attack Iran has not been made;’ and an attack is `unlikely.’ But many signs suggest the opposite.

Official Washington is often accused of not knowing what’s going on abroad. But there are many smart people in the Pentagon, CIA and State who do know. The problem – and tragedy - is their masters in the White House and Congress are just not listening.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2007

THE RETURN OF BENAZIR

`I will return to Pakistan between September and December,’ Benazir Bhutto told me in an exclusive interview last week.

Pakistan’s former prime minister vowed to leave her exile in Dubai and go home `with or without an agreement’ with Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s military government.

Pakistan is in deep crisis and may even be teetering on the brink of an abyss as threats of civil war steadily increase. At least two of every three Pakistanis want the general to resign. Many Pakistanis accuse Musharraf of waging war on his own people at Washington’s behest.

Always controversial and fascinating, Ms. Bhutto, is getting ready to cross the Rubicon. On returning to Pakistan, she risks being treated as a rebel and criminal by the Musharraf regime and thrown into prison. Numerous arrests warrants are outstanding for both Bhutto and another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who is also threatening to return from exile.

Or, will the increasingly isolated Musharraf, a key US ally, bow to his people’s demands and cooperate in restoring civilian-led democracy? When I interviewed him in 1999, shortly after he seized power, the general told me he intended to remain in office `only until democracy is restored and we clean up corruption.’

Ms Bhutto confirmed she has indeed, as widely rumored, held rounds of intensive talks with Musharraf’s government, which she describes as `confidence-building measures.’ She also has held talks with old political rival, Nawaz Sharif, and with senior US State Department officials.

Washington has become increasingly disillusioned with Musharraf and is increasingly worried he may be replaced by a coup or driven from office by an explosion of popular fury. The US has apparently given up looking for a Musharraf replacement from among the army’s senior generals and has now concluded that Benazir Bhutto offers the most viable alternative. But Washington still wants Musharraf to control the army, the center of political and economic power in Pakistan.

But Ms Bhutto denied my suggestion Washington is trying to engineer a deal to keep the unpopular Musharraf in power by having Benazir and her Pakistan’s Peoples Party join his government as junior coalition partners.

`There is no agreement yet. The next two weeks will be crucial,’ she told me.

Clearly, the game’s afoot. It is hard to imagine a more exciting political drama, or higher political stakes. Benazir, long scorned by Pakistan’s powerful army generals, has thrown down the gauntlet to Gen. Musharraf. By announcing her imminent return in our interview, she has delivered an ultimatum to Musharraf: deal or face a whirlwind.

Will throngs of avid Bhutto supporters seize Karachi Airport to open the way for her return? Or will Musharraf’s soldiers deny her incoming plane landing rights, just as Nawaz did to Musharraf’s aircraft in 1999?

Will the army arrest Bhutto – and Nawaz Sharif – on their return? Will there be mass riots, or will the army split, with some younger officers supporting Ms Bhutto. Reports come to me of growing unrest in the armed forces over the $1 billion monthly Washington pays the Musharraf government to `rent’ 80,000 of his soldiers to fight rebellious, pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen in Pakistan’s supposedly `autonomous’ tribal territories.

More questions abound. Will Musharraf drop criminal charges against Benazir, and annul recently reinstated charges against Nawaz? Newly assertive Pakistani courts may no longer serve as tools of government repression. Will the courts indict Musharraf for high crimes?

This writer has known Ms Bhutto for a long time and was often critical when she was prime minister. But you really only get to know people when they face adversity. I have watched Benazir face down crises with coolness and consummate political skill, and not give in to self-pity, even at the darkest times, a few of which I shared with her.

Benazir has grown in character and strength in exile and remains Pakistan’s most popular and capable democratic political leader. She has also learned a great deal about politics and human nature in the years since she was last a young prime minister surrounded by glowering older men and overtly hostile generals.

One of her most important tasks will be to shake off the negative image she holds in Pakistan of being `Washington’s woman.’ In the past time of crisis, Bhutto has too often sought Washington’s overt support, alienating many Pakistanis, particularly among Islamist parties, who accuse her of being a cat’s paw of the Americans.

But wouldn’t a deal with Musharraf dismay her followers and tarnish her own reputation? `We must deal with reality,’ she politically answers. Power sharing with Musharraf, I asked? `We can get along with some generals,’ comes her cautiously reply. She used to accuse me of being too chummy with `your beloved Pakistani generals.’ Now, she is playing a dangerous game with them.

`Musharraf needs to resign to clear the way to promotion for younger, capable generals,’ says Bhutto,` otherwise the army will loose some of its best men.’ A lot of mid-ranking officers will be listening to her.

Bhutto says she is ready to work with Musharraf and a reinvigorated parliament to rebuild democracy in Pakistan, a process she calls `internal reconciliation.’

With an eye on her American audience and the White House, Bhutto adds, `only democracy can undermine terrorism.’ She is quite right, of course. Much of what the west terms `Islamic terrorism’ is really violence and protest directed against the Muslim World’s western-backed dictatorial regimes.

But who would be the real boss in a `power-sharing’ deal? Benazir seems far too smart to be used as a token prime minister to legitimize Musharraf’s floundering regime.

The general may be too accustomed to absolute power and yes men to accept constraint by a powerful prime minister and parliament.

It seems a recipe for paralysis or, worse. Political co-habitation, such as France practiced during the 1980’s, when the president and prime minister came from opposing parties, barely worked then and would be unlikely to even function in fractious, turbulent Pakistan.

Musharraf would do his nation a favor by resigning as military chief and running in an honest election against Benazir and Nawaz. Democracy is Pakistan’s only fire exit from the increasingly dangerous tensions and risk of civil war it now faces.

How do you feel right now, I asked her? `Excited, tense,’ Benazir replied. That also sums up Pakistan’s mood as it waits for this remarkable lady to return home.

copyright Eric S. Margolis 2007

**Please note additional column this week "Happy Birthday India" - to view please go to archives.

Happy Birthday India

India and Pakistan just celebrated their 60th birthdays this week. For fast-rising India, it was a justifiably joyous event.

In sharp contrast, military-ruled Pakistan, which faces growing internal tensions or even civil war, had very little to celebrate.

Over 1 billion Indians feted their nation’s zesty economy, cutting edge IT technology, growing influence, and pride in being the world’s most populous democracy.

Indians are bursting with confidence, but it often borders on hubris. India’s economy is still only two thirds that of Canada. But once totally self-absorbed and self-isolated, India has opened its markets and mind to the outside world.

India, however, remains a giant with feet of clay. A majority of Indians subsist on fifty cents daily. Urban India with 200 million westernized citizens is booming. By contrast, rural India remains desperately poor, with public health is as bad as in black Africa. The pernicious caste system, India’s ancient form of social apartheid, keeps 180 million untouchables in permanent serfdom despite government efforts to end this scourge.

India’s understandable but overly-eager quest for respect and great power status has led Delhi to lavish tens of billions on nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, and an arsenal of modern weapons for its 1.3 million-man armed forces - while tens of millions of its citizens still sleep in the streets and lack toilettes.

India has every right to develop powerful conventional and strategic forces. Over the past 60 years, India fought three wars against Pakistan, and one against China, both of whom are hostile and nuclear-armed.

But why is India, still among the world’s poorest nations, building a range of hugely expensive strategic weapons it clearly does not really need?

More important, why is the Bush Administration about to supply India with nuclear fuel and technology, and has blessed Delhi’s hitherto `rogue’ nuclear weapons program, when India is developing long-ranged missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads to North America?

India has been covertly developing a 12,000 km-ranged intercontinental ballistic missile, `Surya-2,’ under cover of its civilian space program’s heavy space launchers, PSLV and GSLV. According to India’s space agency, `Surya’s targets will be Europe and the US.’

India’s existing `Prithvi’ and `Agni-III’ missiles cover almost all of Pakistan and China. India has no earthly reason to fire nuclear weapons at Europe or Japan. India’s 12,000 km `Surya’ ICBM has only two logical targets, the United States or Australia.

Why is Delhi spending a maharaja’s ransom on these strategic systems? Great power prestige? Possible war with the US to control oil from the Gulf, Central Asia and Indonesia? It’s hard to fathom Delhi’s strategic thinking.

India is deploying aircraft carriers and surface combatants to project power throughout the Indian Ocean, a vast body of water Delhi considers `mare nostrum.’ India’s fast-growing navy will operate from the coast of East Africa and the Mozambique Channel to Australia’s west coast. Its primary operating zone straddles main oil tanker routes from the Gulf.

India’s Navy is building a nuclear-powered submarine, and new sea-launched `Sagarika’ ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. It is deploying powerful 300-km range `BrahMos’ anti-ship cruise missiles designed to sink aircraft carriers and large warship. China’s modest navy cannot operate in the Indian Ocean because it lacks air cover. The only non-Indian navy operating carriers and large warships in the Indian Ocean is the US Navy.

An argument can be made for India’s missile-firing submarines. They form an indestructible third leg of a nuclear triad. But ICBM’s for a nation where 50% of its children under three suffer malnutrition, and polio, dengue fever, and TB are on the rise?

The Bush Administration has been so eager to draw India into a nuclear pact in order to exert political leverage over Delhi and enlist it as an ally against China and Iran that it has totally ignored the potential threat to US security posed by India’s growing nuclear arsenal.

30 MARGOLIS

AH, SUMMER IN THE CITY

NEW YORK - The Big Apple is always a treat in the summer. Last week, I returned to my beloved hometown just in time for a tornado that hit Brooklyn, the first in over 150 years.

Monsoon-strength rains flooded New York’s antiquated subways, knocking out public transport and leaving millions of sodden, confused commuters struggling to get to work on foot in the 95F heat and rain. As always, when it rains in the city, thoughtful drivers went out of their way to splash pedestrians.

On top of all this, the giant casino known as New York’s financial markets went into a panic after a giant Ponzi fraud known as sub-prime mortgages suddenly ran out of steam.

The city’s great and good long ago decamped to the Hamptons, where if you don’t have a $35 million `beach cottage’ you are considered needy. However, the Wall Street panic did pretty much ruin their idyllic brunches and candle-lit soirees. Meanwhile, much of the city was left to Dominicans, Hondurans, European visitors who somehow managed to get a visa to Fortress America, and alarmingly overweight Midwestern tourists in short pants and dangerously over-stretched t-shirts.

But I love New York any time of year. When I was growing up here, a worldly friend of my mother advised me, `there are only three civilized cities in North America: New York, San Francisco, and Montreal. All the rest is darkness!’ Half a century later, I still can’t say he was wrong.

For the first time in my memory, two New York state residents are running for president, former mayor Rudi Giuliani and Hillary Clinton.

Those who liked Bush, will love Rudy.

This week, he blasted Democrats as `ready to embrace defeat’ in Iraq.

Giuliani modestly claimed he alone can save America by a. `continuing the offensive against Islamism,’ and b. stopping Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. He left unclear which of these scourges was worse.

It seems Rudy Giuliani is going to run to the right of George W. Bush. As a sword-waver for the hard right, Giuliani has left his hapless rival, not very bright, bumbling John McCain, way back in the dust.

Voters here are ambivalent about Giuliani. Many New Yorkers are Jewish or Catholic liberal Democrats. They look at Bush, the southern hicks and holy rollers who form his core support, and the rest of the Republican Party’s hard right as a religious bigots, cross burners, or goose-steppers.

The other day, a New York bookstore owner spontaneously exclaimed to me, quite out of the blue, `Bush makes me ashamed to be an American.’ Her feeling is shared by many here in America’s least American, most cosmopolitan city. They can’t wait to see the backs of Bush and Cheney, but are unhappy about the choices to replace them.

Giuliani was an effective mayor and, in spite of one very embarrassing scandal regarding a security aid, an honest politician in a city notorious for political sleaze and payoffs. He ran a tight ship, restored city finances wrecked by the inept, corrupt Democratic party machine, cleaned up city streets, and sharply reduced crime by allowing police to do their job.

The Big Apple roared back to life under Giuliani.

But Giuliani’s real claim to fame was 9/11, which brought him to national prominence by projecting take-charge competence that contrasted sharply with President Bush’s dazed, initial response.

Giuliani emerged the hero of 9/11, and has been living off this lucky moment ever since. However, many New Yorkers, including the powerful firefighters union, had a very different view of His Honor, accusing him of being unprepared for 9/11, responding poorly, grandstanding and endangering the health of rescue workers by failing to provide proper breathing equipment.

Many other New Yorkers don’t like their former hero-mayor, either. He is seen as arrogant, impatient, and notoriously ill-tempered. His Catholic faith and personal life, fraught with divorces and angry children – an estranged daughter briefly claimed last week she supported Barak Obama – won’t appeal to Bible Belt voters.

After eight years of Bush, the last thing most New Yorkers want is more blundering machismo and stupid wars. Giuliani is much smarter than Bush, but he shares many of the president’s perceived faults. Many think him unstable. Besides, who can trust an Italian who finds it painful to smile? Italians were put on this earth to make life more enjoyable for all of us, not to wage jihad against Islam.

If New Yorker’s are not crazy about Rudy, their feelings for Hillary Clinton are hardly warmer. New Yorkers don’t like or trust southerners, a feeling southerners and westerners heartily reciprocate. Hillary has shape-shifted into a New York resident, but she is having trouble escaping her dark roots in smelly Arkansas politics.

Bill Clinton, the 800-lb gorilla behind Hillary, was not liked either in New York. But after eight years of Bush, he seems almost saintly. Still, people here don’t trust the Clintons, are turned off by their naked power lust, and see Hillary as unprincipled opportunist who is all make-up and no substance.

The presidential candidate I suspect most New Yorkers would really like to see is their current capable mayor and self-made billionaire, native son Michael Bloomberg. He’s cool, intelligent, and gets things done in a New York minute.

But favorite-son Bloomberg is simply too New York for the nether parts of the country: intelligent, well-read, Jewish, divorced, rich, a switch-hitter between parties. This writer dined with him a few years back and found him quite charming, easy-going and witty, a man, as my mother used to say, of character and substance. In short, not your usual two-dimensional politician.

Bloomberg suffers from the same old problem that bedeviled the late Nelson Rockefeller who should have been president, but was unelectable. The enormously wealthy, powerful Rockefeller was just too New York, too East Coast for the rest of the country. Ironically, when foreign heads of state visited the US, their first stop was often to the Rockefeller estate, and then to the White House.

Bloomberg is also too New York. I just pray he does not start wearing cowboy clothing, spitting on the ground, and affecting a Texas drawl.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2007

WELCOME TO SIBERIA, SANTA

TORONTO – Santa is not going to be happy to learn that his home and workshop at the North Pole just became part of Mother Russia.

Last week, Russia literally stole a march on its would-be Arctic competitors by dispatching a powerful icebreaker and research vessel to plant its flag on – and under - the North Pole.

Two Russian submersibles dove over four km to the ocean’s bottom in the latest feat of Russia’s long, often heroic record of Arctic exploration that is almost unknown in the west.

Moscow’s Arctic surprise and dramatic claim to a huge swathe of the Artic Ocean was the latest example of Russia’s headlong drive to make itself the world’s energy superpower. According to the US Geological Survey, the Arctic Ocean may contain up to 25% of global oil and gas reserves.

The Artic pack ice has been melting rapidly due to global warming produced by over-use of fossil fuels. This, ironically, is opening the Arctic to new energy exploration and maritime commerce through the long-sought Northwest Passage.

Normally dour President Vladimir Putin must have been grinning from ear to ear as he watched the outraged reaction to his polar adventure in Canada, the US, Norway and Denmark, all of whom have been hungrily eying the high Arctic.

The Kremlin claims the continental shelf of Siberia actually extends to the North Pole along a long underwater ridge named after the renowned 18th century Russian scientist, Lomonosov. International law grants maritime nations a 200-mile economic exclusion zone off their coasts. So Moscow insists the North Pole is really just an extension of northern Siberia. It failed to mention that another ridge runs underwater from Alaska to the North Pole, giving the US a pretty good claim as well.

Normally placid Canadians are furious that Moscow had the audacity to make even a symbolic claim to the polar region which they consider their own. Canada wants to advance its own Arctic claims, but, embarrassingly, lacks the icebreakers, patrol vessels, long-ranged aircraft and bases to defend or even police them.

New Canadian icebreakers and patrol vessels are still on the drawing boards. Meanwhile, its conservative government is spending ever-increasing amounts of cash paying for its troops to chase Afghan tribesmen through the Hindu Kush while it can’t even safeguard its own territory.

`This isn’t the 15th century!’ exclaimed Canada’s Foreign Minister Peter MacKay. `Nations can’t claim territory by just planting flags.’ But that, of course, is just what happened. Under international law, a nation can indeed plant its flag and make a claim on vacant territory.

Washington’s reaction was also angry, and bizarre. A US icebreaker is being rushed at high speed from the Pacific port of Seattle to assert Washington’s claim to the North Pole. Administration officials actually fretted the fabled Arctic Northwest Passage might be used `to transport terrorists.’ While 200,000 illegal aliens slip into the US from Mexico each month, the Bush Administration worries about Islamic jihadis lurking behind icebergs. Peter Sellers could have had a field day with the Arctic fracas.

The Russians actually have solid historic claims to the Arctic. Only the Norse Vikings have been active there longer. As early as 1032 AD, Russians explored the Kara Sea off northern Siberia and, soon after, the White and Lapatev Seas only 700 km south of the North Pole. In the 1600’s, major Russian expeditions charted the Arctic. Under Peter the Great, Russia opened the Arctic Seas to commerce and made Alaska a colony. Selling Alaska in 1867 to the US for a song was one of the stupidest mistakes Russia has ever made, but at the time the Imperial Government was desperate for cash and had to unload assets.

Moscow vows to observe international law and advance its Arctic claims through the UN. Fair enough. It’s refreshing to see a great power observing international law. Moscow could have annexed the North Pole, claiming it was searching for weapons of mass destruction hidden by terrorist seals.

This whole Arctic story certainly is a refreshing diversion to this summer’s heat waves. But it is also serious, as conflicts over dwindling resources will grow increasingly common over the next decade.

Moscow’s territorial claim is way over the top and the wrong way to deal with what is becoming the very important and potentially dangerous issue of Arctic resources.

There’s a much better method to handle this potential gold rush. The entire, oval-shaped Arctic zone surrounded by the 200-mile limits of Canada, the US, Norway, and Denmark should become a special UN economic zone. Any nation seeking to drill or mine in this region should buy concessions from the UN and pay it royalties that will be used to fund humanitarian and ecological projects.

Regions in which maritime exclusion zones overlap – such as off Greenland, the Bering Strait, Norway’s Savalbard, Russia’s Franz Josef Land, Greek and Turkish Aegean islands, the South China Seas’ contested Paracel and Spratly islands should also become UN-run special economic zones.

Large areas of water or ice could be made into international zones, like Antarctica. Sharing the resources of the Polar region is a sensible, grown-up way of handling this dispute.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2007