05 January 2008

Odinga, Obama and the lack of courage

[Update]
This is the first of three articles on Raila Odinga.

Next is: The other source of change in Kenyan politics

Last is: The Balkanization of Kenya

[Update]

I started looking at Kenya yesterday as Pamela sent out word for help on trying to substantiate some things writers had seen going on there (and her most recent article here). As my readers know I am not an: African specialist, Kenya specialist, up on the tribal politics of Africa, or even having it impinge upon my consciousness overmuch. Put me more in the 'understanding the systems of organized crime and terrorism' arena, with all sorts of other fun bits of technological weirdness thrown in. Or just weirdness as the case may be. Still, even with basic historical overview of Africa, I can't say it has been in the forefront of my thoughts long or often.

Going from the colonial period, which was bad, to this period of kleptocracies, autocracies, totalitarian societies, tribal conflicts on a National scale, and the movement of drug runners, gun runners, organized crime and jihadis into the region is, in many ways, worse than mere imperial paternalism. But the political rule is that home grown despots are much more hated than far-off ones and 'all politics is local' thus making this as a better off deal than the previous period. If you trust in the inalienable rights of man, then you also trust that folks will come to a good end once they understand that they are the power in their lives, not the government.

Say, someone has let the folks there know of this concept, right?

So starting out on the pathway to enlightenment, which is less dark than totality but less light then the brightness of the sun doth shining upon solar reflecting mirrors, I put my ignorance to work for me and found the first name that I would never, ever think of when looking at Kenya. Really, there is no one I expected less to show up than Dick Morris (via opendemocracy.net). Mr. Schmoozer showing up in Kenya? WTF?

But, when Raila Odinga, the man who lost the election folks think he should have won, was looked at, things in the political landscape of Kenya suddenly came into focus as Dick Morris had, apparently, been helping out here and there for awhile now. So when you see things like Orange Democratic Movement (hearkening over the the Orange Revolution in Ukraine), a 'million person march' ala Louis Farrakhan's march and then other million person marches afterwards, and National Rainbow Coalition (Narc) hinting at Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition/PUSH, things did start to fall into place. Dick Morris is a past master at playing on such themes and would avail himself of any indigenous views along similar lines and help to make such things more palatable to the US political palate. Mind you these Kenyan versions have zero connection to the things they try to lead one to, but that isn't a worry if you are pushing talking points and not substance.

How Clintonian!

Now, popping back to the Open Democracy article, I will extract a small piece that let me get my bearings on how things went after the colonial period. It wasn't in-depth, that would come later... much later... but for a start it gets some of the 'lay of the land' down:

The founding president Kenyatta was Kikuyu, and the Central province, the country’s breadbasket, has better infrastructure that most regions in the country. Quite unsurprisingly, Majimbo (federalism) came to the fore during the referendum and subsequent election campaigns, as the best arrangement to even the country’seconomic disparities.

It was rooted in earlier conflicts of the Moi era (1978 – 2002). Moi was from a minority tribe in the Rift Valley. This became an epicentre of politically instigated so-called “ethnic clashes" directed at migrant communities of Kikuyus and Luhyas, who were perceived as opposition supporters. The Moi regime orchestrated seasons of blood that recurred in election years between 1992 and 2002, pogroms that succeeded in scuttling the Kikuyu and Luhya vote as they were displaced during election time, while making a score for Majimbo proponents who believed (and possibly still do) its implementation includes expelling “foreign” tribes in their midst.

The 2005 constitutional review, which had been in abeyance for over a decade, provided a dress rehearsal for an ODM “people power” revolution. Its “Mt Kenya Mafia” sentiments were seen as a rebuttal against the conservative Kikuyu elite who had kept the country pretty much under their control. The ODM bigwigs followed a revolution manual where ethnicity was at the core of its propaganda machine. They were gearing up for the second phase of their propaganda war. This included whipping up ethnic animosities in which the Kikuyu were demonised, hiring pollsters to claim massive leads so as to demoralise and scuttle the rival vote while making constant claims of rigging to prepare the ground for rejecting the poll results if defeated.

Even in the referendum Odinga claimed a verdict in favour of the government would mean the contest had been rigged. In the event, the ODM won it resoundingly so claims of rigging did not arise. It was also seen as a vote-of-no confidence against the government, with Odinga temporarily asserting pressure on Kibaki to resign.
Actually all of the tribes in Kenya have been uprooted during the colonial era, some just made better of that than others, but everyone has a grievance. That is the sort of thing that happens when railroads and workers camps go in: native folks end up having to live elsewhere. The Moi regime would make that *worse* and displace poor tribesmen of various ethnicities to keep a tribal ruling elite in power. That's right: elite Kikuyu would force their poor tribesmen to shift constantly so as not to vote against them.

What is coming in to replace that is ethnically divisive politics of the 'ethnic people power' concept to use as a bludgeon against other ethnicities in Kenya. This is not Philippine People Power, crossing tribes and ethnicities to unite against a corrupt regime, nor is it precisely the Orange Revolution which has some elements of this in the pro-/anti-Russia blocs. No this is the 'People Power of the Balkans' sort, used to perform 'ethnic cleansing' and disruption based on ethnic alignment. Also note the Clintonesque 'pre-preparation' of the election battle to stage it so that even in losing you can claim victory due to vote rigging while, if you win, you keep silent. That is a 'double standard' and if a vote has problems even if you *win* you are to look into those problems so that they do not repeat in future elections. So by pitting ethnicity against ethnicity, rich against the poor, and by claiming victory no matter if you actually win or not, you end up with things like: the 2000 election in the US, voting in Venezuela, Mexico, Ukraine, and other places where this is performed. Like Weimar Germany.

This is *not* a pathway to clean elections, democracy and civil government, but one to chaos and authoritarian government with ethnic hatred and demonization as its basis. If you don't like the outcome of the last election and think it was rigged: demonstrate that problem and find ways to *fix it*. Playing divisive, power politics is not a long term help to you, your ideals or your Nation unless you are fixing yourself up to be a dictator. Then its a great way forward.

Onto Raila Odinga, the man behind the Orange Democratic Movement, National Rainbow Coalition, Million person march and instigator of the recent unrest due to losing a close election. Or maybe not, we will not know as Mr. Odinga does not want to go through the civil court system to work out problems with the election and, instead, looks towards marches and riots to cement his non-win victory. Back on 31 JUL 2007 The Standard, in Kenya, looked at MP Odinga and had some of the following as their viewpoint:
Apart from meeting the top executives in the US, other events lined up included hosting Kenyans at black-tie dinners where a plate went for $100 (Sh7,300). Other dinners he attended drew about 300 people, mostly organised by his supporters, who paid between $40 (Sh3,000) and $70 (Sh5,200) a plate.

His biography, Raila Odinga: An Enigma in Kenyan Politics, launched locally in July is selling at $50 (Sh3,650). The MP then left an indelible mark on his audience that he would stop at nothing short of the presidency.

"Raila is not talking as if he is prepared to play second fiddle to anyone. He is talking as the person who has put his whole in the coming presidential elections, which makes him a danger to the ODM-Kenya coalition," said Mr Maurice Mwangi of Maryland, who attended one of the dinners.

[..]

Raila’s list of local and foreign political friends — thought to be immensely wealthy — remains a closely guarded secret, for strategic reasons.

While still Energy minister, Raila re-established and nurtured his links with the Libyan Government of Col Muammar Gaddafi, where again he not only did good business in oil importation, but also got substantial material support during the 2002 General Election.

Besides supporting Raila’s political cause, the Libyans also played a key role in stabilising Raila in the oil business. Reliable sources say that Libyans bankrolled the Narc campaign with some $3 million (about Sh210 million), thanks to Raila’s good contacts in the oil-rich land of Gaddafi.

There is no doubt, therefore, that if Raila becomes the ODM-Kenya presidential candidate, he can once more count on massive financial support from the North African country.

Besides Libya, Raila enjoys good links with the South African Government of Mr Thabo Mbeki while in Nigeria, he is known to have strong links with Gen Olusegun Obasanjo, who was a long time close friend of Raila’s father, the late Jaramogi Oginga Odinga.

[..]

For Raila, the linkage between politics and business goes much deeper than petroleum business. It is significant that the Odinga family business, Spectre International Ltd, acquired the then state-owned Kisumu Molasses Plant soon after Raila started politically cooperating with Moi.

However, the Lang’ata MP has consistently argued that the acquisition of the molasses plant was purely a business deal, which had nothing to do with politics. But his critics point at the coincidence between the time his family acquired the parastatal and Raila’s shift of political alliance.

Former Commissioner of Lands Mr Sammy Mwaita offered to sell the 240 acres on which the Kisumu Molasses Plant is built to Spectre International on January 11, 2001 at a price of Sh3.6 million at a time when Raila started working closely with Moi. By June that year, he was Energy minister.

Acquisition of the molasses plant

Significantly, Spectre had applied for the same land in a letter of February 18, 1999, but the Government at the time had rejected the request. Titles were prepared in favour of Spectre on February 3, 2002 for a 99-year lease backdated to September 1, 2001.

When the Odinga family started the process that led to the acquisition of the molasses plant in 2001, Raila had already established good business contacts in South Africa. Energem Resources Incorporated, an international firm quoted on the Toronto Stock Exchange, had been looking for an investment opportunity in Kenya for a long time and the Kisumu Molasses Plant was just right.

Soon after taking over the plant from the Government, Raila struck a lucrative deal with Energem, whereby the Canadian firm bought 55 per cent of Kisumu Molasses plant.

The Canadians also ploughed in millions of dollars to rehabilitate the plant and it is today one of the country’s largest manufacturing concerns employing hundreds of people and producing at least 60,000 litres of industrial ethanol for local consumption and export

[..]

Back to his whirlwind tour: Raila visited Dubai on a business trip, where he attended the Dubai Grand Exhibition. Dubai is increasingly becoming a haven where big business deals in Asia are sealed, thus offering a fertile ground for the MP to oil his campaign machinery.

From Dubai, Raila headed to Seychelles for a holiday with his family. In January, Raila visited the UK to consult with experts on the way forward on constitution review.

It was after this that the National Democratic Institute (NDI) picked him as a member of a high-powered delegation to conduct a pre-election assessment in Nigeria. Here, NDI President Kenneth Wollack accompanied him. Incidentally, the NDI runs a political party finance initiative in some African countries and other parts of the world.

During his Nigeria visit, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) MP met President Obasanjo, a long time friend, who had been in office since 1999, but relinquished power this year.

The oil rich country is one of the key nations in Africa that the Lang’ata MP hopes would back his candidature. With a long list of oil magnates, Obasanjo could prove an invaluable ally.

Diaspora is an increasingly influential constituency

Earlier, Raila had been to Saudi Arabia and South Korea, the world’s 10th largest economy and one of the most technologically advanced. While in Seoul, Raila attended the International Peace Federation Conference and later used the opportunity to meet an influential religious leader of a church known to have millions of followers across the globe.

In May, Raila left for Germany, where he visited his former university, Magdeburg, on invitation. In June, Raila flew to the US, where he held talks with Senator Barack Obama, one of the candidates seeking the Democratic Party ticket to vie for the American presidency.

In July, Raila was in Australia for 10 days where he met businessmen and Kenyans living abroad. The visit also took him to Sydney, where he met more business executives and addressed Kenyans living in the city. The Diaspora is an increasingly influential constituency that observers argue the national political class can ignore at its own peril.
There is, apparently, corruption and personal profit being made by Raila Odinga by being a Member of Parliament, and then using those riches to further his political aspirations. Actually the political set-up in Kenya is so chaotic that none of the candidates standing for election for President is being backed by the parties that backed them for reform in 2002. In such an atmosphere it isn't so much which party backs you as who you know that can give you backing in whatever party you wind up in, plus a good communications strategy. That, for Raila Odinga gets to be a pretty lengthy list, after his being in government and a MP for his district.

The list of his contacts that support him, just from the above, include:

Spectre International Ltd. - Odinga family business
Jaramogi Oginga Odinga - His father, deceased
Mohammar Kaddafy (or the spelling du jour)
Thabo Mbeki - South Africa
Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo - Nigeria
Energem Resources Incorporated - South Africa, Toronto Stock Exchange Listed
National Democratic Institute (NDI)
Kenneth Wollack - President NDI
Rev. Sun Myung Moon - Unification Church (
Unification Peace Tour 18 JUL 2006, Religion News Blog 26 AUG 2006, Lobbying Germany on behalf of Rev. Moon to end the entrance ban - open letter, signed )
Barack Obama - US Senator and Presidential candidate


And places with possible contacts:

Dubai
Australia
Germany
Saudi Arabia
South Korea

Quite the laundry list of individuals and organizations, isn't it? Instead of tackling that directly, I'll use the indirect approach so we can get an idea of Raila Odinga's politics as of late, especially as it relates to the business world. One of the things that stands out is his opposition to privatize government corporations. Doing a quick check at the Business Daily Africa site one can find him opposing the privatization of Safaricom mobile phone (28 AUG 2007) and accused of being socialist and communist in favor of centralized economic management!

After that his committee would move to not accept the individuals nominated for the privitization positions. This would cause problems with small investors to the point where Mr. Odinga would need to allay fears by going to the stock exchange and allay the fears that he had caused by being seen as socialist/communist and centralizing in his outlook. You see it isn't socialism its 'controlled capitalism'! Yes government will just need to expand to exert this 'control'... just like the problem of having good crops ruining the economy because oversupply drives prices down and government has to buy up far more than it expected which causes deficeit spending. People would just starve amidst all the food!

On the conspicuous consumption side there is his 'first in Kenya' Hummer, that really does set him apart from all the limousine politicians... nothing says 'man of the people' like a H3. This is driven, so to speak, by the candidate's age and by this being his last chance to have any impact on Kenyan politics, as the next time around it is likely that the new, young professional class of Kenyans, especially in the Luo tribe, will displace the Odinga family dynasty. Not to speak of which many in what should be relatively safe districts feeling left out by the power-plays going on at the upper echelons of the parties involved.

There is, however, one very worrying part to all of this: the Memorandum of Understanding between Raila Odinga and the Moslems in Kenya to turn Kenya into a Sharia based nation and start to get an idea of where the money comes from as it is money that is in the driver's seat here. This starts with the corrupt politics of Raila Odinga (Source: 'How Rich is Raila?', African Press International, 26 APR 2007):
How Raila acquired his billions.

Raila Odinga’s big break came in 2001 soon after he led his party, NDP, into a merger with KANU, the then ruling party. As Energy Minister in Moi’s government he was introduced to the family of Sheikh Abdukeder AlBakari, one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia with interests in petroleum drilling, petroleum exploration and export in the Middle East, Asia, USA and Africa.

Through the Saudi contacts,Raila was initiated into the lucrative world of oil business and soon enough he had joined the league of gig independent oil importers via his firm Pan African Petroleum Limited.

Industry sources say that one of the things that helped Raila make a quick buck in the oil business was a concessionary petroleum deal he struck with the Al Bakri Group where he was not only incorporated as a silent partner in the local arm of Al Bakri International but was also supplied with petroleum products from Saudi Arabia at subsidized prices which his firm would sell in the market at normal prices. That way,Raila was able to deftly beat the competition in oil business by occasional price undercutting.

While still Energy Minister,Raila re-established and nurtured his links with the Libyan government of Colonel Muammar Gadaffi where again he not only did good business in oil importation but also got substantial material support during the 2002 general elections.

Besides supporting Raila’s political causes, the Libyans also played a key role in stabilizing Raila in the oil business in a couple of ways. Industry sources say that between 2001 and 2002 when Raila served as Energy Minister,he received at least three consignments of petroleum products at very low prices which were later sold locally at market prices.

The overall turnover from the three Libyan consignments is reliably said to have been in the region of over half a billion shillings, a tidy sum of money in any language,enough to ensure that one crosses the Rubicon once and for all.
A. K. Al Bakri & Sons Holding is the Saudi group headed by President & CEO Abdulkader Al Bakri, which has more outlets, subsidiaries and other companies than one can easily count. One of the prime contracts they would get is for the supply of jet fuel to Nairobi Airport, which allowed for undercutting of the competition there. This is the very same Abdulkader Al Bakri listed as a defendant in the First Amendment Complaint suit brought by various insurance companies against al Qaeda and associated organizations and individuals. Within that suit is mentioned documents (known as the Golden Chain document) picked up by Bosnian police on a raid on a charitable front organization for al Qaeda in Sarajevo. One of the listed documents is the "Tareekh Osama" ("Osama's History") in which Abdulkader al Bakri aka Abdel Qader Bakri gets a prominent listing:
ABDEL QADER BAKRI (ABDULKADER [AL] BAKRI)
CEO, Bakri Group of Cos
CEO, Al Bakri International Power Co. Ltd (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
CEO, Al-Bakri Shipping Group (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
CEO, Alkhomasia Shipping and Maintenance Company Ltd (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
CEO, Red Sea Marine Services (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
CEO, Diners Club International (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
Bakri Group formed in April 2002 a JV with the Malaysian International Shipping
Corporation (MISC) to operate in Middle-East countries, including Yemen. MISC leased
super tanker MT Limburg when it was attacked on October 6, 2002, coming from Ra's
Tannura (Saudi Arabia).
And then particular to one of the bin Laden brothers:
WAIL (WAEL HAMZA JULAIDAN)
Former Secretary General of the Muslim World League and Rabita Trust in Pakistan,
designated by the United States Treasury as SGDT
Receives donations from Suleiman Al Rashid, Abdulkader Bakri, Salahuddin Abduljawad,
Abdul Tahi Taher
So, when a man like Raila Odinga is linked with Abdulkader al Bakri, you are not making a minor connection, but one directly into al Qaeda. Such are the vagaries of making political bedfellows in other Nations.

Then there are some questions around the murder of Prof. Odhiambo Mbai in 2003, here seen by L. Muthoni Wanyeki in The East African on 22 SEP 2003:
Murder or assassination? That was the question on everyone’s mind last week, following the fatal shooting of Prof Odhiambo Mbai.

About the fact that he was murdered, there is no doubt. I join other Kenyans in expressing my sympathies to members of his family as they struggle to come to terms with the loss. But was his murder an assassination?

If we define an assassination as a murder with a political motivation, the question that arises is what that motivation could have been.

Could his having chaired the devolution committee of the National Constitutional Conference be deemed sufficient motivation to classify his murder as an assassination? From comments made following his death, Prof Yash Pal Ghai apparently believes so. Particularly given that other members of Prof Mbai’s committee have since come forward with claims that they had received threats prior to his death.

[..]

Most importantly, however, is the fact that killing him no doubt would have an intimidating effect on members of his committee – particularly those who shared his own stand on devolution. But that effect has not stopped the committee from going on with its work. Nor has it stopped the NCC as a whole from convening. If anything, his death seems to have had the opposite effect – that of galvanising the NCC as a whole into appreciating the import and weight of its convocation.

It is for these reasons that I am presently loath to trace his murder to his involvement in the NCC. Although I could be – and willing to be – proved wrong.

Could his having been involved in the Liberal Democratic Party faction of National Rainbow Coalition then be deemed sufficient motivation to classify his murder as an assassination? Mirugi Kariuki’s warnings to Raila Odinga to recall the fate of Pio Gama Pinto, advisor to and ally of Oginga Odinga, lend some weight to this thesis – particularly as those warnings turned out to be unfortunately prophetic. And statements from many of the LDP aligned politicians show that they believe this thesis to be true.

What are the implications of assuming this thesis to be true? It is obvious that the National Alliance of Party Kenya faction of NARC seems to be increasingly intent on distancing Raila and LDP from the centre of power.

[..]

There is a possibility that the investigations will come up with answers that will satisfy Prof Mbai’s family’s need for justice. As well as our own need to understand what happened. So while we ignore the police’s admonition to refrain from crazy speculation, I will state only what cannot be disputed.

Whoever ordered this had ready and willing executioners for hire at hand. Thus, the bigger context is that of organised crime and insecurity. If there is anything that Prof Mbai’s untimely death pushes us to do, it is to address that context.
On 19 SEP 2003 Raila Odinga would absolve the government of all blame in the murder (The East African via Waybackmachine):
Cabinet Minister Raila Odinga yesterday absolved the Government from blame in the murder of Prof Odhiambo Mbai but maintained that it was an assassination.

"Assassinations are not entirely the preserve of the Government and can be carried out by political opponents," he said.

Raila said the basis of his statement when he visited Nairobi Hospital upon receiving the news of Mbai’s shooting was based on earlier remarks by some of the delegates who Mbai had confided in.

He said Mbai had told some of the delegates that he "had been warned to slow down or will be slowed down."

"That was the basis of my statement at the time and I do not want to make any wild allegations or cast any aspersions. At times like this we have to maintain our cool," he said.

Raila, however, maintained that Mbai’s killing was an attempt to try and intimidate delegates at the ongoing National Constitutional Conference.

He argued that if Mbai’s killers were ordinary thieves they would have gone ahead to accomplish their mission in the house but said it is interesting that nothing was stolen.

Raila appealed to delegates to maintain their cool as the Government tries to solve the murder mystery.

[..]

Raila took issue with one of the dailies on their story of Raila’s stand on the murder. He said the daily had tried to portray him in negative light on his stand over the murder. "This is very irresponsible and I will begin to fight back," he said.

He described Mbai's murder as "cowardly, uncalled for, barbaric and primitive" and hailed the slain lecturer as one of the leading lights in the review process.

"The Government is not involved and it is getting to the root of the matter. Every effort is being made to track the killers and the President has personally expressed concern at the killing and wants the killers swiftly brought to book," he said.
Yes, he would absolve the government even though the police investigation was ongoing. Mind you this is the committee that would be drafting up changes to the constitution of Kenya. On 12 JAN 2004 The East African Standard would be reporting the following (source: Africa News Update):
Through what appeared to the casual observer as haphazard creation of districts, Moi had ensured that the majority of delegates to the national constitutional conference (the Bomas talks or circus depending on what side of the divide you are on) were from Kanu strongholds.

These were to ensure that the Constitution that would come out of the ongoing process, was a document that would see Moi's cronies ride roughshod over others and probably fulfil the desire of the former president to rule for life in or outside State House.

And in their haste to see Moi out, the then opposition did not see the trap that had been laid for them by the former ruler.

Raila who has come to be credited with the distinction of bringing down the giant that was Moi and created a king out of Mwai Kibaki (when will Raila himself become the king?), knew then as he does now that the review process would be his surest vehicle to power.

And whether or not he was involved in the selection of the Bomas district delegates most of who are Kanu damu, he has utilised the review process to his best advantage.

[..]

So well has Raila tuned the chairman of the review process that Ghai had the audacity to come out with both guns blazing and the fire directed at the Government when the late head of the devolution committee at Bomas, Prof Odhiambo Mbai, was murdered.

It is not also lost on observers that the LDP wing of Narc has depicted their NAK colleagues especially those who come from the Mt Kenya region, as power hungry individuals (I am not sure they are not), who have no intention of sharing power with anybody else. Little wonder then, that the delegates will jeer at President Kibaki and cheer Raila.

Raila who for a while played the cat and mouse game with former President Moi inside Kanu, is now playing a similar game with the current regime. But this one has higher stakes - for while he wanted Moi to sort of hand over power to him, he now wants (and impatiently at that) to take over power from the group holding it albeit constitutionally.

[..]

But they did not reckon with the review process, especially the Bomas meeting and the influence the Langata MP would have there. Even if he shouts from the top of highest of mountains, any sane Kenyan will tell you Raila wants to be the Prime Minister of this country. This job as envisaged by Bomas will either give him the position he craves as the most powerful man in the country, or become the springboard he needs to leap to the presidency.

And therein lies his major partisan interest (they say that is what constitution-makings is all about) in the review process. And that is why the calls by their NAK counterparts to have the Bomas process abandoned and taken over by experts, is sending chills down the spines of loyal LDP leaders and followers.

But the review process especially Bomas and its chairman are giving the NAK power wielders sleepless nights too; so damning is their mission to stop the Bomas process that even the advisory services of shrewd former Safina leader and an erstwhile political enemy of Kibaki, Paul Muite are not enough. Checking the wrath of the Wanjikus at Bomas will require more muscle than can be flexed by the man whose bright political career was halted by the Goldenberg boss a few years ago.

This group has tasted power and at it rawest at that. They are surrounding a president who is not 100 per cent hands on because of a temporary health problem brought about by an accident just before last year's General Election.

The President's handlers know that with a powerful prime minister, they will not have much breathing space and if that premier is Odinga, they will most likely not even be anywhere near the seat of power.
This is hardball politics of the 'old school' which leads to much blood on the streets if it gets out of hand, which it has in Kenya. And Raila Odinga and his LDP faction of Narc, now the ODM, feels that it is 'entitled' to run Kenya. This is seen in a 2005 country report on Kenya at the World Bank:
It soon became clear that NARC was seriously divided between the largely pro- Kibaki NAK (the "original" opposition grouping) and the LDP, under its de facto leader, Mr Odinga, which had defected from KANU. The two factions profoundly disagree over the proposed new constitution, and in particular over whether Kenya should stick with a presidential style of government, as has been the case since independence-the NAK view-or switch to a primeministerial system, as favoured by the LDP. Kenya does not currently have a prime minister, but the final draft constitutional proposals that emerged from the National Constitutional Conference (held at Bomas, a town outside Nairobi) in March 2004 call for the creation of such a position, with strong executive powers. The LDP's stance is partly motivated by the belief that it is "owed" the prime-ministership under the terms of the pre-election Memorandum of Understanding. The NAK opposed a powerful presidency during the Moi era, but is now keen to preserve Mr Kibaki's authority. The Kibaki camp believes that having twin centres of power would be a recipe for conflict and confusion. Mr Kibaki had originally promised a new constitution within 100 days of being elected, but this was a forlorn hope and the deadline has been extended several times. Under the latest plan a new constitution is due by the end of 2005, although further delays are possible (see Constitution, institutions and administration).
Now are we starting to get an idea of what kind of individual Raila Odinga is?

Then there is Raila Odinga's Memorandum of Understanding with the Moslems in Kenya to turn the Nation into an Islamic State. Here is an excerpt from that agreement (via Wikileaks) and thanks to Pamela where I am cribbing this from:
b) Within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions.

c) With immediate effect dismiss the Commissioner of Police who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists to oppress the Kenyan Muslim community.

g) Within one year facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters. [Note: everywhere in Kenya, not just in "Muslim declared regions."]
The entire document is really quite an eye-opener, but the import of it is most chilling, considering the connections to Al Bakri and Kaddafy. Add that in with suspicious assassins at hand and one really does start to wonder just what is up with Raila Odinga.

A quick recap on Raila Odinga:

-Son of a former leader Oginga Odinga
-Utilizing a position of power to enrich his family business
-Utilizing a position of power to get contacts with a Saudi backer of al Qaeda
-Utilizing a position of power to get contacts with the Libyan leader Mohammar Gaddafy
-Utilizing a position of power to assure himself of petty luxuries, junkets and spending time with the rich and powerful across the globe
-Seeking to influence the constitutional drafting committee to ensure that the Prime Minister under the revised constitution will be more powerful than the President
-Feeling "owed" the Prime Minister's position
-Signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Muslim population (roughly 10% of Kenyan's are Muslim) to shift Kenya towards Islam and becoming an Islamic state.
-Utilizing his contacts to bring in political advisor Dick Morris
-And close association with US Senator Barack Obama

So, to sum it up: Mr. Odinga feels 'entitled' to be Prime Minister of Kenya so as to turn it into a Sharia law following Islamic State.

Given that one wonders why Barack Obama decided to take sides in the Kenyan problems, beyond his heritage there and talks with Raila Odinga who considers Obama to be a friend. I don't go for the 'intuitive grasp' concept of personal politics for foreign policy, as I didn't with the current President and Putin. There are enough problems via the State Dept without those personal feelings adding into the mix.

That is, however, just me. YMMV.

But then Sen. Obama has had some problems with this 'foreign policy' concept, hasn't he?

Take for example, Iran, as seen in an interview with the Chicago Tribune on 25 SEP 2004 (via Sourcewatch):
[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?
Another lovely site that no leftist should complain about, the World Socialist Web Site, gives a further look on that interview in a 01 OCT 2004 article:
In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal.
And here we get yet another place that Sen. Obama would use force: Pakistan!

Why, the man is a virtual *hawk*, no?

Then the WSWS gives us a bit more from the interview:
He said: “With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain. I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.”

In the case of Pakistan, the Senate hopeful added, “I think there are elements within Pakistan right now—if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over—I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”
Yes! Contingent risk analysis, exactly right! Which is, BTW, one of the reasons it became repugnant to let Saddam Hussein let everyone think he still *had* chemical and possibly biological weapons AND consort with all sorts of terrorists from al Qaeda to the PLO to various other groups less savory around the world.

Yes this is the man who is for the 'politics of change'.

One would have thought it would be change for the *better* not for supporting an individual who wish to take over their country to make it an Islamic State.

Not to throw out empty rhetoric of saber rattling unless you actually mean what you say and support those that wish to hold Iran and the Islamic extremists and terrorists accountable. If that is the case Sen. Obama should have been voting for a stronger military so that the US can be prepared for an uncertain future going from bad to worse as terrorists of the Islamic kind only see Empire in their future.

Instead it is platitudes and never backing up a tough idea with actual commitment to it.

He puts forward the 'politics of hope'.

Hope is many things.

Hope is a feeling and a strong one.

Hope is an idea that by working a future can be built that is better, if you hold to keeping others accountable for their actions.

Hope, most notably, is a town in Arkansas.

What it is NOT, however, is a strategy nor a foreign policy.

Sen. Obama wishes to be President.

It is time for him to back up his words and disavow friends wishing to institute tyranny because they feel that is what they are 'owed' and it is their 'right' to kill their way to power on the bodies of the innocent that they inspire to riots and murder.

But that is not 'politics of hope' or 'politics of change': it is actually meaning what you say and backing it up so that you can demonstrate that you have some moral fiber or set of beliefs that go beyond the words you speak.

So far, he has not met that challenge to himself.

The next President will be a War President.

Choose wisely as your life depends upon it.
War is a blessing compared with national degradation.
-
Andrew Jackson

02 January 2008

Senator McCain's lost context

Senator McCain has a grand idea that *he* advocated the *right* military policy at the *right* time in Iraq. Shall we take a look and see at what he puts forth? From his website:

November 2003: "To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. I believe we must have in place another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy operations and holds territory. Such a strategy would be the kind of new mission General Sanchez agreed would require additional forces. It's a mystery to me why they are not forthcoming. We cannot achieve our political goals as long as a strategic region of Iraq is in a state of fundamental insecurity." (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
Yes, there he is with counterinsurgency passing his lips in 2003! Lovely, isn't it, this 'oil drop' concept? Now, lets see how he *meant* that.

From the Council on Foreign Relations address by John McCain on U.S. Situation in Iraq and Afghanistan 05 NOV 2003:
Iraq is not Vietnam. There is no popular, widespread anti- colonial insurgency in Iraq. There are killers who prospered under the tyranny of Saddam and seek its restoration. Unlike in Vietnam, the Iraqi Ba'athists and terrorists who oppose us are not guerrilla fish swimming in a friendly sea of the people. Our opponents, who number only in the thousands in a country of 23 million, are despised by the vast majority of Iraqis. The vast majority of Iraqis share our goal of defeating the remnants of Saddam's regime and their terrorist allies.
The Ba'athist redentists, the guys who would not die, the ones who could not be pinned down. Remember them? Unfortunately even by then al Qaeda was already making its feelings known:
From Terror Knowledge Base: 22 MAR 2003 -Description: At least four people were killed, including an Australian cameraman, and nine others injured when a suicide car bomber blew himself up at a checkpoint in Sayed Sadiq. The bomber drove up to the car carrying cameraman, Paul Moran and another journalist Eric Campbell, both from the Australian Broadcasting Corp. (ABC) and blew himself up. The extremist Ansar al-Islam group claimed responsibility for the attack, stating that it was carried out in retaliation for US air strikes against Ansar al-Islam strongholds.

24 JUN 2003 - Description: A car bomb stuck the al-Jumhuri hospital in the city of Mosul. It is unknown how many people were killed in this attack, however, in three attacks in Mosul on this day, about sixty-five people were killed (it is impossible to disaggregate the numbers for each individual attack). This attack, along with a series of others took place only one week before the scheduled handover of power from the US government to the Iraqi interim government. A group affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the "Tawhid and Jihad" claimed responsibility for the coordinated attacks, on an Islamic website. At the end of the day, over ninety people were killed and over 250 were injured.

24 JUN 2003 - Description: At least thirteen people, including two US soldiers were killed and at least seven others (all US soldiers) were injured when insurgents attacked a police station in Ba'qubah. This attack, along with a series of others took place only one week before the scheduled handover of power from the US government to the Iraqi interim government. A group affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the "Tawhid and Jihad" claimed responsibility for the coordinated attacks, on an Islamic website. At the end of the day, over ninety people were killed and over 250 were injured.

24 JUN 2003 - Description: A police station was attacked by insurgents in the Iraqi city of Ramadi. The damages and casualties were unknown, however this was one of a series of coordinated attacks throughout the country on this day, which killed over ninety people and injured 250 more. These attacks come only one week before the scheduled handover of power from the US government to a new Iraqi interim government. The Tawhid and Jihad group, which is affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for this set of attacks.

24 JUN 2003 - Description: A car bomb exploded at the Iraqi Police Academy in Mosul. The specific number of casualties is unknown, however in three car bomb attacks in Mosul on this day, around sixty-five people were killed (it is impossible to disaggregate the specific numbers from each attack). This attack, along with a series of others took place only one week before the scheduled handover of power from the US government to the Iraqi interim government. A group affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the "Tawhid and Jihad" claimed responsibility for the coordinated attacks, on an Islamic website. At the end of the day, over ninety people were killed and over 250 were injured.

24 JUN 2003 - Description: Insurgents attacked a police station in Mahaweel. The amount of damages caused or the casualty numbers were unavailable, however, at the end of a series of coordinated attacks, over ninety people were dead and over 250 others injured. The weapon and tactic for this attack is unclear. This series of attacks comes only one week before a scheduled handover of power from the US government to an Iraqi interim government. A group affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Tawhid and Jihad group, claimed responsibility for all the attacks.

24 JUN 2003 - Description: A car bomb attack struck two police stations in Mosul. The number of casualties caused by the blast is unknown, however in three attacks in Mosul on this day, around sixty-five people were killed. This attack, along with a series of others took place only one week before the scheduled handover of power from the US government to the Iraqi interim government. A group affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the "Tawhid and Jihad" claimed responsibility for the coordinated attacks, on an Islamic website. At the end of the day, over ninety people were killed and over 250 were injured.

24 JUN 2003 - Description: A suicide bomber attacked a checkpoint in Baghdad, killing five people, including four Iraqi soldiers. This attack, along with a series of others took place only one week before the scheduled handover of power from the US government to the Iraqi interim government. A group affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the "Tawhid and Jihad" claimed responsibility for the coordinated attacks, on an Islamic website. At the end of the day, over ninety people were killed and over 250 were injured.


12 OCT 2003 - Description: A suicide bomber detonated a car packed with explosives outside the Baghdad Hotel housing Iraqi government leaders and US contractors. At least eight people, including the bomber, were killed and as many as forty others were wounded. The wounded included one member of Iraq's Governing Council and three Americans. Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attack.

From RFE/RL Archives at Global Security
31 OCT 2003 are multiple reports:

BAGHDAD RED CROSS HEADQUARTERS, IRAQI POLICE STATIONS BOMBED...

Car bombs nearly simultaneously ripped through the Iraqi capital on 27 October, targeting the Baghdad headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and three Iraqi police stations. A bomb attack at a fourth police station was averted.

At the ICRC headquarters in Baghdad, an Iraqi policeman told Radio Free Iraq (RFI) that at least 11 people were killed and 23 wounded in the bombing. He said that an ICRC ambulance packed with explosives crossed a security barrier outside the ICRC building. When Iraqi police fired at the driver, the vehicle rammed into an electricity generator outside the building and blew up.

Three Iraqi police stations in Baghdad were also attacked on 27 October, RFI reported. In one incident, a land cruiser packed with explosives detonated near a police station as Iraqi police attempted to stop it. Three to four police officers and an unconfirmed number of civilians were killed in that incident. The explosion caused severe damage to a nearby housing complex, RFI reported.

Police thwarted a fourth attack on a Baghdad police station when another land cruiser carrying three or four passengers attempted to hit the station. When police fired after the vehicle refused to stop, three of the vehicle's occupants escaped. The driver was shot and later transported to a nearby hospital where it was reported that he was of Syrian origin. Iraqi police later said that they were investigating his nationality, and that he might be Yemeni. Police found 17 kilograms of TNT and four small rockets inside the vehicle.

In all, the attacks killed at least 36 people, including one U.S. soldier. About 230 people were wounded, including six soldiers, international media reported. The attacks coincided with the first day of the holy month of Ramadan, in which Muslims fast from dawn until dusk. Muslims believe that God revealed the Koran to the Prophet Muhammad during Ramadan. (Kathleen Ridolfo)


PENTAGON NAMES ANSAR AL-ISLAM AS MAIN THREAT IN IRAQ. The U.S. Defense Department has named the terrorist group Ansar Al-Islam the key terrorist threat to U.S. forces in Iraq, AP reported on 23 October. Lieutenant General Norton Schwartz, director of operations for the Pentagon's Joint Staff, said U.S. forces are concentrating their efforts on Ansar militants.

U.S. and Kurdish forces destroyed an Ansar stronghold in northern Iraq in late March (see "RFE/RL Iraq Report," 28 March and 2 April 2003). It has been reported that Ansar militants subsequently dispersed to other parts of Iraq and reorganized. Schwartz said the United States has uncovered links between Ansar militants and former Ba'ath Party members, but added that "generally speaking, [Ansar members] are independent actors." (Kathleen Ridolfo)


AL-QAEDA COOPERATING WITH OTHER GROUPS IN IRAQI TERRORIST ATTACKS

By Kathleen Ridolfo

The Kuwaiti daily "Al-Ra'y al-Amm" reported on 26 October that hundreds of Al-Qaeda fighters have entered Iraq from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia in recent months, and are working alongside Ba'athist elements in an effort to destabilize the country.

Citing sources close to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, the daily said that the number of Al-Qaeda militants in Iraq multiplied in mid-August, entering the country through four major routes. A number of Saudi Al-Qaeda fighters entered Iraq via Iran, the report claims, as did fighters from Pakistan and Afghanistan. From Iran, the fighters reportedly met up with Ansar Al-Islam militants in Iraqi Kurdistan, and then took up positions in the so-called Sunni Triangle towns of Al-Ramadi, Tikrit, Balad, and Al-Fallujah. While the number of Al-Qaeda fighters was initially estimated at between 600 and 800, "Al-Ra'y al-Amm" reports that number has increased significantly in recent months.

According to "Al-Ra'y al-Amm," the Al-Qaeda fighters have formed two units, the "Jundullah" or warriors of God, and the "Al-Usud," or lions. The Al-Usud militants have reportedly taken up positions close to the Syrian border where they receive fighters from Central Asia, Chechnya, Kosovo, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Once regrouped, the militants carry out joint attacks on oil installations in Bayji and Mosul. The paper also cites U.S. military officials as saying that the militants attacking coalition forces in the Sunni Triangle area receive manpower and administrative support from Bedouin.

[..]

Meanwhile, Iranian Ambassador to France Sadegh Kharrazi confirmed to reporters in Paris on 28 October that there were links between Al-Qaeda and the military elements of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Ba'ath Party. "Unfortunately, it is to a certain extent normal to note that, because of this situation [in Iraq], there are now links being forged between Al-Qaeda and the military branch of the Ba'ath Party," Reuters quoted Kharrazi as saying. He added that Iran intends to bring to trial Al-Qaeda members "under Iranian law because they have committed crimes on our territory," CNN reported.

Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shar'a told London's "Sunday Telegraph" on 26 October that Syria is unable to prevent foreign militants from crossing its border into Iraq. "We are doing everything we can," he said, adding: "We have tightened our checkpoints and are turning people back. But the border is long and we cannot cover it all." Al-Shar'a then compared Syria's situation to America's inability to prevent Mexicans from crossing its borders illegally. The "Sunday Telegraph" also interviewed the muezzin of a Yarmouk mosque, who said that many Palestinians from the Yarmouk refugee camp had traveled to Iraq, and some had been killed there fighting U.S. soldiers. "I don't know how they cross the border," Wajih Ma'ud said. He added that the Palestinians were not receiving help from the Syrian government in entering Iraq.
I, apparently, remember a *different* Iraq with a *different* and more complex counter-insurgency problem than John McCain does. Yes, indeed, the Sunni Triangle... Mosul... Bayji... Baghdad... Baqubah. And note that the 'Saddamists' were no longer considered the major threat and that al Qaeda's affiliate, Ansar al-Islam led by Zarqawi had taken over that spot. Zarqawi also had his own outfit Tawhid and Jihad along with that. Lots of foreign fighters showing up from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Palestine, beyond just Ba'athist Iraqis.

But then John McCain also goes on to give us more fun views about COIN work:
Unlike in Vietnam, the Iraqi insurgents do not enjoy the kind of sanctuary North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos provided. They do not have a superpower patron that sponsors, supplies and sustains them beyond the reach of our power for geopolitical reasons. These murderers cannot carry the banner of Iraqi nationalism, as did Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam for decades. Their return to power offers the Iraqi people the promise not of self-rule but of mortal danger, not of a better future but of a return to a hated and fearful past. Iraq is not Vietnam because our ally is not a corrupt government unwilling to defend itself, but a newly-freed people that desperately want to build a new future. Most fundamentally, Iraq is not Vietnam because the United States and the Iraqi people share the same goal of building a free, prosperous and secure Iraq.
Sen. McCain has forgotten that COIN actually needs a government that can stand up for itself. Without that you have extreme problems doing any COIN work as outside forces are seen as 'occupiers'. Iraq was not unwilling to defend itself: it was UNABLE to defend itself as its new Army had not even started to FORM then. The old one was dismissed as it was *worse* than nothing full of killers, rapists, and folks that just liked to abuse their fellow Iraqis. You have a nearly impossible time running any form of COIN without indigenous forces to actually help weed out bad actors and get something sustainable going and the government in Iraq would not get that started until 2005. These are not regular armed forces standing down after a war: these are individuals running Private War to their own ends and nearly impossible to weed out because they don't need to be 'fish swimming in a school of fish', they were piranha willing to devour anyone who deviated from keeping silent.

Since he doesn't even remember the need for the local government to stand up for itself he then goes on a bit later to further demonstrate that lack of knowledge:
The United States will fail in Iraq if our adversaries believe they can outlast us. If our troop deployment schedules are more important than our staying power, we embolden our enemies and make it harder for our friends to take risks on our behalf. When the United States announces a schedule for training and deploying Iraqi security officers, then announces the acceleration of that schedule, then accelerates it again, it sends a signal of desperation, not certitude. When in the course of days we increase by thousands our estimate of the numbers of Iraqis trained, it sounds like somebody is cooking the books. When we do this as our forces are coming under increasing attack, we suggest to friends and allies alike that our ultimate goal in Iraq is leaving as soon as possible, not meeting our strategic objective of building a free and democratic country in the heart of the Arab world.
Remember - helping people to learn how to defend themselves is *not* going to spread freedom and democracy. There you have it, John McCain in 2003! Keep to any slow pace and show 'certitude' and you will get by just fine and the US will do all the fighting for you so you don't have to worry your little heads about it. And then, once we have antagonized your population, gotten you a tiny security force and have been unable to understand *why* the insurgency is getting worse, we will just point out that our long term objective is more important than achieving anything.

Further along we get to see more from John McCain that makes one scratch their head a bit:
I was heartened to hear the president say that we cannot cut and run in Iraq. To sustain the credibility necessary for victory over the long term, the administration needs to strive at all times to ensure that its assessment of the course of events in Iraq is candid and reflects the situation on the ground as best it can see it. Administration officials must be careful not to adjust our military posture in Iraq for political reasons. The only legitimate reason to adjust our posture is to improve our ability to accomplish our mission or respond to our successes in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.
Remember do NOT adjust postures for political reasons! Also remember that very lethal and coordinated attacks are happening *outside* the Sunni Triangle.

To go with previous paternalism we get added paternalism towards Iraqis:
There can be little political or economic progress in Iraq until the United States creates a stable and secure environment there. Prematurely placing the burden of security on Iraqis is not the answer. Hastily trained Iraqi security forces cannot be expected to accomplish what U.S. forces have not yet succeeded in doing: defeating the Ba'athists and international terrorists inside Iraq. It is irresponsible to suggest that it is up to Iraqis to win this war. In doing so, we shirk the responsibility that we willingly incurred when we assumed the burden of liberating and transforming their country, for their sake and our own. If the U.S. military, the world's best fighting force, can't defeat the Iraqi insurgents, how do we expect Iraqi militiamen with only weeks of training to do any better?
How about we train them better, Senator McCain? Ever hear of that? Fight along side them, maybe? Train some commanders and maybe help get an internal set of laws made for a military? Ever hear of that, Sen. McCain? Because, in the end, the main bulk of cleaning up the Iraqi insurgency is NOT up to the US, but to Iraqis. This, indeed, would take time and the first real combat troops would not be seen until 2005, which is near lightning fast in this modern age. And the reason that the world's best fighting force can't do this on its own is that it is NOT OUR COUNTRY. We can only achieve this with the Iraqi people if they want this for themselves - if they didn't then nothing on this Earth would end that insurgency and Iraqi would become one of the nastiest 'failed states' in modern history, Afghanistan not excluded.

That is the heart of COIN, Sen. McCain. The British in the Malay had an exception as they could force a lot of folks to move and separate everyone. In the Philippines the US forces could only overcome the insurgents with the help of local forces. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be an invader and perform successful COIN if you are trying to hand the Nation back to its people.... taking it over is something else again, but the US really doesn't like to do that.

Then we get to the paragraph his campaign cites and let me say this about this 'division' he would like to plunk down: where the hell are we supposed to GET IT?

This is not mere rhetoric - the US armed forces can barely maintain the 130,000 rotation we had before the surge and we are tiring out a lot of troops on extended tours to perform the surge. If you want to get more than the 30,000 added in on an ongoing basis... hmmm... that is only 7-10,000 or so effective combatants. Say, Sen. McCain, do you remember that 1990's 'Peace Dividend'?

This is our payback for it as PACOM would need to strip its 'ready reserve' entirely and go on a lean system deployment and you would have to shut down EUCOM. Actually, Europe should be able to stand on its own now, right? So take out 1/3 of PACOM and all of EUCOM... done! 225,000 extra folks, the bulk support personnel for 70,000 effective combatants and 1/3 of those deployed for a year at a time. WAG it at 24,000 effective combatants.

Scratch off Germany, UK, Spain, Italy, S. Korea possibly, Japan definitely, maybe suck some of the counter-narcotics forces into PACOM from South COM... they can do some extended duty in Africa to keep an eye out for the Islamic Courts...

Dear Senator McCain - If you wanted a division on rotation, thus nearly 3 divisions to keep one on station and in COIN work, why, the hell, didn't you PUT THAT IN THE DAMNED BUDGET?

That is YOUR JOB and that of CONGRESS.

Because you then go on to cite what you think is NEEDED:
MC: You know, I mentioned an extra division, but what I meant was not a division itself. We don't need more howitzers, we don't need more tanks. We need Marines, Special Forces, counterespionage operations, better intelligence people, linguists, all the kinds of people that are involved in countering a real insurgency.

Everything we see on television, my dear friends, is a reaction to an event -- to a bombing, to an explosion, to whatever it is, an ambush. We should, over time, be seeing films only of actions that provoke reactions on the part of the people we are after. And the only way you can do that is through good intelligence.
And do you know what, Senator? The President does NOT have to ask for these things: Congress provides via Article I, Section 8 and NO asking by the President is necessary. Look at all the earmarks that end up in the DoD budget for *proof* of that. And, if I may say so looking at the recent NIE, that Congress is failing its job on the INTEL provisioning side, too.

Now back to the 'Peace Dividend'... from NYT 06 OCT 1991:
Lawmakers from both parties agree that changed circumstances mean that the military budget should be re-examined. If, as the President said -- even before yesterday's announcement of plans for sweeping cuts in the Soviet nuclear arsenal -- war with the Soviet Union is "no longer a realistic threat," then why, they ask, is it necessary to keep active a dozen aircraft carriers at an annual cost of about $600 million apiece? Why should the nation spend billions for the Star Wars missile defense system, the B-2 Stealth bomber, a new attack submarine or other astronomically expensive state-of-the-art weapons? Why should tens of thousands of troops be maintained in Germany, South Korea and elsewhere around the world?

Those questions were raised not only by liberal Pentagon critics but by such staunch conservative supporters of the military as Senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, a conservative Republican and former career naval officer who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Why were you asking those questions, Senator McCain? No need for a robust military any more?

From BEYOND THE BOTTOM-UP REVIEW by MARK GUNZINGER, Note 16:
Aspin was not the only member of Congress who believed deeper cuts were feasible. During the budget debate, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Jim Sasser called for doubling the Bush budget cuts while Senator Edward M. Kennedy indicated $210 billion in defense spending could be saved over the next seven years. Senators Bentsen, Bradley, Roth, Gramm, and McCain also proposed deeper cuts that could pay for domestic initiatives. In fact, a May 1992 Congressional Research Service report indicated a total of sixteen members of Congress had proposed alternative defense spending proposals, including Les Aspin.
Deeper cuts in the armed forces, Sen. McCain? For 'domestic initiatives'? How about that border, huh, Sen. McCain?

From America's Defense Monitor, 22 MAR 1992 (via CDI), How Much is Enough?:
NARRATOR: So how much military spending is enough?

The Congress has not settled on an answer, but many members feel the administration plan would spend more than enough. Senator Jim Sasser, chairman of the Budget Committee, has proposed spending $120- to $140 billion less than President Bush over five years. Senator John McCain, an influential Republican on the Armed Services Committee, has proposed spending about $250 billion in 1997, $40 billion less than the administration in that year.

Large savings could come as early as next year.
You mean that you didn't want to give the President what he asked for, Sen. McCain? Why should YOU expect any different when YOU get in office if YOU couldn't do that for the President when YOU could have supported that? Making political points with defense spending, Sen. McCain?

From the Army's Strategic Studies Institute, Transforming Defense paper, by Conrad C. Crane, DEC 2001:
Large reductions in military personnel require several years to effect due to the need to assure appropriate skill mixes and experience levels are retained. Direct cuts in readiness resources, such as suggested by Senator John McCain in 1996 by implementing 'tiered readiness' for major force elements, are difficult to achieve in practice since they would suggest that some of the active forces would not be ready for employment on short notice.19

19. John McCain (U.S. Senator, R-AZ), Ready Tomorrow: Defending American Interests in the 21st Century, White Paper, Washington, DC: March 19, 1996.
Getting a bit unrealistic in what the armed forces can do, Sen. McCain?

As Sen. McCain didn't think we needed a fully ready set of armed forces, nor as much of them, he is also familiar with the problem of needing 'lead time' to increase the size of the armed forces as that cannot be done overnight. Standing up new personnel takes time to get more equipment ordered and the entire organizational structure changed to accept them. The USMC can do this a bit faster, but the Special Forces deriving, as they do, from veterans of other armed forces that are highly skilled already require a larger base to start with to get more personnel. Thus to expand the USMC could take as long as 3 years to ensure such things as helmets, rifles, and increased logistics are put in place so that individuals can be properly trained, equipped and fed. Then throw in 5 years after that for increasing the Special Forces, although upping their pay by 50-100% might attract and retain some individuals normally going to much better private sector jobs.

If Senator McCain truly believed what he said he was in perfect position to push legislation through to get these things *done*.

He did not do so.

Pointing to his words on the campaign trail when being in a position to materially increase the size and scope of the armed forces and the INTEL Community points to neglect of the duties of a Senator to defend the Nation. If he can't figure out his current job, then he has reached, via the 'Peter Principle' the limits of his incompetence and is perfectly placed where he can do the least amount of harm.

He is part of the *problem* in Washington, D.C.

Congress will do as it damn well pleases with a President's budget and armed forces requests just as John McCain did in the 1990's. Sen. McCain also has some strange ideas on force size, readiness, scope and deployment capability which points to a lack of understanding of what Congress has done to the armed forces of the United States over the past 15 years.

Sen. John McCain should know this.

He was instrumental in doing these things and embracing a 'peace dividend'.

An extra set of divisions in the armed forces really did look like a nice thing back in 2003.

Too bad he helped to send them away in the 1990's.

For the New Year and onwards, ever onwards

The following is cross-posted from The Jacksonian Party.

The following is a personal position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

It is always fascinating to see how writers look at the roots of problems in one party or another and come back to very, very basics without intending to. Take Michael Tomasky in The New York Review of Books on his 17 JAN 2008 article They'd Rather Be Right, looking at the plight of the Republican Party. Mr. Tomasky is, to say the least, liberal in his outlook especially his views on the 'progressive' concept. So when reading such a writer it is best to ditch the modern day polemic and see how far back they go in looking for the origins of things. Mr. Tomasky heads straight to the chase, after much verbiage, to give this view of the US two party system:

The two major American political parties have always been amalgams of factions, especially the Democratic Party, from its early tensions between Jacksonian frontier populists and Adams-descended Northern reformers up through the late-nineteenth-century disputes between the mercantilist "Bourbon Democrats" and the prairie populists led by William Jennings Bryan. Then came the uneasy New Deal coalition of Northern liberals and Southern segregationists, and finally, in our time, the sometimes bitter feuds between liberals and centrists. The Republican Party's history is slightly less convulsive, partly because its initial factions such as Whigs and Free-Soilers found unity under Abraham Lincoln on the central question of slavery. But in time the Republican coalition came to include both staunchly pro-business and trust-busting interests; nearer our own era, there was also room enough within the party for domestic conservatives and moderates, supporters and foes of the New Deal, and foreign policy internationalists and isolationists.
Here we get one of the times where the current 'power politics' is, actually, seen through to near its beginnings when populism had to fight business interests and government interests, with the differences between Jacksonians and Adams', and it is this start that would pit 'government hands-off' of Jacksonians against 'government hands-on' of the Whigs against each other.

Coming from the purely industrial view of things, not sociological or other realms, Jacksonians supported individuals and States to make good decisions for themselves without the interference of the Federal government. This is not only a 'frontiersman' view, but an expansionist one: that the best way to expand liberty is to allow the common man to do good by his own hand. While the Whigs wanted a controlled Nation, Jacksonians placed their trust in the People as the background of the Scots-Irish plus various other English, Nordic and Germanic immigrants would find this attitude appealing after having life so strictured and confined by the State (or Principalities) that making National government more powerful was the last thing they wanted. The Whig Party would die and the Republican Party form in its wake, with Abraham Lincoln being first a Whig and then a Republican, and the quest to control westward expansion and put government in charge of conducting the economy would be put to the wayside after the Civil War. The 'Prairie Populism' of William Jennings Bryan bears the scars of that post-Reconstruction era and the slow shift of the Democratic Party away from Jacksonianism and towards a more controlled Nation concept. Those frontiersman ideals, however, would be picked up, almost exactly, by Theodore Roosevelt and recrafted for the industrial age. The exact, same, instinct to not have a Federal Bank was then shifted to the control of monopolists and industrial 'robber barons' who had 'industry towns' in which those working were in virtual servitude to the company owning the town. Theodore Roosevelt would push for American Exceptionalism of its people and enforce the anti-monopoly laws and seek to them extended. Theodore Roosevelt would then excoriate those seeking to give government ultimate control over markets, like Woodrow Wilson and his supporters, as taking liberty from the common man.

On the sociological side, Jacksonians are a tough lot to cleave from something they start: and they stuck with the Democratic Party through thick and thin as it *was* the Party of Jackson. That would last right up to 1968 where the force of the Democratic Party expanding government and denigrating the Nation reached a fervor and the Party, itself, started to shift to an anti-Nationalist or Transnationalist stance. Big business would re-coalesce around the Republican Party after the era of Wilson and FDR, and offer a 'business only' economics view that no longer upheld views of Theodore Roosevelt and personal liberty. These voters now no longer have a party that will: uphold personal liberty, hold government and business accountable to the needs of the Nation, will disavow Transnationalism, shift course from Big Government Nannystatism, or even be able to properly call an enemy 'an enemy' and mean it outside of petty, partisan political views.

Factional politics inside the Republican Party, as Mr. Tomasky sees it, breaks down into:
neoconservatives; theo-conservatives, i.e., the groups of the religious right; and radical anti-taxers, clustered around such organizations as the Club for Growth and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.
And to take a bit of a look on the other side here are the factions as they stand on the Democratic side, as seen at Wikipedia, and I will summarize:
1) Progressive Democrats - From the George McGovern to Dennis Kucinich axis.
2) Liberal Democrats - From the Ted Kennedy to Nancy Pelosi axis including Bill Clinton.
3) Labor Democrats - From the Sherrod Brown to John Edwards axis.
4) Moderate Democrats - The DLC axis of Walter Mondale to Mark Warner. Nearly defunct.
5) Conservative Democrats - The 'Blue Dog Democrats' characterized by Zell Miller, in theory many elected in 2006 are from this axis, but events have shown shifting to Moderate, Liberal and Progressive axes. Nearly defunct.
6) Libertarian Democrats - Democratic Freedom Caucus axis, a non-player in most politics.
7) Ethnic Minoritarian Democrats - Multiple minorities seeking gains from other axes, especially 1 through 4.

In general for the Democratic Party the Transnationalists consist of: 1, 2, 3, 4, and often 7. Nationalists tend to be in 4 through 6 although those are dying breeds in the Democratic Party and nearly gone now.

To be fair I will expand upon Mr. Tomasky with Wikipedia's view of Republican Party factions:
1) Religious Right - Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and Traditionalists of different sorts end up here, with Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum being members of note.
2) Neoconservatives or Neocons - Interventionist foreign policy as seen by Charles Krauthammer, David Frum and others. Often coming from the Liberal Democratic faction and disavowing it when it went Transnationalist for governing concepts.
3) Social Conservatives - Anti-Big Government individuals, in strong support of the military and second amendment rights.
4) Security Oriented - Those individuals alarmed by threats to the US, and I disagree with the article's listing and reasoning, but not the presence of this faction.
5) States' Rights Oriented - Those wishing to keep the Federal Government small and out of State only issues. Strongly opposing Federal laws on marriage, property or anything else not given to the Federal government to do.
6) Paleoconservatives - Distrustful of modern ideologies and statecraft, and the expansion of government. Opposed to multi-culturalism, restrictionist on trade and foreign policy, generally isolationist.
7) Libertarian Conservatives - Emphasizing market over social controls, especially on spending, regulation and taxes. Generally seeking to privatize government and shift them to the States or private interests.
8) Log Cabin Republicans - Those that favor gay rights.
9) Liberal Republicans - "Rockerfeller Republicans" - Harold Stassen, Richard Nixon, Michael Bloomberg and Jim Leach axis. Supporters of the 'New Deal' and its concepts, generally.

The Transnationalists, Free Trade and pro-morality enforcement through government action of alignment have parts of 1, 2, 7, 8 and all of 9. Nationalists tend to be in 3 through 6 and parts of 1, 2, 7, 8.

Jacksonians tend to cluster on purely National interests, seeking social control of things like trade for the good of the Nation, not of industries, and keeping government small so it can do its job of protecting the Nation well. Jacksonians are pro-liberty and freedom as global ideas, but put forward you must *work for it* to get it and sustain it. The last real strongholds in the Democratic Party are in 5 and 6: Conservative and Libertarian. There are always some outliers cropping up in 7, as recent immigrants with a 'can do' attitude tend to shift to frontiersman views. There aren't that many of those remaining there. In the Republican Party this tends to be centered on 3-6, with parts of 1, 7, 8.

President Andrew Jackson in his Bank Veto Message of 10 JUL 1832 sums up the view:
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and laborers who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy....
Keep government *confined* to ensure that all garner equal protection so that prosperity can be created. Ensure the rich do not bend government to its will, nor that government create distinctions amongst the people between rich and poor. And stand against those seeking 'new rights' and 'new privileges' and 'entitlements' as they create worse problems than any original problem they seek to solve.

And, above all, Citizenship is not a 'right' it is a Duty as Theodore Roosevelt would point out on 23 APR 1910 at the Sorbonne (via the Theodore Roosevelt site):
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."
Citizenship is in the doing, not the criticizing and it is in that doing that all life gains worth:
Such ordinary, every-day qualities include the will and the power to work, to fight at need, and to have plenty of healthy children. The need that the average man shall work is so obvious as hardly to warrant insistence. There are a few people in every country so born that they can lead lives of leisure. These fill a useful function if they make it evident that leisure does not mean idleness; for some of the most valuable work needed by civilization is essentially non-remunerative in its character, and of course the people who do this work should in large part be drawn from those to whom remuneration is an object of indifference. But the average man must earn his own livelihood. He should be trained to do so, and he should be trained to feel that he occupies a contemptible position if he does not do so; that he is not an object of envy if he is idle, at whichever end of the social scale he stands, but an object of contempt, an object of derision. In the next place, the good man should be both a strong and a brave man; that is, he should be able to fight, he should be able to serve his country as a soldier, if the need arises. There are well-meaning philosophers who declaim against the unrighteousness of war. They are right only if they lay all their emphasis upon the unrighteousness. War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. But it is such a crime because it is unjust, not because it is a war. The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this is whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is there to be peace or war? The question must be, Is it right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness once more to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong and virile people must be "Yes," whatever the cost. Every honorable effort should always be made to avoid war, just as every honorable effort should always be made by the individual in private life to keep out of a brawl, to keep out of trouble; but no self-respecting individual, no self-respecting nation, can or ought to submit to wrong.

Finally, even more important than ability to work, even more important than ability to fight at need, is it to remember that chief of blessings for any nations is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land. It was the crown of blessings in Biblical times and it is the crown of blessings now. The greatest of all curses in is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility. The first essential in any civilization is that the man and women shall be father and mother of healthy children, so that the race shall increase and not decrease. If that is not so, if through no fault of the society there is failure to increase, it is a great misfortune. If the failure is due to the deliberate and wilful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run Nature punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves form the thraldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done. No refinement of life, no delicacy of taste, no material progress, no sordid heaping up riches, no sensuous development of art and literature, can in any way compensate for the loss of the great fundamental virtues; and of these great fundamental virtues the greatest is the race's power to perpetuate the race. Character must show itself in the man's performance both of the duty he owes himself and of the duty he owes the state. The man's foremast duty is owed to himself and his family; and he can do this duty only by earning money, by providing what is essential to material well-being; it is only after this has been done that he can hope to build a higher superstructure on the solid material foundation; it is only after this has been done that he can help in his movements for the general well-being. He must pull his own weight first, and only after this can his surplus strength be of use to the general public. It is not good to excite that bitter laughter which expresses contempt; and contempt is what we feel for the being whose enthusiasm to benefit mankind is such that he is a burden to those nearest him; who wishes to do great things for humanity in the abstract, but who cannot keep his wife in comfort or educate his children.
These are all things that Jacksonians understand deeply and fully: one works to achieve by their own ends to create a better society so that the entirety of society may have liberty and be free. Your rights are self-evident... securing them comes at a cost.

No one in either party now speaks in these terms and that 40%+ of society that no longer votes does so because this sort of voice has been removed from politics. In wanting to secure 'special rights' and 'entitlements' we are losing liberty and freedom. Yet society does have a responsibility to care for those who have suffered in life: to do otherwise is not civilized. That does not mean mortgaging the Nation to provide goodies for everyone. That does mean tending to the sick who have no means to care for themselves and for those mentally and physically able to contribute finding ways that such contribution can get them out of the public sphere as the government is the very worse caretaker for anyone ever invented.

That is why we trust the heart and soul of charity to ourselves and hand it to no other as no other can ever represent us in that realm. Governmental charity is not charity at all, but policy run by bureaucrats who have no heart and soul in what they do, just a paycheck. Every time and each that we hand more charity to government, we lose it in ourselves and to recover that we must recognize that no government represents the strength of its People or Nation.

Every 'special right' demeans that right for all to uphold it for the few.

Every 'entitlement' diminishes self worth until we are supplicants to government for all things.

Kindness is not the role of government, it has never been such at any time or place as it only has powers to enforce and punish, and that had best be equal for all.

Righteousness is in our hearts and souls, not in legislation or the prison cell.

We judge now only on those things done to us and our society so that justice may be done for us, and let final and other judgment be done by those worthy of such things, which will not once nor ever be our created government.

Only free People know how to build on kindness and that when such is not returned we understand and turn from its denial seeking to create understanding until it confronts us in opposition and lets us know that they consider themselves the final measure of us.

Let us join together to remember that Society is the creator of the Good, and Government the restrainer of the Bad, and that we will never, ever confuse the two.

I will, as I have previously, stand by that this New Year and onwards as these are the stars in the Sky of Liberty.