Pan-Arabia and my uncle Pat

I've been devouring national security style fiction novels at the rate of about one every 10 days because for some reason I fancy myself a writer and am in the process of arranging a book. So much of my "intellectual time" (if you want to call it that) has been devoted to this endeavor. However, setting my phone's home page to the Bund has had its’ intended effect, and not only did I read your posts but I finally caved and download and listened to your much touted Dan Carlin.

I have an uncle that works at NASA. I also have a cousin, from the paternal side, that works for that same little outfit. Yes, I have two honest to goodness rocket scientists sitting on the ol’ family tree. And I remember asking my uncle once, "Why do you love science so much?" He responded, "I am fascinated by how stuff works."

To me history is a "how stuff works" guide to politics. It is my favorite form of political discussion, taking what is known about our past and applying it to what may be in our future. It is exactly what the Glenn Beck radio program once was. Either Glenn has spread himself too thin or he's choosing to dump that format into his daily hour television show, but whatever the cause I find myself rolling my eyes as he spends one radio broadcast minute after another discussing religious platitudes. There are few things that I loathe more than platitudes. Don't get me wrong, I believe he is sincere; it's just that he is at a different place than I am on our path of learning, and discussing religious solutions to specific geopolitical or domestic problems doesn't appeal to me at present. To be honest I think he's so fed up with both parties and the system in general that he's sort of arrived at a forget it, only God can sort this out stage. Maybe he's right, I'm just not there yet as discussion forums go.

 Now this Carlin character seems to be waste deep into the form of politics I (and by extension the Bund) most favor. I've only listened to the one podcast, on the middle East, but if this format is the rule and not the exception I may have found a new favorite current events show. I also took the liberty and downloaded the free Hardcore History episodes (13 of them, the others are labeled "classics" such as Hitler vs. Alexander and cost $2.99), and a select handful of Common Sense episodes. I see now why you listened to it twice. For one, there's a ton of information in there, and second they're only released at a rate of once to twice a month.

So thanks for the repeated recommendations, I'm glad I finally caved. That being said, allow me to comment on the specifics of that episode.

First, at one point Carlin stated flatly the same thing I did a few posts ago - that the US is much better at dealing with hostile nation states than small, rogue terrorist or insurgent groups. Although his proposed solutions varied from mine. My point in that post was that if ISIS turns Iraq into another Iran, we will - from a strategic standpoint - be able to deal with Iraq more effectively. Out maneuvering or fighting a nation state is something we are well skilled at. Wading into a civil war to play referee, we are not.  He takes that sentiment much, MUCH further however.

He makes a solid argument that the arbitrary lines of post WWI European design must not be placed on some sacred mantle to be protected, that it takes a Saddam to enforce such boarders or direct Western intervention, and as such are unnatural. I think we can all agree that the European designed map of the Near East has failed. Now as to what will become of these lines in a post US invasion/withdrawal of Iraq and Afghanistan... Essentially he is predicting one of two outcomes. One, ISIS (or ISIL) fights within the borders of modern Iraq until they receive sufficient push back from the Kurds in the North, and the Shi'ites in the South, and the three state solution that Joe Biden was laughed off the stage for will naturally form and stabilize. Second, ISIS or some similar group, will not be stopped by Kurds or its' rival Islamic sect and eventually a Pan-Arab super state will form, made up of perhaps four or five smaller states. In essence, a caliphate. 

Now his point is that either solution is preferable to what we have now because if you increase the number of Arab states via Iraq you'll have natural boundaries that create a stable stasis. If you decrease the number of Arab states to four or five under the umbrella of a large Pan-Arab  government (that is undemocratic either through theocracy, monarchy, or dictatorship) that you will have essentially created a Soviet or Chinese model of statehood that we are well schooled in dealing with. We have either defeated or contained such large, top heavy, oppressive regimes in our past whereas we have a poor record dealing with insurgents. In addition, he notes that in such a regime the youth and the otherwise oppressed will eventually rise up and throw off their oppressors. And that this revolution will either be a hard landing, as with the Soviets, or a soft landing, as with the Chinese in which the Communist Party is trying to manage the transition to capitalism; or as they describe it “Communism with Chinese characteristics.” Yeah, and Kim Jung Un can talk to dolphins…  you’re not fooling anybody there chairman.

I found the entire diatribe fascinating. Especially the ideas on a Pan-Arab state. He's equating fundamentalist Islam's style of rule (and a theocracy is the most likely outcome in this scenario) with communism, in essence noting they are both unsustainable because they run contrary to natural human desires. So he's asking why not let them form, take their shot at rule, and watch them topple naturally from within? 

I read the man's bio on Wikipedia, and while I'm reluctant to take that site's information as gospel, I do hope they got one quote right. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the only two politicians he thinks could honestly address our problems are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. These are two diametrically opposed ideologs, but they at least say what they mean and mean what they say, and aren't afraid to challenge the status quo or be called nut bags because of their bold proposals. Now what I hope is he admires them based on that, and not because he embraces them fully, especially Kucinich (although I don't know how that would be possible, ideologically). 

My point for bringing that up in relation to his Mid East proposals is that these proposals are unique, and sure to be labeled as nutty by some. But they are also bold, and historically based, so I do not dismiss them out of hand. However, we should bear in mind how much death and destruction was wrought by the Bolsheviks and the Great Leap Forward. In other words, I agree that we are much better at managing, containing, and ultimately defeating large oppressive nation states than we are at fighting small oppressive bands of militants, and I also agree that eventually - like communism - a large oppressive theocracy (as represented in a Pan-Arab state) would crumble providing the best chance for an organic democratic revolution to spring up. However, the "in between" time could make the Great Leap Forward and the Bolsheviks (respectively) look like pikers. They were committed to a political ideology and loyal to Party. The presumed rulers in this instance would be zealots committed to religion and loyal to God. I see that as a much tougher bond to break. The Soviets killed what, 20, 30 million of their own to establish and maintain order? Mao killed easily more than double that. So we have to be careful what we wish for. And that's before getting into the threat of an aggressive foreign policy of a grand caliphate that mimics the Soviets.

Now in his defense, he points out how awful this in between time could be. That no one would want to live in this time of the European "bandaid" being ripped off, and admits it may not be the right solution. He advocated a US foreign policy that calls a summit and tries to establish by peaceful treaty what would be the presumed resulting boarders of a three-way Iraqi civil war, or even a future Pan-Arab state, so he's certainly not blind as to what this thing could devolve into while it's transitioning into a peaceful "stasis", if left to its own devices. As for myself I am inclined to believe that despite our best intentions any "peace conference" in which we draw up what our best guess would be of natural boarders, things would still descend into civil war. In other words, it may be true that ISIS will be stopped in the north by the Kurds, but it may take the actual fight to convince ISIS of this, rather than a piece of paper drawn up by outsiders.

The bottom line for me is one he articulated well - we are now at a point where there is no path to peace that doesn't involve war. There is no "good" way to untie the Gordian Knot formed by the post WWI victors when they drew up the spoils of the Ottomans. What we have found in Iraq - at least thus far - is what doesn't work. Namely, a superior foreign power implanting democracy within the boarders of a nation drawn up in a British sitting room. After all our blood and treasure it would be indeed tragic to just leave. But isn't it more tragic to not learn from our mistakes? To keep doing the same thing expecting a different result? I'm not willing to risk one more Marine to enforce boarders that haven't worked for 100 years. I'd prefer to put them on our own boarders, but that's a different post. The result of our withdrawal will be bloody, no question, but it won't be the blood of our soldiers. It is time for them to come home, but with a very clear parting message - no matter who wins their civil wars, no matter what "natural" boarders are established by the indigenous populations, if any one of the new nations states that arise out of Iraq, Syria, et al come at us, we will annihilate you, period. If we leave I want them all to be on notice that nation states have boarders and capitals, parliament houses and presidential homes, and every one of those will be on the B2 Stealth Bomber targeting list if you decide to poke this eagle.